Free Markets, Free People

Why Romney and Gingrich can never be President

Or perhaps I should caveat that by saying “should” never be President, given the current occupant who also “should” never have been President.

Romney gave his major health care speech yesterday in which he sounded like he was running as Obama’s VP.  It was totally unconvincing.  As Avik Roy says at NRO:

Mitt Romney just gave a more articulate defense of Obamacare than President Obama ever has. He continues to believe that the individual mandate is a good idea, despite the fact that the “free-rider” problem is a myth. His effort to make a distinction between Romneycare and Obamacare was not persuasive: If anything, he convincingly made the opposite case, that Romneycare and Obamacare are based on the same fundamental concept.

For him to have any credibility with the right and GOP voters, he had a simple mission: tell them why he signed RomneyCare into law in MA, why it was a mistake and why he was going to fight to repeal ObamaCare.

He did none of those things and thus became, at least in my eyes, an unviable candidate.  He obviously has absolutely no problem with the level of government interference in the health care market and certainly isn’t going to be a champion of backing government out of it if elected.  In fact, of all sources, the New York Times nails the problem (albeit coming at it from a different direction than me):

Tearing it down [RomneyCare] might help him politically, he said, but “it wouldn’t be honest.” He said he did what he “thought would be right for the people of my state.” A mandate to buy insurance, he said, makes sense to prevent people from becoming free riders, getting emergency care at enormous cost to everyone else.

Where he went off the rails, however, was in not acknowledging that that same logic applies to the nation. Mr. Romney tried desperately to pivot from praising his handiwork in Massachusetts to trashing the very same idea as adapted by Mr. Obama. His was an efficient and effective state policy; Mr. Obama’s was “a power grab by the federal government.”

He tried to justify this with a history lesson on federalism and state experimentation, but, in fact, he said nothing about what makes Massachusetts different from its neighbors or any other state. And why would he immediately repeal the Obama mandate if elected president? Because Mr. Obama wants a “government takeover of health care,” while all he wanted was to insure the uninsured.

That distinction makes no sense, and the disconnect undermines the foundation of Mr. Romney’s candidacy.

I absolutely agree.  In fact, the problem isn’t federalism and state experimentation, it is a principle – government, at any level, doesn’t have the right to compel a person to buy something if they choose not too.  One of the nasty little problems with big government types is that freedom allows too many choices and Romney is no different than those on the left who’d like to pare those choices down for their convenience and to extend the power and control of government (and their central planning efforts).

Newt Gingrich, who recently joined the run for the presidency, is no different than Romney as his record tells us and don’t let him try to fool you into thinking otherwise.  Huffington Post gives a partial list of the times Gingrich has touted health insurance mandates or attempted to argue in their favor from a moral perspective:

At an Alegent Health event in Omaha in 2008, Gingrich said it was "fundamentally immoral" for a person to go without coverage, show up at an emergency room and demand free care.

During the keynote address to the Greater Detroit Area Health Council’s annual Health Trends Conference in April 2006, Gingrich said he would require Americans earning above a certain income level to buy health insurance or post a bond, the Detroit Free Press reported.

In a June 2007 op-ed in the Des Moines Register, Gingrich wrote, "Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it." An "individual mandate," he added, should be applied "when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed."

And in several of his many policy and politics-focused books, Gingrich offered much the same.

In 2008’s "Real Change," he wrote, "Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond). Meanwhile, we should provide tax credits or subsidize private insurance for the poor."

In 2005’s "Winning the Future," he expanded on the idea in more detail: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance. … We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make it clear that a 21st Century Intelligent System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system."

"People whose income is too low should receive Medicaid vouchers and tax credits to buy insurance," he continued. "Large risk pools (association health plans are one model) should be established so low-income people can buy insurance as inexpensively as large corporations. Furthermore, it should be possible to buy your health insurance on-line to lower the cost as much as possible."

Show me the difference between Gingrich and Obama (or Romney) on their desire to use the power of government to mandate insurance coverage.  The fact that Gingrich draws a line at a particular level of income doesn’t change the fact that in principal he agrees that government should have that power.

