Traverse City, Michigan – Rick Santorum zeroed on in Romneycare today when attacking his top rival before a crowd of several hundred Michiganders.
Calling Romneycare “the model for Obamacare,” Santorum said of Obama and Romney’s health care programs that “on their very foundation they are the same.”
“In some respects, Gov. Romney’s plan is worse,” Santorum added, noting that while Obamacare forced small businesses with fifty or more employees to provide insurance or face penalties, Romney’s health care plan started the penalties at the ten- employee threshold.
“He says,” Santorum said of Romney, “but ‘oh, I don’t want it at the federal level therefore I’ll repeal it.’”
“Wow,” Santorum added, a sarcastic edge to his voice, “that’s a big difference: ‘I’m for government running your life only out of the state capital, not the nation’s capital.’”
Then he pivoted to the general election.
“Why would the people of Michigan,” he asked, “put up someone who can’t make the fundamental argument at the core of this election and give that issue away to Barack Obama?”
UPDATE: Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul e-mails in response: “Congressman/Senator Rick Santorum is a Washington insider who is lashing out at Mitt Romney because his campaign is floundering. Back in 2008, Sen. Santorum endorsed Mitt Romney for president because of Mitt’s ‘conservative’ record. Now, Rick’s changed his tune. This sounds like another case of Rick Santorum abandoning his principles for his own political advantage.”
Santorum is okay with federal intervention in minimum wage, sex education, manufacturing, prescription drugs... What's he complaining about?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou've answered your own question.
There's a difference, to anyone but a PaulPurist, between government engagement with the private marketplace, and a government takeover of the private marketplace. Establishing a floor minimum wage is bad economics, but it doesn't drive the cost of production to unsustainable levels while destroying quality. Romneycare has done precisely that in Massachusetts, and its b***ard offspring Obamacare wil do the same.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, then, it's not really about the "fundamental" argument. We're just talking about matters of degree. In that case, Santorum's argument doesn't seem much more persuasive than Romney's.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGovernment - unless one is an anarchist - is *always* about matters of degree.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks to the 10th amendment, arguments about the federal government's role *should rarely be* about degree.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmm... how about just calling it as it is... I'm against both forms of government intervention. That doesn't make one an anarchist. High minimum wage has created historical levels of teenage unemployment.
Santorum doesn't care about government intervention as long as he's the one calling the shots.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is the fundamental reason why we absolutely must not nominate Mitt Romney. It will be nearly impossible to argue against Obamacare using anything beyond platitudes and peripheral arguments such as its funding. He cannot challenge Obamacare as an affront to personal liberty or as an interference in the health care market that will cause an explosion in cost while gradually shutting down the market for private health insurance. If he does, Obama will claim the Mass. program doesn't do those things, and Romney will agree even though Obama will be very wrong.
I like Santorum, but I'd support even a candidate I greatly disliked if it were necessary to stop Romney. Romneycare make Mitt Romney the worst possible candidate to nominate this year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't get your water hot. When the SCOTUS dispenses with Obamacare by late summer, it will become a non-issue. So Romneycare will be off the table for talking points, much to the dismay of the Dems and the anybody but Romney crowd.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps the Bork Court, in some alternate reality, will both find against the individual mandate *and* decide it's non-severable from the rest of Obamacare, thus delivering the 'non-issue' result you tout.
Unfortunately, this is the Kennedy, I'm-Not-As-Smart-As-Solomon-But-I'll-Split-The-Baby-Anyhow Court. Kennedy *probably* will rule against the mandate. He'll also hold that it's severable, so he doesn't have to read mean things about himself in the NYT and WashPo.
