Governor Christie is already catching hell on social media for his full-throated defense of Mitt Romney’s MassCare plan during his endorsement presser this afternoon. Comparing Romneycare with Obamacare, said Christie, is “completely intellectually dishonest” since, among other things, Romney’s plan “didn’t raise a single tax.”
Let me say that I think there are dishonest comparisons between the plans. They consist of pointing out that the two plans are similar in a number of ways — a brute fact — and then stopping there. Plenty of folks do this, under the assumption that the mere family resemblance is enough to damn Romney, relying on the crude premise that it is fair to apply standards for the proper role of the federal government to policies undertaken at the state level. This stuff has been covered around here plenty, so I won’t say much more than that such tactics are “intellectually dishonest” in the sense that they strategically ignore everything Romney has said about the matter during the campaign — that he’d have done some things differently in MassCare, that he doesn’t think it’s the right approach for the country at large and that federalism matters, that he’ll grant 50 Obamacare waivers on day one in the Oval Office, and so on.
The problem for Christie — and Romney — is that plenty of folks do go beyond merely noting the resemblance, and do address candidate Romney’s evolving position. They say that there may be lots of areas where bad federal policy isn’t necessarily bad state policy, but the individual mandate is not one of them: it’s wrong at any level. They say that the affair reinforces the view that Romney is not a principled conservative, that with MassCare, he showed a willingness to embrace big-government liberalism and massive social engineering for political gain, and that that should concern primary voters. They say his subsequent vacillations on the topic show that we can’t trust him to follow through on any promises he may make on the trail, and so on.
These latter are legitimate arguments, principled arguments. They are hardly “intellectually dishonest” and they are very, very big issues for Romney.
If Health Care Providers are forced to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay or having insurance, an individual mandate to have insurance is the logical progression. Let's have some intellectual honesty from those that oppose the individual mandate of having insurance - also oppose the law Reagan signed in the 80s forcing a mandate on the providers. Good luck winning that argument in the public sphere. In theory I would like abolish that law Reagan signed in the 80s as unconstitutional, but that seems unlikely to happen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe argument will be won in the Courts if it is won at all.
Clearly the federal government does not have the authority to force citizens to purchase anything. Period.
The mandatory provision of care should have been disallowed for the same reason we are not allowed to have the mandatory picking of cotton. We fought a war to end such abominations.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDan,
Excellent post, I know you are a Christie admirer (as am I), but I found this defense distasteful. It is especially distasteful considering that the whole reason for his thinking about running for President would be Romney's weakness on this issue. Also, circa 2007-8 it seemed to me Romney was more than happy to tout MassCare as a potential solution to America's health care problems. I never heard him say, as he did today, that it "wouldn't work" at the federal level. The federalism defense which is valid to an extent did not arise until the debate over President Obama's health care plan. Now that is intellectually dishonest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDue respect, but you are incorrect that Romney did not bring up federalism until the debate over Obamacare.
In 2007, Romney told Tim Russert "I’m a federalist. I don’t believe in applying what works in one state to all states if different states have different circumstances."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWay to go Christie....you managed to make people quit wistfully hoping for you to run for president by opening your big Jersey yap and force feeding yourself your big ol' foot. Obama smiles at the folly of our Republican buffoons trying to topple him while pettily backstabbing each other. Oh the joys of religious bigotry, heartless xenophobia, and government needles being jammed into little innocent 12 year old girls(poor innocent tiny little girls).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom Dan's post, describing certain Romney critics:
"They say that the affair reinforces the view that Romney is not a principled conservative, that with MassCare, he showed a willingness to embrace big-government liberalism and massive social engineering for political gain, and that that should concern primary voters."
Please count me as one of "they".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is why I'm grateful Christie didn't run. Too many people were backing him without really knowing his position on the issues. He's downright liberal on too many major issues. I've said it before, and it's true. Christie is the new Rudy, only without the personal scandals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, this is why I was hoping Christie would get in the race. He would have taken votes solely away from Romney, splitting up the RINO vote. It would have guaranteed a RINO wouldn't win the nomination.
Christie's defense of RomneyCare is weak, but what's even more indefensible is how big of a failure RomneyCare has been in Mass. I can't understand why the other candidates aren't ripping Mitt for the results of his plan. Romney is wrong about the individual mandate being a good idea (as long as it's done by the state) but even if you buy his reasoning the results of his plan have been nothing short of a disaster. Incredible that all the nominees have been letting Mitt skate on this issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's intellectually dishonest is hiding behind federalism to justify bad policy.
No one's questioning whether Romneycare COULD be implemented---but whether it SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
Since costs have grown faster under Romneycare and there still isn't 100% coverage, how is it anything but an objective failure?
Romney's defense of it proves two things:
1. He is not a conservative.
2. He has little chance of actually repealing Obamacare---thus the waiver gambit (waivers can be as easily undone as done).
This is what we object to. That's the honest truth; the MittBots are the ones running the mug's game.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMyKu:
Christie's endorsement
not so much a hug as a
perfect form tackle.
-----------
Cain and Perry are smiling right now, both.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"They say that there may be lots of areas where bad federal policy isn’t necessarily bad state policy, but the individual mandate is not one of them: it’s wrong at any level."
Why doesn't Ronald Reagan's EMTLA federal healthcare mandate that he signed in 1986 ever come up, that seems intellectually dishonest from conservatives.
It was one of the main, if not thee, reasons for Mitt's mandate in MA because of people's abuse of the federal mandate.
Are conservative purists afraid to take on Ronald Reagan's actions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey Sheryl, how much does Mittens pay you to troll NRO and post these enlightening comments?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChristie's comment was intellectually dishonest. Actually, just dishonest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you think it's painful to see a shark jump, just watch when a *whale* does it.
So much for liking our honest, truthtelling Christie...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs much as I love jokes that write themselves, I'll abstain from the fat barbs, myself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's be clear (as a certain liberal president likes to say): A federal takeover of health care is an unconstitutional usurpation of powers the federal government does not have. A state takeover of that in its state, depending on its constitution, is not unconstitutional, just an indicator of terrible judgment and a statist mindset. Both are disqualifiers in my book for the presidency.
For the first time in my life, in 2008, I skipped over the presidency in the voting booth. With Obama promising to take us off the cliff at 100 mph and McCain proposing a much more moderate 50 mph for our trip over the cliff, I decided I would not vote for going over the cliff at all.
If Romney is the Republican nominee I will, for the second time in my life, skip over the presidential race when I get to the voting booth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"a willingness to embrace big-government liberalism and massive social engineering for political gain"
Romney's religion plays no part whatsoever in my earnest desire that he does not end up the last GOP man standing.
Instead it is exactly as you said above. He strikes me as just another political animal blowing with the wind. I like my Presidents plain-spoken, loyal and as committed as I am to certain core principles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWelcome to the ranks of "the extremists", Donna!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat "vaccilations" is this writer referring to? Romney said in 2007-8 exactly as he says today: that he would not impose Romneycare on any state besides his own. He claimed it was a state issue than just as he does now, and Christie is 100% right to call out all the dishonest critics of Romney who attempt to claim his healthcare plan is the same as Obama's!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat is intellectually dishonest is endorsing Romney in 2008 without making one mention of the problems you have with RomneyCare (despite the plan being a major element of Romney's record), and then pretending like it makes him a tax and spend liberal that wants to kill the country in 2011. Talk about a flip flop. NRO has no room to attack Romney for RomneyCare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse