About This Blog

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) was the greatest economist of my time. His greatest works can be accessed here at no charge.

Mises believed that property, freedom and peace are and should be the hallmarks of a satisfying and prosperous society. I agree. Mises proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prospect for general and individual prosperity is maximized, indeed, is only possible, if the principle of private property reigns supreme. What's yours is yours. What's mine is mine. When the line between yours and mine is smudged, the door to conflict opens. Without freedom (individual liberty of action) the principle of private property is neutered and the free market, which is the child of property and freedom and the mother of prosperity and satisfaction, cannot exist. Peace is the goal of a prosperous and satisfying society of free individuals, not peace which is purchased by submission to the enemies of property and freedom, but peace which results from the unyielding defense of these principles against all who challenge them.

In this blog I measure American society against the metrics of property, freedom and peace.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Romney: Let's Replace ObamaCare With The "Affordable Health Care Act"

A few weeks ago I said I was going to vote for Mitt Romney "barring any unforeseen events or catastrophic disclosures." Well, yesterday's Supreme Court decision was such an unforeseen event. Moreover, Romney's reaction to this event turned my stomach. That was catastrophic.

I had decided to vote for Romney on the theory that the country is gravely wounded and the most important thing we need to do is "stop the bleeding," i.e., defeat and replace Barack Obama. I reasoned that newly elected Tea Party politicians would keep Romney's liberal tendencies in check. I also argued that it was essential to elect Romney because he would be more likely to appoint conservatives -- like Roberts -- to the Supreme Court.

Yesterday's events changed all that. Obviously, thanks to conservative impersonator George W. Bush, the Supreme Court is already mired in a deep bowl of compassionate, intellectual mush. If you doubt it, read the ObamaCare decision, and I'm not talking about Roberts' opinion. The contradictions in his opinion have been well documented by others.

For a real eye-opener, read Ginsburg. Her dissent has nothing to do with the Constitution. Rather, it is a political polemic which argues the supposed benefits of the ObamaCare legislation. Her dissent might as well have been written by Jay Carney.

Such leftist trash from Ginsburg can be expected. However, how do you explain the following first two sentences of the dissenting opinion of the four (supposedly) conservatives on the Court (Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas):
Congress has set out to remedy the problem that the best health care is beyond the reach of many Americans who cannot afford it. It can assuredly do that, by exercising the powers accorded to it under the Constitution.    
What? Where in the Constitution does it say, "assuredly," that Congress can do that? Where specifically does it say that the federal government has the power to remedy the problems faced by individual Americans based on their ability to pay for solutions? If Congress does have such a power afforded to it by the Constitution, then what is all this hubbub about? If such is so, then we are, indeed, all socialists!

Obviously, there is a problem on the Court that cannot be remedied by any appointment Mitt Romney might make, especially when Romney has already stated that he would appoint Justices in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts. Which begs the question: Why would Romney choose Roberts as a model Justice, instead of, say, Clarence Thomas, whose dissent in the ObamaCare case shows that he is the only true, strict constructionist on the Court?

Surely electing Mitt Romney would not stop the bleeding on the Supreme Court no matter how many Justices he might appoint. So lets take a look at how Romney proposes to stop the bleeding caused by ObamaCare should he win the seat in the Oval Office.

In a speech transcribed by Roll Call and reprinted in the Washington Post, Romney said yesterday:

As you might imagine, I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision and I agree with the dissent.
What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare.
Repeal is good. But what then? If he had his druthers Mitt would replace the "bad policy" contained in the ObamaCare legislation with good policy. What does Mitt consider "a real reform of our health care system?"

One, we have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so. Having 20 million people - up to that number of people lose the insurance they want is simply unacceptable.

Number two, got to make sure that those people who have pre-existing conditions know that they will be able to be insured and they will not lose their insurance.
My God! I challenge any thinking American or Romney lackey to explain how this Romney "reform" is different from or preferable to the "bad policy" of ObamaCare!

I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but how on God's green earth can the phrase "pre-existing condition" coexist in the same sentence with the word "insurance?" Romney is not talking insurance, he's talking government subsidized, socialized medicine.

If you doubt Romney's socialist leanings, read the rest of his prescription to fix ObamaCare:

We also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their effort to assure that every American has access to affordable health care.

And something that Obamacare does not do that must be done in real reform is helping lower the cost of health care and health insurance. It’s becoming prohibitively expensive.
There you have it. In his own words Romney says he wants to replace ObamaCare with the "Affordable Health Care Act."

So remind me again, Romney lackeys, what's the difference between Romney and Obama?

Where the hell are the Tea Party politicians that are supposed to hold Romney in check when he really needs them? They better speak up quick and straighten me (and Romney) out, because I'm about a hundred and some days away from voting for Gary Johnson!


John Galt said...

So you are 100 days away from voting for Obama?
I hope not.

Sherman Broder said...

John, I won't assume that Romney will be an improvement over Obama simply because he is a Republican.

The onus is on Romney and his supporters to explain his replacement health care plans in detail and to my satisfaction.

According to his website he will "help markets work by creating a level playing field." He will end "discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions." He will return to the states "their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill," and, at the same time, "allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines."

This sounds suspiciously like Nancy Pelosi's "a cap on your costs but no cap on your benefit" baloney.

A new layer of 50-state bureaucracies ala Massachusetts is no substitute for a truly free market in health care.

Perhaps you can explain to me exactly how all these Romney "improvements" will "assure that every American has access to affordable health care?"