Okay, so we can now be fairly certain a mea culpa from Mitt for Romneycare and for being an inspiration for Obamacare is not forthcoming, but at the very least I wish he’d stop peddling the crazy notion that what he did with health care in Massachusetts was based on a conservative principle:

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said the insurance mandate included in the Massachusetts healthcare law he signed is fundamentally a conservative principle.

Speaking Wednesday on “Fox and Friends,” Romney defended the Bay State’s healthcare law, which includes a version of the individual mandate, as inline with the Republican world view. The individual mandate was the centerpiece and most controversial aspect of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which has widely been blasted by Republicans as governmental overreach.

“I’m happy to stand by the things that I believe. I’m not going to change my positions by virtue of being in a presidential campaign,” Romney said. “What we did was right for the people of Massachusetts, the plan is still favored there by 3 to 1 and it is fundamentally a conservative principle to insist that people take personal responsibility as opposed to turning to government for giving out free care.”

Personal responsibility ceases to be personal responsibility when it’s government-mandated — what’s Mitt missing here?

Besides, would anything that’s based in conservatism have made sub-driver Teddy smile like this?



12 Responses to “Romney: Health Insurance Mandate Fundamentally a Conservative Principle”

  1. Marshall_Will on December 28th, 2011 6:26 pm

    "sub-driver" Sorry, took me a minute!

    Here's where I'm different. I HATE the "medical community". 'They' as much as any Kenyan-born Marxist are every bit as responsible for a debacle that's placed us on this collision course for the last 30 years.

    Assuming we secured our borders, limited other entitlement programs based on criteria other than "voters likely to support me/my party" I have absolutely NO problem with it! Keeping the *workforce* healthy and productive SHOULD be a top priority.

    I'm talking basic, rudimentary preventative care here. Workforce-driven, urinalysis required. If yer' high all the time, we already know what the problem is.

  2. Truesoldier on December 28th, 2011 7:14 pm

    Someone on Romney's campaign staff better take away the shovel before Romeny digs his hole too deep.

    In other news. I saw this infroamtion regarding the polling data of Iowa, NH, and SC.

  3. backwoodsconsr on December 28th, 2011 7:23 pm

    I wonder what Romney considers to be liberal principles.

  4. Truesoldier on December 28th, 2011 7:37 pm

    Here is a question for Romney. How exactly is this an example of personal responsibilty or any Conservative principle for that matter:

    Do employers have to offer health insurance?
    The Health Care Reform Law requires employers with 11 or more full-time employees to offer a group health plan to their employees and pay a fair share of the monthly premiums. Employers who do not obey this law have to pay a Fair Share Contribution of about $295 per employee per year into the Health Safety Net Trust Fund.

    That is from the Mass health Insurance req website found here:

  5. Marshall_Will on December 28th, 2011 8:29 pm

    I'm a Bachmann guy but what I think Mitt was driving at was; having concern for ALL our fellow Americans is a good thing and, in the end a Conservative thing. Right now, and who can blame him for wanting OUT of the current fix he's in?

    So he desparately needs to take himself out of that equation. I believe he's coming from a much more historic perspective. Had we been able to implement this in the 1950's ( more or less painlessly ) and applied it evenly across the income spectrum, and everyone got an Annual Med/Dental Exam w/ helpful and healthy direction, what would be the big problem w/ that?

    What drives me bonkers is how all the college party burnouts that finally settled on the medical field now get to stand back like they didn't have a 'thing'… to do with it?

  6. Pasadena Phil on December 29th, 2011 1:10 am

    Gingrich also defends the individual mandate. His latest defense of that position was last week during the famous Glenn Beck interview. And as if that isn't enough, today Jeff Flake revealed that Gingrich lobbied Congress in 2003 to pass Bush's medical drug entitlement and might have been the reason in passed by a very narrow margin. Gingrich is a fraud.


    It is more important HOW the next president gets elected in 2012 than WHO. It has to be messy and the guy crossing the finish line first has to be left wondering whether it would have been better to lose.

    We conservatives must not allow the establishment GOP to win their war against us. These guys stand on the same side as Obama on just about every issue while hiding behind the "anyone but Obama (except Ron Paul apparently)" slogan.

  7. Truesoldier on December 29th, 2011 1:24 pm

    "It is more important HOW the next president gets elected in 2012 than WHO."

    I agree. We need all the dirt to come out on all the candidates now so as it doesnt bring them down in the general election.

    The only other thing that needs to be done is to do away with these open primaries where anyone can vote or the ability to change your registration the night of the caucaus so as to vote in the Republican primary (as is the case in Iowa). The Rasmussen polling data is showing a lot of Democrats look to be trying to use a cross over vote to increase Ron Paul's votes in the Iowa, NH, and SC caucauses/primary.

    I would hate to see any of the GOP candidates win a caucaus/primary based on democrat crossover vote that we all know will switch back to Obama come the general election. It is bad enough when the establishment is picking our candidate, but it is just as bad when the liberals decide they need to pick our candidate as well.

  8. Pasadena Phil on December 29th, 2011 1:43 pm

    "Both" parties are trying to game the system. The core problem is that we are being presented mostly cardboard cutout candidates who will say anything to get elected while trying to attract the big special interest money. As we are seeing in Iowa, Romney's money is a big factor in getting voters to overlook their own "sacred" principles to vote for someone who appears "electable".

    So long as voters keep voting for party over principles, this is what we are going to get. Everyone is warring on conservatives today and yet most "conservatives" will vote for the enemy because they are "electable" and conservatives aren't.

    The irony is that If we conservatives have the numbers today and those numbers are growing. If we would just vote for our candidates instead of the brain cramps set in with so many of us once we enter a voting booth, they would win. They are electable. We just don't vote for them. We vote for them, they win. It's that simple.

    It's like Mark Steyn says about the UN regarding Israel but applies just as much to the "conservative" mindset (I paraphrase since I don't have his book handy). "Once you accept your own disconnected reality, the internal logic doesn't matter anymore." I am getting punch drunk pointing out to people that you can't stop big government liberalism by voting for it yet that is what most of the commenters on "conservative" threads are advocating all of the time.

    Next November, those of us who decide not to stay home will have a ballot in our hands. On that ballot will be a conservative who is not only far, far better than Obama but far, far better than the Republican candidate. If all of us conservatives and conservative-leaning voters vote for the conservative, we win. Good luck. The stupid gene is what makes stupidity such a dominant trait.

  9. Marshall_Will on December 29th, 2011 3:56 pm

    Or put in place requirements much as would be the case for Residency etc. Great, you crossed Party lines with obstructive sabatoge in mind, tough t!tties. You're a Rep. until the NEXT election cycle!

    Of course that doesn't mean they won't execute exactly as you suggest but it will create a major hassle for them and they just 'might' think twice. When all else fails for Dimaprogs ( picking whom they'll run *against* is the only remaining arrow left in their quiver )

    Pathetic isn't it? That's what we need to keep hammering home! Just WHY do you have so many Defectors For a DAY!? Maybe you's f@ckers should look in your OWN backyard? And if you're so cocksure of your 'Party' shouldn't anyone you nominate suffice? And why o' WHY is Dick O'Drama such an 'imperative'? THINK about it, Dimaprogs…

  10. Marshall_Will on December 29th, 2011 4:21 pm

    OMG! Nanny Perfection!

    Never noticed this pre-loaded 'favorite' before. Bought this dinky Dell as a backup last year this time. Haven't used it much until the AVG-'anti' virus VIRUS struck! Anyway, the things you don't notice til you're stuck on hold? The drop down tab says "Websites for The United States". Check see if yours has it too!

    Also a Spanish language version. It'd be funny to see what "beautiful words" are being spoken to me? ( I'm neither Latina nor 'hawt' but virtually ANY sweet little nothings spoken in my ear ARE appreciated! ) Too creepy for words….

  11. Marshall_Will on December 29th, 2011 4:25 pm

    Holiday Tip of the Day: When the Holidays Aren't So Happy
    Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 8:00:00 AM
    The holidays can be challenging if you're dealing with depression or difficult memories. Use these strategies to help you find ways to feel better this season.

    Awww… had no idea Bammie 'cared' so much about me? Yes dipsh!t.., I'm 'depressed' during the holidays. You would be TOO if your arch enemy was in the WH ruling by Exec. Order and fiat!? Think Daniel Plainfield as pRez you a-hole.

  12. connie on December 29th, 2011 9:20 pm

    I agree with ya MW. The medical community is also to blame for the healthcare mess due to their fraud and misuse. There sure is plenty of blame to go around, but BHO sits atop them all!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.