Reading Ann Coulter’s article, I think one reason that it doesn’t satisfy – and that we’re still circling around the issue – is that while the economics of the individual mandate were being hashed out in the Hilarycare era, its unconstitutionality was only put forward in the Obamacare era.
Reading the literature of the time, the writing of Mr. Ferrara, Dr. Goodman, Ms. Turner (then using her maiden name of Arnett, I believe), and others who did not agree with Mr. Buter’s conclusions were focused on the economics of the policy. The libertarian and conservative constitutional lawyers did not figure out their angle until the current reform.
Because we’ve been successful in litigation (so far, fingers crossed), much of the public discussion has been around the constitutionality of the mandate. As both Coulter and Ferrara concede, there is little doubt that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can impose an individual mandate.
But that does not change the fact that it has increased taxes and health spending in Massachusetts, and led to problems in access to care.
The challenge will be, after SCOTUS decides whether the individual mandate is constitutional, to refocus the discussion on the economics of the question.
One of the factors never mentioned in the “federalism argument” is that the Common Wealth of Massachusetts uses national(federal) money to bolster their failing system. Medicaid dollars, medicare dollars, etc.
I’m all for more federalism, but let us be honest that this experiment Romneycare is NOT federalism. Let Mass. go cold turkey. No taxes to DC for medicare/medicaid and no money from DC. Let’s see what happens with their “system”.
I’d advise getting out of the way of all the moving vans going out of the Commonwealth.
It’s good to see all the conservatives airing it out on this issue. It will come out again in Sept-Oct.
Intriguing.
Sounds like a big mess within the conservative ranks.
I think that the Heritage Foundation is completely wrong here. It was a big mistake.
Three cheers for John Goodman and Peter Ferrara.
Reading Ann Coulter’s article, I think one reason that it doesn’t satisfy – and that we’re still circling around the issue – is that while the economics of the individual mandate were being hashed out in the Hilarycare era, its unconstitutionality was only put forward in the Obamacare era.
Reading the literature of the time, the writing of Mr. Ferrara, Dr. Goodman, Ms. Turner (then using her maiden name of Arnett, I believe), and others who did not agree with Mr. Buter’s conclusions were focused on the economics of the policy. The libertarian and conservative constitutional lawyers did not figure out their angle until the current reform.
Because we’ve been successful in litigation (so far, fingers crossed), much of the public discussion has been around the constitutionality of the mandate. As both Coulter and Ferrara concede, there is little doubt that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can impose an individual mandate.
But that does not change the fact that it has increased taxes and health spending in Massachusetts, and led to problems in access to care.
The challenge will be, after SCOTUS decides whether the individual mandate is constitutional, to refocus the discussion on the economics of the question.
One of the factors never mentioned in the “federalism argument” is that the Common Wealth of Massachusetts uses national(federal) money to bolster their failing system. Medicaid dollars, medicare dollars, etc.
I’m all for more federalism, but let us be honest that this experiment Romneycare is NOT federalism. Let Mass. go cold turkey. No taxes to DC for medicare/medicaid and no money from DC. Let’s see what happens with their “system”.
I’d advise getting out of the way of all the moving vans going out of the Commonwealth.
Romneycare is a bust and so will be Obamacare.