Three Cheers for Romneycare?

[Kirk Freeman]

Discussion of Obamacare and Romneycare is of interest here at INGO so I thought I would bring this up.

Once the darling of Libertarian thought, Romneycare is now on the outs. Why was it done and is there anything good about it? Ann Coulter examines the issue.

Three Cheers for Romneycare! - Ann Coulter - Townhall Conservative

Mark Levin responds:

Mark Levin’s rebuttal of Ann Coulter’s “Three Cheers for RomneyCare” article » The Right Scoop -

 

[J_Wales]

I often enjoy Coulter, be she is appparently a good example of the fact that simply because one chooses to call one's self a conservative does not mean one is a conservative.

Many scream for Liberty but in fact sh*t their pants when they see it.

 

[ViperJock]

Interesting take on it. She lost me at "minimal coersion" I agree with her that Mitt has done and probably will do the best he can within the system. I also think that realistically this may be as good as we can hope for. On the other hand I want a new system. I did like her final line though.

 

[J_Wales]

Interesting take on it. She lost me at "minimal coersion" I agree with her that Mitt has done and probably will do the best he can within the system. I also think that realistically this may be as good as we can hope for. On the other hand I want a new system. I did like her final line though.

The problem is statists.... regardless of which label they choose to pin on their lapel.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The problem is statists.... regardless of which label they choose to pin on their lapel.

Yeah, those statists at Reason magazine.

 

[hornadylnl]

What could Obama possibly accomplish in 4 years that Romney wouldn't make worse in 8 years?

 

[J_Wales]

Yeah, those statists at Reason magazine.

Yep....

Their lapel pin says "We will protect you with minimal coercion!"

I understand they are printing T shirts too!

 

[ViperJock]

What makes you think Romney will get 8?

 

[dross]

Discussion of Obamacare and Romneycare is of interest here at INGO so I thought I would bring this up.

Once the darling of Libertarian thought, Romneycare is now on the outs. Why was it done and is there anything good about it? Ann Coulter examines the issue.

Three Cheers for Romneycare! - Ann Coulter - Townhall Conservative

Mark Levin responds:

Mark Levin’s rebuttal of Ann Coulter’s “Three Cheers for RomneyCare” article » The Right Scoop -

What you have to realize, Kirk, is that the second a politician tries to deal with a real-world problem in a realistic way - which means by clearly assessing a political situation that might require eating some poop so as to avoid eating a lot of poop - he's lost the libertarians.

The clear choice for every politician when facing the choice of finding a solution that isn't pure, or failing, should fall on his sword and fail. If that means he won't get elected, so be it. Better to have a full-blown socialist than a compromise. If he's already elected, it's better for him to stand on principle and lose reelection, lose the battle entirely, than it is for him to compromise.

A freedom loving politician's job is to stand for freedom, 100%, no compromise, and if that means that there's even less freedom, well, that's okay because he didn't compromise and we might as well get on down the road to tyranny rather than prolong it.

 

[hornadylnl]

What makes you think Romney will get 8?

If Romney wins the election, you think he won't be the Repub nominee for 2016? I guess Romney is like the healthcare bill. We need to elect him and give him 4 years to know how terrible of a president he will be.

 

[hornadylnl]

What you have to realize, Kirk, is that the second a politician tries to deal with a real-world problem in a realistic way - which means by clearly assessing a political situation that might require eating some poop so as to avoid eating a lot of poop - he's lost the libertarians.

The clear choice for every politician when facing the choice of finding a solution that isn't pure, or failing, should fall on his sword and fail. If that means he won't get elected, so be it. Better to have a full-blown socialist than a compromise. If he's already elected, it's better for him to stand on principle and lost reelection, lose the battle entirely, than it is for him to compromise.

A freedom loving politician's job is to stand for freedom, 100%, no compromise, and if that means that there's even less freedom, well, that's okay because he didn't compromise and we might as well get on down the road to tyranny rather than prolong it.

So when the masses want to limit any one of the bill of rights, the repub should compromise them.

 

[dross]

So when the masses want to limit any one of the bill of rights, the repub should compromise them.

Look around. Stand there and slowly look around.

YOUR RIGHTS ARE ALREADY LIMITED AND IT'S BEEN GOING ON SINCE THE FOUNDING.

I don't like it any better than you do. I've been a libertarian for a long time. I've been through all the iterations, including the "no compromise with tyranny" one.

Now, what to do about it? No compromise and if that means faster to tyranny, then so be it, let's have the revolution and recreate the thing?

Problems with that: My reading of history tells me that it may be a very long time before there's a collapse that will lead to a different government. And if it did, it might be much more socialist than we are now. Tyranny holds power as long as it wants - it's only when it loosens its grip that it loses.

What to do? Fight a delaying action while we PERSUADE people. Fight for every inch. That means when we can't stop national healthcare we get rid of pieces of it. When we can't get full gun freedom, we give up something minor to get something major. It means when we can't get Ron Paul, we take someone else who isn't as bad, even if "isn't as bad" means we go towards socialism at 55mph instead of 70mph.