Which means Obamacare will be alive, but unfunded. Hasn't seemed to stop the rest of Leviathan from doing its business - it'll just be a speed bump here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps you are the one who is living in an alternate reality. Reading your response, one would think that Kennedy never rules with the conservative majority. I'm betting he will this time, because the stakes are so high and he doesn't want to have a bad ruling here as his final legacy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNever count on the courts to protect your constitutional rights. While a Supreme Court ruling that Obamacare was unconstitutional would greatly alter the dynamic on the issue in a way that would greatly mitigate the damage from nominating Romney, the decision is unlikely to come down before the nomination is decided, and I do not want to depend on that. With Santorum we have two shots at repeal - the courts and repeal legislation, with Romney we have to depend on the courts.
If the Court does not strike down Obamacare, then presumptive nominee Santorum will be very well positioned to criticize both the ruling and the program at issue. A presumptive nominee Romney may actually be further weakened by such a decision as his federalism distinction will then have been rejected by the Supreme Court. He may try to criticize the decision, but it'll basically be "the Supreme Court has abdicated its responsibility by refusing to stop the federal government imposing the kind of mandate that I imposed as Governor."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course, he can. The difference is based on the fact that the Constitution grants to the fed govt enumerated powers; all else is left to the states. The states have the power and authority to legislate in this matter; the fed govt doesn't. And please don't forget that the notion of a mandate was supported by one of the premier conservative think tanks, the Heritage Foundation (External Link
) and was backed both by Newt and Santorum before they began running for the presidency.
Although Santorum claims that these contemporaneous stories during his 1994 race misrepresent his position, the fact that the were multiple such stories belie his protestations.
"Santorum and [his opponent] would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits," The Morning Call (Pa.) reported in 1994. External Link
and this: After the May 2, 1994 report to which we linked, there was this one from May 28, in the same paper, which refers to the single payer system endorsed by Santorum's Democratic opponent, Harris Wofford:
For several years, Santorum has promoted a Republican alternative. It would require workers to buy their own health insurance and allow monthly tax-free contributions into "Medisave" accounts to pay for routine medical services.
Before either of those, there was another from the same newspaper, from April 7, 1994:
Santorum and Watkins both oppose having businesses provide health care for their employees. Instead, they would require individuals to purchase insurance. Both oppose higher taxes on alcohol or tobacco to help pay for care. External Link
This April article is more specific about where the charge comes from. It was the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters' candidate questionnaire, which both Santorum and Joe Watkins (Republicans) filled out before the GOP primary
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Romneycare make[s] Mitt Romney the worst possible candidate to nominate this year."
...except for any of the others we have left.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum's sentiment is good, we shouldn't want government intruding into our lives at any level, but he is showing gross ignorance of our system where the individual states have MUCH more leeway in what they can and can't do compared to the Federal government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNope, unfortunately the ignorance is yours.
Santorum isn't claiming that Romney *couldn't* have done what he did.
Santorum's claim is that Romney *shouldn't* have done it. That the subordination of individual freedom to the state was too high a price to pay, and we should be absolutely clear that Romney thought this tradeoff was just dandy.
Oh, and that philosophically, state or federal government, it's equally indefensible. Most folks get that legal does not = moral. Well, constitutional (under state law) does not = just. Or good.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe difference is that states get stuck with the bill when a person without insurance gets sick and ends up at the hospital. the feds don't. romneycare was intended to deal with that problem. Romneycare was not intended to socialize medicine as obamacare does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't see how I'm being ignorant as I said first off that I agreed with his sentiment, which seems to be the thrust of your "gotcha" argument. And I happen to agree, no level of government should be doing this, but the State-level *can*. So, be a barbarian at somebody else's gate, you are preaching to the choir here. Perhaps you have confused me for a Romney supporter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry if I wasn't more clear:
q: Where is the statement in the above piece that indicates Santorum is confused about federal vs state police powers?
a: It's not there.
That's not a 'gotcha' argument. That's merely pointing out that you made an assertion without any underlying factual basis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo Rick Santorum is opposed to the 10th amendment?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA little disconcerting Rick doesn't seem acquainted with the concept of federalism. There is this thing called the Constitution that draws a huge distinction between what the federal government can do and what the state governments can do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse