• 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!

Will Romneycare destroy Romney's electability?

Is Romneycare Mitt Romney's Waterloo?


  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
The only reason Romney is doing reasonably well is

1. He has flip-flopped on a lot of issues and some people buy his excuses
2. He is one of the few independents
3. He debates well
4. There are no other good contender, yet!

Romney is still really unpopular among republicans. That's why they are looking for another candidate. Their next attempt seems to be Herman Cain, since Rick Perry failed. Cain looks stronger now, especially when Perry has been such a disappointment.

If Cain wants to win he really needs to keep his performance up, because his credentials are not impressive. Also, Perry better not improve his performance, because then he's toast.
 
Last edited:
RomneyCare could've destroyed his electability, but he offset it with his adamance in repealing Obama care. My problem with Romney is his flip-flopping. I do not trust a politician who changes position based on the political climate.
 
Except in this case you are equating "the individual mandate" to purchase health insurance with a rejection of the far left and the far right, which I cannot agree with. And in terms of the Republican primary it is rather surprising to see a Republican doing as well as he is post his application of an individual mandate at the state level. Something you would think would label him, right or wrong, as a liberal.

Maybe it just doesn't matter as much as it use to?

But let's consider, is an individual mandate really liberal?

I have a hard time seeing how letting people freeload off of others in medical care causing premiums for responsible people to rise is "conservative." In many ways, that's basically socialized medicine as the cost to provide for the uninsured is essentially being socialized among the rest of the populace who are not only paying with their dollars, but with their lives as aggregate health care is being divided into smaller pieces.

It seems far more conservative to require people to buy SOME type of insurance to force them to shoulder some of their own burden rather then essentially rely upon the welfare of hospitals to provide medical care. Personal responsibility USED to be part of the conservative agenda, and paying for your own insurance seems pretty responsible to me.

The "conservative" ire against individual mandate suggests those making the attacks do not understand how we are socializing uninsured costs right now.
 
no, forcing people to purchase the product that you feel they should have is not the conservative position. the conservative position would be charging them for healthcare received.
 
no, forcing people to purchase the product that you feel they should have is not the conservative position. the conservative position would be charging them for healthcare received.

The individual mandate was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation and has been supported by George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and a whole host of conservative Republicans in the Senate. Or at least, it WAS the conservative position right up until a guy named Barack Obama decided to make it happen.
 
Will Romneycare destroy Mitt Romney's electability in the Republican primary?

As far as I'm concerned, he could be Obama lite, or perhaps worse--a Democrat in Republican clothing.

His economic record in "Taxachucetts" is deplorable.

Since repeal of Obamacare would be a top priority for our next president, I could never vote for anyone who created the same kind of monster he needs to slay.

Do you agree?

Obama lite? But Obama is already Bush lite...so does that make Romney Bush lite lite?

The problem you're going to have is that Romney care...was successful.
 
I'm 50 and I have not done anything that would have caused me to need health insurance since I was a kid.

Wow, you must have a boring life.
 
The individual mandate was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation and has been supported by George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and a whole host of conservative Republicans in the Senate. Or at least, it WAS the conservative position right up until a guy named Barack Obama decided to make it happen.

that is inaccurate for a couple of reasons


1 (most importantly) "Republican" =/= "Conservative". Republican George W Bush ran up the debt, pushed amnesty for illegal aliens, further nationalized federal control of education, tried to nominate a poor constitutional scholar for the Supreme Court because she passed a political and personal litmus test, and a whole host of things that drove conservatives batty.

2. the Heritage Foundation came up with the individual mandate as a superior bad alternative to Hillarycare's Employer Mandate. not on their own as it was a brilliant new idea from the heavens.

3. Daniels supported giving every American a tax credit to purchase health insurance which he assumes would be nearly universally used - hardly a mandate.

4. Gingrich said that "where there’s some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.", which is sort of talking out both ends - Newt is a brilliant analyst, but a poor campaigner for precisely this reason; he wanders and blurts. irrespective, this isn't exactly a full-throated endorsement of an individual mandate, but rather a comparison of the fact that you have two alternatives to achieve the same goal, one of which is a mandate, and the other of which is making people pay for the healthcare they consume.