It's ugly, it's no fun, it makes you feel dirty at the end of the day. But that's where we're at. That's the reality. The other stuff is fantasy, the only problem with this fantasy is that it's advancing a nasty reality.

Our beef is NOT with the system, and it's NOT with the politicians. It's with our fellow citizens.

Persuade. Persuade. Persuade.

That's our job. Until then we stall.

 

[Pocketman]

What's the real beef with Obamacare? Many Republicans rant and rave about how bad it is, yet few (that I've seen anyway) are able to articulate what's so terrible about it.

Is it simply because it's a Democrat program (except in MA), therefore Republicans are against it?

Is it the mandatory requirement? If so, how does one address the problem of the "freeloaders" who take advantage of hospital emergency departments?

Is it federal regulation of the insurance industry? There are some real horror stories with state regulations?

What about Medicare and specifically part D? Our very own local pharmaceutical company gains from part D and subsequently pumps a lot of money into the local economy.

I am not trying to defend or condemn anything, but would like to hear why people are so up in arms.

 

[rockhopper46038]

If Romney wins the election, you think he won't be the Repub nominee for 2016? I guess Romney is like the healthcare bill. We need to elect him and give him 4 years to know how terrible of a president he will be.

That's kinda how we got in the situation we are right now...

 

[Cerberus]

What's the real beef with Obamacare? Many Republicans rant and rave about how bad it is, yet few (that I've seen anyway) are able to articulate what's so terrible about it.

Is it simply because it's a Democrat program (except in MA), therefore Republicans are against it?

Is it the mandatory requirement? If so, how does one address the problem of the "freeloaders" who take advantage of hospital emergency departments?

Is it federal regulation of the insurance industry? There are some real horror stories with state regulations?

What about Medicare and specifically part D? Our very own local pharmaceutical company gains from part D and subsequently pumps a lot of money into the local economy.

I am not trying to defend or condemn anything, but would like to hear why people are so up in arms.

Maybe it's the individual mandate part that forces all to get something that they think we need, which is the purest form of tyranny.

Maybe it's the very socialistic nature of government ran healthcare. And to borrow a quote from Vladimir Lenin, "the goal of socialism is communism."

Maybe it's the very nature of the inept nature of government. Our government has gotten to the point where it can't even do the few things that legitimate governments do, so why would I want their bungling nature ruling something as personal as my healthcare?

 

[hornadylnl]

What's the real beef with Obamacare? Many Republicans rant and rave about how bad it is, yet few (that I've seen anyway) are able to articulate what's so terrible about it.

Is it simply because it's a Democrat program (except in MA), therefore Republicans are against it?

Is it the mandatory requirement? If so, how does one address the problem of the "freeloaders" who take advantage of hospital emergency departments?

Is it federal regulation of the insurance industry? There are some real horror stories with state regulations?

What about Medicare and specifically part D? Our very own local pharmaceutical company gains from part D and subsequently pumps a lot of money into the local economy.

I am not trying to defend or condemn anything, but would like to hear why people are so up in arms.

It's mostly partisan bs. If a lib grows government, it's tyranny. If a repub grows government, it's compromise. Apparantly to shrink government, you must grow it first.

 

[rockhopper46038]

What's the real beef with Obamacare? Many Republicans rant and rave about how bad it is, yet few (that I've seen anyway) are able to articulate what's so terrible about it.

Is it simply because it's a Democrat program (except in MA), therefore Republicans are against it?

Is it the mandatory requirement? If so, how does one address the problem of the "freeloaders" who take advantage of hospital emergency departments?

Is it federal regulation of the insurance industry? There are some real horror stories with state regulations?

What about Medicare and specifically part D? Our very own local pharmaceutical company gains from part D and subsequently pumps a lot of money into the local economy.

I am not trying to defend or condemn anything, but would like to hear why people are so up in arms.

For me the single biggest thing is the unprecedented expansion in the size and scope of government that a nationalized health care system would entail. And make no mistake, even if the current version of Obamacare isn't a fully nationalized system, in the end that is what they want, and since there never has been an instance of a government program being scaled back, that is what eventually we will get. It is the death by a thousand cuts approach, and it is just one more way that the Democrats establish the beachheads to eventually control every aspect of your life through government intervention. I understand that Democrats believe this intervention is benevolent, but I despise the thought of increasing the government's stranglehold on our lives, no matter how "benevolent" they perceive it to be. I will not be a pet in a cage, even a gilded one.

 

[rambone]

Wow

RomneyCare was never a "darling of Libertarian thought."

 

[dross]

It's mostly partisan bs. If a lib grows government, it's tyranny. If a repub grows government, it's compromise. Apparantly to shrink government, you must grow it first.

Apparently to influence the system you must first go out of your way to make sure the system doesn't have to account for you.

 

[rambone]

Mitt was ALWAYS a socialist

My records show Mitt speaking the socialist language before he was ever elected. It wasn't the libruls that twisted his arm and made him compromise. He has been pushing for Universal Health Care since Day One.

This is him in 1994 campaigning for U.S. Senate, saying that:

"I'm convinced every American deserves coverage, and we're only going to really solve the spiraling rise of health care costs if everybody is part of a health care system."

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TimUAEzaC2U[/ame]