Is Romney comfortable with Limbaugh’s smears? He’d rather talk about something else.
But ask him about how high trees should be!
And now, in addition to the recent video that’s turned up from his 2002 campaign for governor, where he talks about the mountains of federal money he’ll get because he knows all the loopholes, Mittens has a another problem with one of his op-eds — this time about Romneycare, according to Bob Cesca:
Romney has a new Romneycare problem. In 2009 he wrote an Op-Ed for USA Today, which is no longer available, supporting a federal individual mandate for health insurance. Whoops!
“Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.”
Not-coincidentally, that’s almost exactly the same rationale used by the Obama Administration to justify the individual mandate. It’s also the mechanism that makes the plan mathematically feasible.
Obama: Romney Is ‘Pretending He Came Up With Something Different’ Than The Individual Mandate - Duringan interviewwith American Public Media’s Marketplace, President Obama defended the individual health insurance mandate and reiterated that likely GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney enacted a very similar policy as governor of Massachusetts. “[W]e designed a program that actually previously had support of Republicans,” Obama told host Kai Ryssdal, “including the person who may end up being the Republican standard bearer and is now pretending like he came up with something different.” Obama also predicted that the Supreme Court — which is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of reform on Monday — will uphold the law and that “it will be very hard for any governor to explain why it is that they’re not giving people…an opportunity to get cheaper health insurance, better deal, more protections because of some ideological argument that they’re having with the president.” “And when people see that in fact it works, it makes sense — as it’s, by the way, working in Massachusetts — then I think a whole bunch of folks will say ‘Why aren’t we trying it as well?’”
Mitt Romney didn’t just want an individual health care mandate when he was governor of Massachusetts, he wanted to publicly shame companies who didn’t provide insurance with a quarterly ad in the lamestream media. When Romney’s term as governor ended, his staff deleted emails from a server computer, seemingly wiping them from the public record for good. But The Wall Street Journal’s Mark Maremont found a cache through a public records request. Romney used a private Hotmail address to discuss how to negotiate with Democrats to pass the legislation. Maremont’s find is fascinating as it shows how much Romney was involved in negotiations and how passionately he argued for the individual mandate, the one part of Obamacare that conservative voters hate most.
The Daily Beast: Clinton says that if the Supreme Court decides to invalidate the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act there will be consequences which aren’t being reported:
Changing the health-care delivery system has already produced two years in a row of 4 percent inflation in health-care costs. This is the first time in 50 years that health-care costs have gone up so little. Killing the Affordable Care Act would let inflation loose again.
Some 2.6 million people ages 21 to 26, who now have insurance coverage for the first time because they can be carried under their parents’ policy, would lose it.
$1.3 billion dollars in insurance refunds have already been paid to businesses and individuals because now the law says 85 percent of your premium has to go to health care and not to profits and promotion. (California hasn’t reported yet, but will likely increase that figure to more than $1.5 billion.) Refunds would shrink.
If Republicans succeed in persuading the Supreme Court to repeal the individual mandate, somewhere between 12 million and 16 million Americans will be unable to get health insurance because of preexisting conditions.
“Clinton predicted that if the law is declared unconstitutional, Republicans will suffer a backlash when millions of Americans calculate what they have lost. Before the Affordable Care Act passed, two thirds of all the applications for bankruptcy were because of health-care emergencies, a consequence likely to return if health care inflation again rises precipitously.”
Political Wire: A new AP/GfK poll finds that just a third of Americans back President Obama’s health care law on which the Supreme Court is about to pass judgment, but more than three quarters want Congress and the president to begin work on a new bill if the court strikes down the 2-year-old law.
Bob Cesca writes about a major conflict in perception or messaging (thanks GOP!) over health care reform, since Americans hate Obamacare while loving everything about it. He says, “The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll results about the ACA are embarrassing and incomprehensible.”
Most Americans oppose President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform even though they strongly support most of its provisions, Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Sunday, with the Supreme Court set to rule within days on whether the law should stand.
“In other words, Americans hate the law, but they love everything in it. While 56 percent of Americans hate the law, while a plurality of 45 percent of Americans will vote for a candidate who wants to repeal the law, a full 82 percent love the law’s “pre-existing conditions” language. 61 percent support the section of the law that allows kids to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26. 72 percent support requiring corporations to cover employees. And so forth.”
Cesca goes on to respond to those people who base all their objections to the law on the individual mandate: “You can’t have roads without taxes, and you can’t have affordable healthcare without requiring that everyone be involved. Besides, only a tenth of the population is uninsured anyway, so only a tenth of the population will be subject to the mandate. One out of every 10 citizens will be required to buy health insurance with significant government subsidies to make it affordable — or free, depending on income level. And you know what? Tough noogies. If you have moral objections to buying corporate health insurance, then pay the ridiculously low tax penalty. If you don’t want to pay the tax penalty, there’s no enforcement mechanism in the law, so you’ll get away with it. It’s unethical, but you’re the one who has to sleep at night. The secret is this: the mandate isn’t really a mandate.”
The bottom line is that Americans have been conditioned to dislike “Obamacare,” — and it would seem they’re more than happy to go along with The Program, even if it hurts them personally in the long run.
A couple of days ago I posted that on Monday, the Romney campaign was in agreement with the President that the health care mandate was a penalty and not a tax. I also said:“Of course this opinion can (and probably will) change at any minute, so prepare to shake the Etch-A-Sketch.”
It took an entire 48 hours, as Raw Story reports: “Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Wednesday reversed his campaign’s position that mandates to buy health care are a “penalty” and not a “tax,” telling CBS News that “the majority of the [Supreme Court] has said it is a tax, and therefore it is a tax.” “They have spoken,” he said. “There’s no way around that.” Romney’s new position is the exact opposite of what the campaign was saying on Monday.”