5. Of the many ways in which "Republican=/=Conservative", John McCain is emblematic. Nevertheless, according to the left-leaning Politifact, he doesn't support the individual mandate, or at least, certainly didn't in the 2008 campaign.

and so on and so forth.
 
no, forcing people to purchase the product that you feel they should have is not the conservative position. the conservative position would be charging them for healthcare received.

Except that you can't actually do that. If we tried we'd be jailing a large number of them or taking what few assets they have and putting them into poverty which just makes our welfare bill higher.

So in the face of the choices here, individual mandate IS a conservative position. Opposed to jailing the uninsured or simply expanding the already socialized medical costs to everyone else. Your position is based in Lala land.
 
Last edited:
Except that you can't actually do that. If we tried we'd be jailing a large number of them or taking what few assets they have and putting them into poverty which just makes our welfare bill higher.

So in the face of the choices here, individual mandate IS a conservative position. Opposed to jailing the uninsured or simply expanding the already socialized medical costs to everyone else. Your position is based in Lala land.
Wow, you'd think there was mass death, asteroids, and anarchy prior to medicare.
 
4. Gingrich said that "where there’s some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.", which is sort of talking out both ends - Newt is a brilliant analyst, but a poor campaigner for precisely this reason; he wanders and blurts. irrespective, this isn't exactly a full-throated endorsement of an individual mandate, but rather a comparison of the fact that you have two alternatives to achieve the same goal, one of which is a mandate, and the other of which is making people pay for the healthcare they consume.

Straight from the horses mouth at 00:28 he clearly states that he is for people being required to purchase health care insurance.
Gingrich Goes All Romney and Obama - YouTube
 
Last edited:
There are lots of reasons why I wouldnt vote for Romeny. Romneycare is not one fo them. Romneycare is a state driven health care initiative. COnservatives should actually APPRECIATE state run programs. The problem isnt with the plan...it has been with the execution of the state health care. If there is going to be effective healthcare reform, it SHOULD be implemented at the state level.
 
As someone who lived through the Romney Administration here in Massachusetts.... You couldn't get me to vote for him if you put a gun to my head. Romneycare is only one of a myriad of issues I have with the former Governor.
 
Except that you can't actually do that

sure you can - we put poor earners on student loans all the time.

If we tried we'd be jailing a large number of them or taking what few assets they have and putting them into poverty which just makes our welfare bill higher.

and why are we paying them welfare?

So in the face of the choices here, individual mandate IS a conservative position.

no, because you continue to artificially constrain the choices to "individual mandate" or "encourage free-riding".

let them pay, but let them pay cash and let them work in a system that actually allows a market to work.

an example.
 
There are lots of reasons why I wouldnt vote for Romeny. Romneycare is not one fo them. Romneycare is a state driven health care initiative. COnservatives should actually APPRECIATE state run programs. The problem isnt with the plan...it has been with the execution of the state health care. If there is going to be effective healthcare reform, it SHOULD be implemented at the state level.

agreed. but why, again, should conservatives be glad that Republicans put forth liberal state run programs? my governor is a republican - if he proposes the state legalize gay marriage, do i celebrate he is pushing a state level solution?
 
agreed. but why, again, should conservatives be glad that Republicans put forth liberal state run programs? my governor is a republican - if he proposes the state legalize gay marriage, do i celebrate he is pushing a state level solution?
You at a state level work to replace your governor if you dont like his practices. Im pretty conservative but work with the med community. Im very much in favor of effective social spending...I just want to see it done at a local and state level where the citizens have a greater say, more control, and the programs dont become these behomoths that no one can adequately manage. I no longer live in California...I could not care less what they offer as far as social spending just so long as the appropriately tax Californians to provide said services. With an appropriately reduced fed tax burden they could do that. IF thats what the state chooses.
 
agreed. but why, again, should conservatives be glad that Republicans put forth liberal state run programs? my governor is a republican - if he proposes the state legalize gay marriage, do i celebrate he is pushing a state level solution?

No conservative should want liberal laws being pushed and enacted regardless if that lib is a democrat, republican or something else.
 
You at a state level work to replace your governor if you dont like his practices. Im pretty conservative but work with the med community. Im very much in favor of effective social spending...I just want to see it done at a local and state level where the citizens have a greater say, more control, and the programs dont become these behomoths that no one can adequately manage. I no longer live in California...I could not care less what they offer as far as social spending just so long as the appropriately tax Californians to provide said services. With an appropriately reduced fed tax burden they could do that. IF thats what the state chooses.

100% agreement. but if you are part of the process of putting that into place in california, don't expect my support when you try to sell me that you are just the kind of guy to put in charge of making national-level decisions.
 
Wow, you'd think there was mass death, asteroids, and anarchy prior to medicare.

Mass? Depends. Prior to medicare/aid the death rate for elderly was much higher, and for disabled and for the poor in general. Life expectancy has risen considerably since healthcare became a state function across the world. We see similar death rates in countries who don't have health care systems to what existed prior to the industrialized world enacting state backed health care.
 
sure you can - we put poor earners on student loans all the time.

Okay, tell me how do we do this for people with virtually no incomes and little chance for income sufficient to pay off the loan?

and why are we paying them welfare?

Technically we're not paying them welfare directly. It's socializing the cost to everyone else.

no, because you continue to artificially constrain the choices to "individual mandate" or "encourage free-riding".

let them pay, but let them pay cash and let them work in a system that actually allows a market to work.

an example.

Did you read your own link?

In general we are a walk-in clinic for routine minor illnesses and injuries

Basically this will only work for a small segment of the healthcare need. Furthermore "routine minor illnesses and injuries" aren't what is driving up the cost.
 
I choose no because I believe Romney is electable because his more moderate stances appeals to GOPs for whom the healthcare bill isn't the big issue(jobs are), independents and Democrats disgusted with Obama

Romneycare is a MAJOR issue. Socialist/communist health care would be one of our greatest national disasters.

It has already been established that a state can mandate auto insurance and the specific requirements of coverage. Applying that to medical insurance (without the mandate) has also been allowed. Creating a mandate for health insurance, then, would be perfectly within the parameter's of a state's powers. Mandating the purchase of a specific product, regardless of the value/need for that product, is not something the federal government has the consitutional authority to do. In that sense, the mandate in Obamacare is hugely different than the mandate in Romneycare.

I think both programs suck, but there is a huge difference in the validity of O-care v. R-care.

Both are invalid. Violating the people's right of choice is unconstitutional, period. Government--federal, state or local--has no place in health care.

The same applies to auto insurance. I know of one state that recently mandated it. It forced everybody's insurance rates UP. As a result, some people could no longer afford it, and they dropped out--the exact opposite of what politicians were claiming--more uninsured drivers. In addition, the extra cost from the mandate is greater than what people would have had to pay for coverage to protect them from uninsured drivers; an insurance agent actually told me that.

I don't know. I'm very reluctant to vote for him because of this reason, and because I don't like his hair. I reserve a judgement today because it may come down to anyone but Obama.

Vote AGAINST Romney in the PRIMARY.

Romney's liberalism and flip flopping in general will destroy his electability.

Amen!

No. Because Republicans don't actually have a problem with anything in it, other than the Affordable Care Act has Obama's name on it. The Republicans suddenly discovered they had a principled objection to the individual mandate at precisely the moment Obama included it in the ACA. Up until then, an individual mandate was not only acceptable to Republicans, it was part of GOP orthodoxy. Hell, the individual mandate was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation. John McCain ran on a very similar health care platform in 2008 (complete with individual mandates and "death panels") and got 47% of the vote including the vast majority of Republicans. It was barely even an issue.

That says many Republicans are horrible liberals. Vote AGAINST them in the PRIMARIES. Vote FOR SOLID FISCAL CONSERVATIVES.

I have no doubt that Republicans will get over their *ahem* principled objections to Romneycare and get behind him if he's the nominee. It won't even be that hard for him to pull it off. All he needs to do is what he's already doing: Split some hairs to show how it's marginally different from Obamacare, and maybe start calling his individual mandate by some less-threatening euphemism. And most Republicans will accept that, because I don't think that very many of them actually give a damn about any specific part of the Affordable Care Act or Romneycare.

Sure, he be better than Obama--the lesser of two evils. Vote against Romney in the primary.

View attachment 67116025

...........................................................

Romney care was a state issue, I have no problem with states doing what they want.

Individual rights are sacrosanct. The Constitution is supposed to protect them. Government at all levels should never violate them.
 
Back
Top Bottom