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, October 12. 2011
During last night’s Republican debate, all agreed on repealing ObamaCare. But only Romney mentioned that we need something to replace it and mentioned he has that plan.
So, I looked at Romney’s campaign website about healthcare.
To be quick out of the blocks, Romney promises to exempt all states from ObamaCare on his first day in the Oval Office, then ask Congress to repeal it.
To control federal costs, he would provide block grants to states to devise their own, closer to their publics, programs. Individuals would be able to deduct premiums from taxes, as businesses can. Preexisting conditions would not affect insurability if the individual had prior continuous coverage, a spur to taking more self-responsibility. HRAs, pretax savings accounts for healthcare, would be expanded to pay for premiums, making the cost of premiums less for taxpaying consumers, and cross-state purchases would be allowed to avoid costly state mandates. Non-medical malpractice tort awards would be capped.
These are all well and good………if one just wants band aids for a hemorrhage.
It is probably politic to avoid rousing the ire of independents via Democrat MediScare charges. But as I argued yesterday the core problem is not addressed: extensive government direction of medical care driving up costs to today’s unaffordable levels for the budget and for consumers, distorting markets, reducing individual choice and overriding individual circumstances. Thus far, only the Ryan plan addresses it.
Regardless of whom is elected president in 2012, it will be up to Congress to choose whether we continue on a government-lighter or ObamaCare model, or face up to the real drivers of healthcare costs in excessive government direction of healthcare.
Even if one forgives Romney for RomneyCare being a mistake of the past, he does not adequately learn from nor atone for it. For that matter, the other Republican presidential potentials have not even been as specific as he in what they’d do after being elected. Inadequate from all.
Romney may have strengthened his case for “inevitability” in last night’s debate by his smoothness and command of details. And something is better than nothing. However, that something is still nothing compared to the unresolved challenges we must face to retain healthcare quality and access at affordable costs, enhanced freedoms, and the resources needed to face the US other needs.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
He should be smooth. He's been at it for 5 years. You teach a bird to do that. Rich Perry on the other hand is not smooth, he just gets the job done. 2007 at this point Rudy was leading followed by Fred and Huck. It's a long way to finish line.
Until now, Romney’s presumptive position on healthcare was my main concern about his candidacy. If, indeed, he could kill Obamacare, pass medical malpractice tort reform, and allow interstate health insurance sales, I would have to give him very high marks for an excellent start. Reforming Medicare, while necessary, will certainly be a longer term battle.
My concern about Romney has always been RomneyCare. I read about the failure of RomneyCare in Massachusets (I'm on the opposite coast), yet he keeps telling us that it's just right. There was plenty of evidence of the failure of socialized medicine whereever it has been tried, but particularly in Britain and Canada, but he seems completely unaware of the potential of going down the same road.
Same with global warming/energy/green anything — he seems unaware of the collapse of the IPCC, ClimateGate, and not curious enough to make the effort to learn something about it. With that attitude how do we get rid of Obama's green obsession and all the damage it has done?
Romney is no Reagan. However, Reagan was not able to move the ball very far either. As Sultan says, It's The System.
I'll happily take Romney over Obama. Romney, at least, will understand my point of view. It's a big country...
Ditto. Almost any Republican is at this point better than 4 more years of Obama.
Got to admit that Perry, whom we find is a very good governor, is not performing well in the debates. But he's up against some heavy hitters. Newt always looks good in debates and interviews. He's like a Fourth of July sparkler. He coruscates with ideas, some of which are lousy, some of which are good. But he makes me uneasy, because I think he lacks focus, and if he has ten or twelve good ideas every day, some at least will be not good. Romney is slick, and has been at this a long time too. But I think he would be a sensible president and a good businessman. And God knows we need one.
Let's face it. Almost any responsible grown-up would be better than what we've got.
O/T question for the grammarians in the audience. BK wrote, "Regardless of whom is elected president..." Shouldn't that be, "Regardless of who is elected president"? Who is the subject of the verb is, and the phrase "Who is elected" is the object of the preposition "of". One wouldn't say, "Regardless of him is elected," or "If me is elected," so why use whom instead of who?
Just asking out of curiosity. Nothing more implied or intended.
My writers handbook (Bedford) which I haven't looked at in many years says Who for subjects, whom for objects.
In this case the whom is an object...........I theeenk, whom being the object of elected.
Oh, so in the phrase, "If I am elected president," I is the object of the word elected and so it should be "If me is elected"? Don't think so. That's why I wrote what I wrote before. Rules that are interpreted too literally may lead one astray.
Who (subject) is elected (verb) [to the position of] president (object).
That was not the sentence. The sentence was "Regardless of whom is elected president in 2012,..."
Regardless, who am I to argue with whomever disagrees?
Bruce, if I correctly recall diagraming, this is a subordinate clause. You ignore the "regardless of". Therefore, "who" is the appropriate word as it is the subject of "is elected".
Alternatively, in "Regardless of whom the Republicans elected....", whom is the object of "elected".
Does this make sense?
Yes it makes sense, as I described in my Comment Reply above, whom for object.
But it seems it can go both ways in this case.
Bruce ... In trying to decide which word to use, who or whom, grammars from my youth would suggest that when you're trying to decide, run the sentence over in your mind substituting 'him' for who or whom. The result, which sounds most normal and makes the most sense, is the correct one to use.