We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, March 17. 2010
I’m not one who shouts RINO at Republicans who differ from conservative lines, even when there is overwhelming agreement among conservatives about an issue. I’d have to be shouting at myself sometimes.
But, there’s a difference between taking a position that is defensible at the time and later recognizing publicly that one was wrong, as experience may dictate.
Yesterday afternoon, I looked forward to one of Hugh Hewitt’s informed, civil discussions on his radio show with former
Personally, I tend to like Romney. It’s true that the
The consequences, then, of RomneyCare are particularly applicable to ObamaCare. If part way to ObamaCare has yielded such results as in
Grace Marie-Turner of the Galen Institute gives us some details in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today. It is behind the WSJ subscription wall, but here it is (via the Galen Institute website) below the fold:
The Failure of RomneyCare
March 17, 2010
Tracked: Apr 17, 02:33
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Cesar Conda wrote: "Both include an exchange, a subsidy for the poor, and an incentive for individuals to become insured, the so-called individual mandate.
The difference is that Romney’s plan did not raise taxes on individuals or businesses, didn’t cut Medicare, didn’t include “public options” or raise spending by a trillion dollars, and it didn’t impose insurance price controls. Romney’s plan made no attempt to take over health care. The Massachusetts legislation was a scant 70 pages long, compared to Obamacare’s gargantuan 2,000-page maze of regulation.
Perhaps most importantly, Romney’s plan is a state plan, not a one-size-fits-all federal usurpation of a power constitutionally reserved to the states. States should be free to adopt reforms that work for them. They can borrow the best ideas from one another. The federal government’s role is to be flexible about how their share of health-care dollars may be spent.
Some of the elements Obama copied from the Massachusetts health- care plan make sense, such as the creation of a market exchange for health insurance where consumers can shop among private plans for the lowest price. That is consumer empowerment at its best. Romney’s plan also permitted individuals purchasing insurance on their own to receive the same tax advantages as those who are covered by their employers. Expanding tax deductibility for health-insurance purchases is, of course, a key free-market conservative reform.
The Massachusetts health plan partially subsidizes the purchase of private health insurance by lower-income people using money that the state was already paying for free care at hospitals. Romney simply shifted funds that were going to hospitals as reimbursement for free care and instead gave it to individuals so they could purchase insurance on their own. Obama’s plan finances its subsidy with higher taxes and cuts in Medicare."