• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
In July 2009, Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in USA Today urging Barack Obama to use an individual mandate at the national level to control healthcare costs. On the campaign trail now, Mitt Romney says the individual mandate is appropriate for Massachusetts, but not the nation. Repeatedly in debates, Romney has said he opposes a national individual mandate. But back in 2009, as Barack Obama was formulating his healthcare vision for the country, Mitt Romney encouraged him publicly to use an individual mandate. In his op-ed, Governor Romney suggested that the federal government learn from Massachusetts how to make healthcare available for all. One of those things was “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.”

BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate | RedState
Note that this is not some liberal blog that dug this up. This is Erick Erickson of RedState.
 
Last edited:
Hence the Santorum surge among conservatives. Romney's no conservative. Nothing in the OP surprises me.
 
Last edited:
Hence the Santorum surge among conservatives. Romney's no conservative. Nothing in the OP surprises me.

Santorum is only a conservative when it comes to bible thumping social issues like making rape victims bear the product of the rape.

He's no conservative when it comes to shrinking the government
 
This isn't news to a majority of conservatives; we knew his opposition to NHC is purely political. The fact that he has such large support amongst Republicans is one of the biggest reasons why I'm almost entirely apathetic about the Republican Primary.
 
I think we should come up with a way to cover everyone. Unfortunately, that's a lot easier said than done. The only way to do is to piss everyone off at least a little.
 
Seems like a good campaign tactic to expect your opposition to be consistent.

Is Romney supposed to tolerate Obama to be a hypocrite?
 
Santorum is only a conservative when it comes to bible thumping social issues like making rape victims bear the product of the rape.

He's no conservative when it comes to shrinking the government
Are you referring exclusively to the military industrial complex, or government spending in other areas?
 
I think we should come up with a way to cover everyone. Unfortunately, that's a lot easier said than done. The only way to do is to piss everyone off at least a little.

I agree. I think Romney was right in Mass., as is Obama. The individual mandate is the only way. The freeloaders have to be made to pay their way. Everyone has to pay in if everyone is to covered.

If everyone does not pay in, you are left with 2 bad options:
1. Ins. companies are free to reject sick people who apply for coverage after they are sick and drop people who become sick if they hurt your profit margin too bad and make your stock price go down (a guaranteed profit plan for the ins. companies and NOT a national healthcare plan). That's the way it is today, and it is terrible for people who lose a job and then have a serious illness.
2. The ins. companies must insure anyone who walks up and retain them if they get sick, in which case nobody who is well would buy insurance until they got sick. Then the rates would be sky high, as the insurance company is in essence just paying the bills for the sick people and adding a markup for the insurance company's profit. That doesn't make sense at all.

A way to "encourage" people to buy insurance (at least a catastrophic coverage plan) would be to let people die if they are in a bad accident and don't have insurance or the money to pay for the ER care. Right now there is little incentive for many who can afford health care to purchase insurance, since the law says if you are brought to an emergency room and are in life threatening danger, they must treat you. If you've been healthy all your life, you can take a chance and freeload on the taxpayers dime. You stay healthy, you don't pay; you get in a severe accident, your neighbor pays for you. Sweet deal.
 
I think Gingrich's portrayal of a Romney presidency as one which would simply manage our decay is an accurate one. But that said, everyone knows that a mandate is essential to every state program. How long would Social Security last if it were not mandated that everyone participate? If there is a national insurance program that covers people whether they pay into it or not, who in the hell is going to pay for insurance? Government programs are coercive in nature, so it is silly to expect choice to exist.
 
Note that this is not some liberal blog that dug this up. This is Erick Erickson of RedState.
LOL And he says he would eliminate Obamacare because of the mandate? What further proof do you have that Romney will say anything in order to be elected. The man has no core principles other than he's all about money - he's for the rich and that's all.
 
I agree. I think Romney was right in Mass., as is Obama. The individual mandate is the only way. The freeloaders have to be made to pay their way. Everyone has to pay in if everyone is to covered.

Not only that. It's going to have to include some sort of tort reform and a cap on costs.

If everyone does not pay in, you are left with 2 bad options:
1. Ins. companies are free to reject sick people who apply for coverage after they are sick and drop people who become sick if they hurt your profit margin too bad and make your stock price go down (a guaranteed profit plan for the ins. companies and NOT a national healthcare plan). That's the way it is today, and it is terrible for people who lose a job and then have a serious illness.
2. The ins. companies must insure anyone who walks up and retain them if they get sick, in which case nobody who is well would buy insurance until they got sick. Then the rates would be sky high, as the insurance company is in essence just paying the bills for the sick people and adding a markup for the insurance company's profit. That doesn't make sense at all.

The end product may very well exlude insurance companies.

A way to "encourage" people to buy insurance (at least a catastrophic coverage plan) would be to let people die if they are in a bad accident and don't have insurance or the money to pay for the ER care. Right now there is little incentive for many who can afford health care to purchase insurance, since the law says if you are brought to an emergency room and are in life threatening danger, they must treat you. If you've been healthy all your life, you can take a chance and freeload on the taxpayers dime. You stay healthy, you don't pay; you get in a severe accident, your neighbor pays for you. Sweet deal.

We are never going to get a program where people are forced to buy something and we are never going to just allow people to die. The only way we can do it is with a program similiar to medicaid.
 
Santorum is only a conservative when it comes to bible thumping social issues like making rape victims bear the product of the rape.

He's no conservative when it comes to shrinking the government

None of them are when they actually get in a position of power. When will the legions of the right realize that?
 
None of them are when they actually get in a position of power. When will the legions of the right realize that?

Maybe when liberals learn you can't spend your way out of debt.
 
Santorum is only a conservative when it comes to bible thumping social issues like making rape victims bear the product of the rape.

He's no conservative when it comes to shrinking the government

oh my, you have no idea how much I love this post!!!!! thank you TD.
 
LOL And he says he would eliminate Obamacare because of the mandate? What further proof do you have that Romney will say anything in order to be elected. The man has no core principles other than he's all about money - he's for the rich and that's all.
Nobody really needed any further proof. Why do you think there are so many AnybodybutRomney candidates out there?
 
The anti-Romney attacks are getting ridiculous. I don't even support the guy but it seems "conservative" only means being a sanctimonious, anti-education, Bible thumping, bigot.
 
Mit Romney's not a progressive. End of story.
 
Mit Romney's not a progressive. End of story.

He's not. However he's not a bible thumper either. Which irks the right wing.
 
Back
Top Bottom