The Wall Street Journal and most NRO writers have pretty much written off both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as acceptable Republican presidential candidates because of perceived weaknesses on health care. Health care has become the third rail of American politics — just not the way we used to understand it.
Until recently, a Republican could churn out crowd-pleasing sound bites about fixing health care but never put the pedal to the metal by investing political capital in a serious proposal for reform. Republicans understood that when the talk turned to health care, Democrats won the debate and Republicans lost. It was just a fact of life. Not anymore.
As Romney and Gingrich bind their wounds, I’m sure that they are more surprised than anybody at the hostile response their recent comments have drawn. After all, it is true that trace elements of the “individual mandate” can be found in conservative policy proposals from the days of yore. Our friends at the Heritage Foundation considered such a mandate in the 1990s, but have long since rejected it. And the quality and quantity of the Heritage Foundation’s current research on health policy, which unambiguously rejects every part of Obamacare in favor individual choice and fiscal responsibility, leaves no room for excuses that there are no conservative alternatives to mandates and tax hikes.
On the other hand, when I look at Gingrich’s campaign website’s section on health care, I see nothing inexcusable. He champions repealing Obamacare and lists ten reforms, all of which one can find in the publications of one conservative think tank or another. (I don’t find all ten convincing, but while I don’t think it’s Congress’ job to pass a law on medical-malpractice liability, for example, it wouldn’t be the end of the Tenth Amendment either.)
So, how did one unfortunate interview on a Sunday TV show do so much damage to the launch of his campaign? I think it’s a matter of trust. Repealing Obamacare is not something Republicans can waffle on in the slightest. And attacking the congressional caucus that voted for Medicare reform is very close to attacking their vote for repeal.
We cannot afford a “national conversation” on repealing Obamacare. Every day that it persists is another day that doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical firms, health insurers, medical-device manufacturers, and all the other concerns in the health sector invest more time and energy “implementing” its harmful provisions. Every day that goes by is another day in which those interests dig themselves deeper into the new status quo, making Obamacare harder to defeat.
Every single Republican presidential candidate will promise to repeal Obamacare; that’s the price of a ticket to the dance. But between election night on November 6, 2012, and the inauguration on January 20, 2013, there will be plenty of opportunities for the president-elect to find excuses for delaying repeal in favor of a “national conversation.” After all, that’s what many business interests will want.
And conservative voters know it, too. Campaign bromides won’t work this time. The winning Republican candidate will have to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that he (or she) will immediately sign the one-page repeal bill that will be the first legislation to land on the president’s desk after the inauguration. There can be no risk of dithering in favor of a “national conversation.”
I don’t know what a candidate can say to prove that he (or she) will do this. But now I know what he cannot say.
I understand that there's no way to prove what one will do when elected. But is there any reason to believe that President Romney wouldn't do exactly as he has promised and kill the thing as his first official act while working for one sentence repeal?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhatever concerns you might have about what he did in a liberal technocratic state, surely the speculations those might raise aren't more compelling than what he's said very explicitly about what he would do. This follows unless you have some reason to doubt he will follow through on his commitments. If so, go ahead and state the reason.
You would have though this lesson would have been evident to today's supposed "brilliant political minds" in the election of Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and others. The time when we the conservative electorate are willing to accept equivocation is over. The threat is here, at our door. We have one election to overturn Obamacare, and maybe only that to avoid a Debt Crises that will wreck this nation. Either join with us in facing it squarely, or we will ruthlessly dispense with you in favor of someone who will.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd the answer of the question in the title is another question:
Of the potential Republican Candidates, which one has ALREADY reformed Healthcare in line with conservative principles, to reduce costs to the state while increasing personal liberty and individual wealth?
Answer the second question, and you answer the first.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@bensauer:
"...unless you have some reason to doubt [Romney] will follow through on his commitments."
I can think of a few, actually.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney's not known as a "flip-flopper" for nothing. And not only does he reek of political expediency, but he really, really wants to be president. How many of his own millions has Romney already spent trying to buy his way into the most powerful political office? The American electorate may be dumb enough to be fooled by Obama, but Americans are also idealists. Romney doesn't stand a chance.
In the future, patients will need to take a course called "Dialects of the World" because fewer and fewer Americans are becoming doctors and this trend will continue. Politicians are too weak-willed and voters are too addicted to entitlements to do anything significant to change the current trends.
The days of indemnity insurance and self-pay are as likely to return as Michael Jackson. Removing third-parties from routine care is the only way to solve the problem...and no politician is going to propose doing that. So who the Republican Health-Care Candidate is doesn't really matter, what matters is how does heart attack and prostate cancer sound in various dialects.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohn, you are so right that we cannot afford a "national conversation" on repealing Obamacare. I like Newt because he is a solution imagineer with a lot of good ideas based upon statistical data and digital solutions. On the engineer's drawing board the "mandate" looks like part of the solution. The problem is Newt often fails to include not only little inconveniences such as the U.S. Constitution, but human nature as well. I'm not sure he understands what has happened to him.
On the other hand I hope that conservatives do not throw Mitt Romney in the ditch at this point. Aside from the rotting albatross of the Massachusetts Health Plan hanging around his neck, he is an excellent candidate and certainly matches up well against Obama and the Dems. I still get headaches thinking about poor John McCain trying to spar with the magic teleprompter in the last election. Such would not be a problem with Romney. In any case I think Romney would have no problem supporting and pushing the kind of health care reform most conservatives seek.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe solutions all seem to involve ever more complex rationing. A simple solution to doctor access for Medicare would be to end the ban on "balance billing" so that the patient and doctor can arrive at a mutually agreed charge. France does that now.
Attempting to compel doctors to treat for low fees is a good way to crash medical school applications. I have a niece who could have been accepted to almost any medical school but declined to incur the debt. She is a nurse with two degrees.
I was an engineer in the late 50s when the post-Sputnik enthusiasm petered out and engineers were driving cabs. We all changed to something else; me to medicine. That can go the other way, especially since medical school is now so outrageously expensive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@cpwill
I'm not sure where the question leads us, but clearly there has been no GOP candidate that has done any health care reforming at all. On the other hand I know of no such opportunity that has been presented to do so. There will certainly be that opportunity starting in 2012 (assuming the Senate reverts to GOP control). It seems to me that all the GOP candidates are talking the talk, so the question should be who is the most electible candidate. Should Romney not be counted among the few who are?
One thing appears to be certain. Even if Obama's folly is done away with, we will not revert to the mess we currently have (and have had for the past several decades). The current system has evolved into a third party managed care nightmare dominated by a select handful of insurance carriers that have been allowed to monopolize not only the retail health insurance market but the service pricing of the providers of care as well. There is nothing resembling a free market in either health care services or the financing of those services.
We should make sure that whatever candidate we back understands that health care reform does not mean a repackaged version of what we have already.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitch Daniels has done some very successful health care reforming in Indiana. He is not my first choice for the nomination, but it is an interesting fact to keep in mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse