Do believe that Romney's Maryland health care plan is an example of federalism?

Mitt Romney, when he was governor of Maryland, instituted a state health care plan, based around health insurance required by the state government. His plan was a basis for the federal government health care overhaul pushed through Congress by Nancy Pelosi and signed into law by President Obama. This plan passed by the Democratic Congress was criticized by Romney despite the similarities to the plan he passed for Maryland.

Now Romney has come under fire from some conservatives and liberals for his plan. His liberal critics are calling him a hypocrite for criticizing the Democratic health care plan. His conservative critics are calling him a RINO for trying to use government mandate to require everybody within the state to purchase private health insurance.

However, Romney and his supporters defend the Maryland health care plan as a form of federalism. They say that while the federal government does not have the authority to require people to purchase private health insurance, state governments do under the 10th Amendment. So Romney acted in good faith as a conservative while governor and would act in good faith as a President because he would not use the federal government to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

So do you agree with Romney's justification for the Maryland health care plan? Why? Why not?

FYI Mitt Romney was governor of Mass, not Maryland.

soccerboy22 said:

FYI Mitt Romney was governor of Mass, not Maryland.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I knew it was one of those that started with an "M". :doh

samsmart said:

Yeah, I knew it was one of those that started with an "M". :doh

Click to expand...

As a citizen of the great state of Mass, I am insulted you that you confuse us with those fools from Maryland. I shall declare war on you!

Absolutely.

The states are supposed to control and regulate the insurance business that takes place within their borders. I may not agree with the plan (especially on the federal level), but he was justified in signing that plan into law. That's what states are supposed to do. Make insurance mandates and regulations that make sense for their population. One of my biggest beefs with the federally passed bill, is just that. It's federal, when states don't need the feds to regulate healthcare for them. They already posses that power, and essentially they are giving it up.

soccerboy22 said:

As a citizen of the great state of Mass, I am insulted you that you confuse us with those fools from Maryland. I shall declare war on you!

Click to expand...

As a citizen of the great state of Maryland, I don't recall a time when Mitt Romney was ever our governor. And I don't appreciate you callin us fools, fool!

StillBallin75 said:

As a citizen of the great state of Maryland, I don't recall a time when Mitt Romney was ever our governor. And I don't appreciate you callin us fools, fool!

Click to expand...

Having lived in D.C. for a summer and going up to Baltimore every weekend I feel I can call you fools. Also, grew up being a Duke fan. /Hate.


To answer the question, I think it is. I also think that part of the debate on healthcare is on if the federal government has the authority to make sure the citizens have health care. For get what is in the bill, or who signed what. I think that is part of the debate that people have forgotten.

soccerboy22 said:

Having lived in D.C. for a summer and going up to Baltimore every weekend I feel I can call you fools. Also, grew up being a Duke fan. /Hate.


To answer the question, I think it is. I also think that part of the debate on healthcare is on if the federal government has the authority to make sure the citizens have health care. For get what is in the bill, or who signed what. I think that is part of the debate that people have forgotten.

Click to expand...

Duck Fuke.

WI Crippler said:

Absolutely.

The states are supposed to control and regulate the insurance business that takes place within their borders. I may not agree with the plan (especially on the federal level), but he was justified in signing that plan into law. That's what states are supposed to do. Make insurance mandates and regulations that make sense for their population. One of my biggest beefs with the federally passed bill, is just that. It's federal, when states don't need the feds to regulate healthcare for them. They already posses that power, and essentially they are giving it up.

Click to expand...

true-if welfare/income redistribution was left to the states things would be much better. because it is much easier for us citizens to move from state to state than internationally, any state that had an overly generous welfare program would quickly fill up with sucklers of the public teat. That in turn would cause taxes to rise on productive citizens who would then move to more taxpayer friendly states. the generous handout states would have to correct their ways or go bankrupt

that is why the left is so adamant about federal welfare-it prevents us net taxpayers from easily avoiding parasitic government by merely crossing state lines. It is also why our national debt is astronomical

soccerboy22 said:

As a citizen of the great state of Mass, I am insulted you that you confuse us with those fools from Maryland. I shall declare war on you!

Click to expand...

At least I didn't confuse the state with Missouri.

I believe that the plan is a example of federalism - I don't think it's a good enough justification of the plan itself, if Romney is going to defend his conservative credentials. The main criticism of Obamacare is the individual mandate that requires everyone to buy insurance. RomneyCare shares that same feature (and in fact Romney himself defended the mandate brilliantly), one which a majority of conservatives would definitely have a problem with.

WI Crippler said:

Absolutely.

The states are supposed to control and regulate the insurance business that takes place within their borders. I may not agree with the plan (especially on the federal level), but he was justified in signing that plan into law. That's what states are supposed to do. Make insurance mandates and regulations that make sense for their population. One of my biggest beefs with the federally passed bill, is just that. It's federal, when states don't need the feds to regulate healthcare for them. They already posses that power, and essentially they are giving it up.

Click to expand...

What he had no justification for was the provision that state tax refunds would not be paid to people who could not show health insurance coverage.

That's inexusable and that socialist will never get the Mayor's vote.

StillBallin75 said:

I believe that the plan is a example of federalism - I don't think it's a good enough justification of the plan itself, if Romney is going to defend his conservative credentials. The main criticism of Obamacare is the individual mandate that requires everyone to buy insurance. RomneyCare shares that same feature (and in fact Romney himself defended the mandate brilliantly), one which a majority of conservatives would definitely have a problem with.

Click to expand...

Right, but the main difference between Romney's plan and the Democratic plan is that Romney's plan was done on the state level while the Democratic plan was done on the federal level. Which is a big difference when we talk about separation of powers between the federal government and the state governmnets, which is something conservatives like to make lines of distinction on.

For example, one justification of the individual mandate for health insurance given by liberals is that we have an individual mandate for car insurance. However, the retort from conservatives is that the individual mandate for car insurance is done and regulated by state governments, not the federal government. Of which there is a point.

So according to that he may still have his conservative credentials. After all, there's a big difference between saying "the less of the federal government there is, the better," and saying "the less of all government there is, the better." Romney may be more of the former than the latter.

samsmart said:

Right, but the main difference between Romney's plan and the Democratic plan is that Romney's plan was done on the state level while the Democratic plan was done on the federal level. Which is a big difference when we talk about separation of powers between the federal government and the state governmnets, which is something conservatives like to make lines of distinction on.

For example, one justification of the individual mandate for health insurance given by liberals is that we have an individual mandate for car insurance. However, the retort from conservatives is that the individual mandate for car insurance is done and regulated by state governments, not the federal government. Of which there is a point.

So according to that he may still have his conservative credentials. After all, there's a big difference between saying "the less of the federal government there is, the better," and saying "the less of all government there is, the better." Romney may be more of the former than the latter.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that the law is an example of federalism - however conservatives could and would still argue that an individual mandate, even at the state level, would be unconstitutional (or at the very least a gross betrayal of conservative values of limited government).

samsmart said:

For example, one justification of the individual mandate for health insurance given by liberals is that we have an individual mandate for car insurance. However, the retort from conservatives is that the individual mandate for car insurance is done and regulated by state governments, not the federal government. Of which there is a point.

Click to expand...

As usual, the lefties have their heads in the Proctologist Position.

The reason owners of cars are required to carry insurance is to protect others from the financial damage a car is capable of inflicting on others. The reasoning, of course, cannot be applied to people and their health insurance. A man choosing not to carry health insurance should not be denied his freedom to not get health care he can't afford.

Life's tough when you're stupid, they say. Life should be even tougher for people too stupid to buy their own insurance.

What's most important is that no one else should be held up at gun point to provide that stupid person with health coverage. The fear of getting sick and dying is an excellent motivator for people to get off their dead asses and find work.

StillBallin75 said:

Yes, I agree that the law is an example of federalism - however conservatives could and would still argue that an individual mandate, even at the state level, would be unconstitutional (or at the very least a gross betrayal of conservative values of limited government).

Click to expand...

They will find a legalistic reason to oppose something they dislike for moral reasons :shrug:

megaprogman said:

They will find a legalistic reason to oppose something they dislike for moral reasons :shrug:

Click to expand...

True. But doesn't anyone? After all law is merely the formalization of social mores and customs into legal code.

no. The fact that a State CAN do something stupid doesn't mean that it should. Romney got up on stage yesterday, loaded a shotgun, and blasted himself in the face.

cpwill said:

no. The fact that a State CAN do something stupid doesn't mean that it should. Romney got up on stage yesterday, loaded a shotgun, and blasted himself in the face.

Click to expand...

I don't know. I think it shows he's a moderate Republican. And because he's a moderate Republican he's the one most that moderate Democrats and independents will favor when going up against President Obama.

But, of course, that doesn't mean he'll be able to get past the Republican primary.

Im against obamacare and romney care...but in the end push comes to shove I would much prefer states doing it...

I voted no, because Romney was governor of Massachusetts. And because even though it was a state issue, not federal, it was still a bad plan. I agree with him that states should be the ones coming up with these plans, I just don't think it was a good plan.

samsmart said:

I don't know. I think it shows he's a moderate Republican.

Click to expand...

only 22% of the population is far-left enough to support an individual mandate for health insurance. Barack Obama the candidate himself opposed it as part of his "I'm a centrist" campaign. If you are a Republican candidate in 2012 who is to the left of Candidate Obama in 2008, you aren't a "moderate Republican", you are a Liberal Republican. He is way to the left of the party on this issue - aside from just plain disagreeing with it, 78% of Republicans think the Mandate is downright illegal.

And because he's a moderate Republican he's the one most that moderate Democrats and independents will favor when going up against President Obama.

Click to expand...

strongly disagree - most independents are pretty solid against him on this. Democrats are for him? fine, but between Romney and Obama, Democrats vote for Obama.

But, of course, that doesn't mean he'll be able to get past the Republican primary.

Click to expand...

precisely, he is done and good riddance to this chameleon.