Just as serious a problem, at least for me, is Gingrich’s stance on global warming.  Gingrich appeared in a commercial for the “We initiative” with Nancy Pelosi.  The We Initiative is sponsored by Al Gore’s “Alliance for Climate Protection”. 

This alone is reason enough, in my book, to totally dismiss a Gingrich run.

 

 

Add in his support for an individual mandate for health insurance and his candidacy is DOA as far as I’m concerned. And Romney? On life support with a poor prognosis for the future.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

12 Responses to Why Romney and Gingrich can never be President

  • If Romney had thrown healthcare under the bus last election saying he was required to come up with a program by the legislature and they did their best, but that style of hc reform is not feasible, could still be viable.  He didn’t and this is just dancing on his own political grave.

  • I pointed to the Pelosi-Gingrich video before, but I found having Gingrich under the pay of Fannie Mae to be even more troubling.
    Forgotten by most all the media is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought near every former politician and lobbyist in DC.  If they didn’t have the out talking up the mortgage giants, they paid them to keep their mouths shut.
    The fact that Gingrich got on this “gravy train” shows is devoid of a fundamental set of principles, unless money grubbing is a principle.

  • WTF anyone thinks Gingrich is electable is beyond me.  Pushing him screams old boy network especially among the RINO contingent. 

  • Both these guys are WAY outside the electable range for my money.
    But the same is true of Paul, who I doubt could get elected to state-wide office in Texas.
    This is not to say that all of them are not smart guys with very valuable ideas to offer.  They just are not POTUS material.

    • I agree.  I don’t care if some of these folks are personally likeable, but please don’t waste your money trying to make some vain point while they perform their personal Kabuki dance pretending to be Presidential candidates.

      • Hey, if the media takes aim at them as easy targets and thereby miss trashing a more viable candidate for a while, that works fine for me.
         
        Though it does raise the disgust factor among conservative voters as they see these bozos being offered to them as viable candidates.

  • The GOP field is so weak.
    I would like to ask the QandO commentariat who they think will, or should, emerge from those we know who are running, or intends to run.  We all have our dream candidates that we would like t see run, but we know they’re not running (Christie) – so keep it real.
    And what do you think about Herman Cain?
     
    It’s Friday afternoon.  I got a cooler full of Guinness and a half bottle of uisce beatha.  Any takers?

     
    Cheers.

    • I’m rather partial to Gary Johnson.
       
      (I’ll stick with my Strongbow, though ;>)

  • I think both parties need to remind themselves of something: just because something is a good idea does not mean you are allowed to do it under our constitution. Its very easy to miss that in the race to building a better mouse-trap.

  • The only way to “mandate” insurance without actually violating the Constitution is to say that hospitals and doctors do not have to treat someone if they don’t have insurance.  It is a joke to have care provided, but no means of payment necessary.  On the other hand, the moral dilemma is obvious.  Perhaps what is needed is a system where hospitals and doctors CAN turn people away who have no insurance, but the charity community can provide places for people without insurance (which would be by choice or pure idiocy in a situation where government provided Medicaid money to be used to buy insurance) to get care.  I completely understand why someone would talk about mandatory insurance, but, like Harun says above, just because there is a way to justify it, doesn’t make it Constitutional.  That’s when creativity within the market (even when the market is private charity) comes into play.

  • “Gingrich said it was “fundamentally immoral” for a person to go without coverage, show up at an emergency room and demand free care.”

    It is also extremely unlikely. If you go to the emergency you *will* get a bill for services rendered. You are responsible for paying it, with or without insurance. The hospital *will* come after you. If, however, you can demonstrate an inability to pay adjustments will be made.  
    In other words, those who can pay will, and those who cannot pay will be subsidized by those who can pay. This is the way it works now, and this is the way it will work under Obamacare, Romneycare, or any other conceivable system. Like three-card Monte, you can shuffle the bureaucracies around all you want, but you will never find the free health care. Those, like Newt, who claim to be able to are either stupid, lying, or insane. Or a combination thereof. And I am really tired of listening to their crap.