Lots has been written about the effects and statistics surrounding Mitt Romney’s MassCare Health plan, also known as Romneycare. It has been compared with Obamacare. But very little has been devoted to actually looking at what the plan requires and what a bureaucracy it has created.
Mitt Romney once claimed that he had never suggested that MASSCare would reduce the cost of health care, but his own Boston Globe article showed that wasn’t so. It certainly didn’t lower costs as Romney promised. Bay-Staters and employers there still pay the highest premiums costs in the country. But is this just a free-market response to the bad economy of the last few years? No, and Romney can’t blame subsequent Democrats for the changes in the system since he left office, for all of the regulations and mandates below were in the original Romney plan or left unchanged by Romney.
But Massachusetts Health care hadn’t been about freedom for a long time:
“The 2006 reform built on Massachusetts’ expanded public programs and its highly regulated
insurance market. The state’s small group and individual insurance markets were already
subject to rate regulations that were designed to bring down premiums and provide greater
access to health coverage.”
“required all residents over the age of 18 to obtain health insurance by July 1, 2007.”
“The 2006 reform also requires employers to participate.”
“Insurers were required to submit plans with three different levels of cost-sharing.”
Which one of these parts of Romneycare encourages a free market?
The people who manage Romneycare like mandates and regulation, just like Romney does.
On July 1, 2007, the state merged the small group and individual insurance markets
in order to make coverage for individuals more affordable. Individuals who obtain
insurance only for themselves often have above-average medical costs, whereas small
groups share risk and attract people who have a full range of medical costs. Merging
these markets pools risk and lowers premiums for those with individual coverage.
In other words, the group that receives the greatest benefits, must pay lower premiums, which is the opposite of the law of supply and demand known as the free market.
For those who recognize the terms used to ration care (with death panels to follow?), Romneycare created a new bureaucratic state agency called innocuously, “a Quality and Cost Council. The council must set benchmarks for quality improvement and cost containment, collect data on health outcomes and health system spending from providers throughout the state’s health care system, and publish its findings on its Web site.” Among the goals are “population health management” which include taxing high-sugar foods and coercing restaurants into changing their menus. In spite of claims to the contrary, the program intends to impose on all doctors and hospitals such mandates/controls as this one: “reduced payments for avoidable hospitalizations and preventable readmissions.” Another socialist idea in Romneycare is the global payment model, where instead of paying for individual treatments, doctors get paid according to how their patients improve. Of course, this will be an incentive to drop patients who don’t show improvement.
The plan is full of bureaucrats who nothing about medicine but will be making medical decisions for the population of Massachusetts: “available comparative effectiveness information and analysis should be utilized to develop consensus recommendations for coverage and medical necessity policies”.
To respond to the 100-page PDF document linked to above would take a couple of hundred pages of commentary. Reading it is like reading something out of Animal Farm or 1984. It calls for every single detail of health care to be decided by “scientists” and cost-containment experts.
Another point for those who weren’t paying attention, and only paying more for insurance in Massachusetts, Romneycare even created a form of racial quotas:
“The reform also established a statewide Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Council to track disparities data and create Pay for Performance benchmarks.”
Apparently, the goal of REHDC is not to reduce actual incidents of diseases, but to narrow the disparities between Italians and Swedes, and even pay people to help the stats to match up.
There is another mandate mentioned by those who support Romneycare: The Reagan era requirement that emergency rooms treat any person who comes in. While this is a legitimate complaint about the current set-up, one cannot take two wrongs and make a right out of it. That law should not have been passed, but it could be removed or changed so that only true emergencies must be treated. Hospitals would have to weigh the risk of not treating someone who might sue, but otherwise could turn away people who refused to pay, when they are able.
Finally, there are those who claim that the previous system rewarded “freeloaders”, who could pay for their care, but didn’t. Because they weren’t insured, tax payers got stuck with the bill. But those freeloaders just got signed up for free or subsidized health treatment, and guess who still pays for their care? The taxpayers, of course. Massachusetts just added more freeloaders, on purpose.
The Romney experiment in health care reform was a failure. But free market economists did know or should have known it from the beginning. Because it was anything but a free-market system.
February 26th, 2011 at 10:54 am
Romney and Huckabee. What a choice.
You know you’re really wrong when Mike Huckabee can call you out. But that’s the situation Mitt Romney finds himself in, as Michael Cannon points out below. Huckabee says Romney’s government-run health care plan with an individual mandate is a bad idea, Romney says he’s still proud of his plan, which is totally different from President Obama’s government-run health care plan with an individual mandate. But really, what can he do? In 17 years of seeking high political office, he is known for two things: changing his position on a surprisingly large number of issues, and his Massachusetts health care program. Which was of course the forerunner of Obamacare, as Michael Cannon and I pointed out in the video that Michael linked. So Romney is still defending a position I think we’ve already refuted.
(…)
February 26th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Romney Van Winkle
In 2006, then-Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) fought for and enacted a health care law now known as RomneyCare — though the law is so nearly identical to ObamaCare that one could call it ObamaCare 1.0. Romney is seeking the GOP nomination for president in 2012. But since 84 percent of Republicans want ObamaCare repealed, the fact that he paved the way for ObamaCare is causing problems for Romney among the party faithful. The most recent manifestation came in the form of a tongue-lashing from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R), whose book criticizes Romney both for enacting RomneyCare and for refusing to admit it was mistake. In a recent interview, Huckabee said:
The position he should take is to say: “Look, the reason Obamacare won’t work is because we’ve tried it at the state level and we know it won’t work.”
Through a spokesman, Romney has — once again! — defended ObamaCare 1.0:
“Mitt Romney is proud of what he accomplished for Massachusetts in getting everyone covered,” Romney’s spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, told the Boston Globe, in the first direct response Team Mitt made to Huckabee’s criticism of the health plan in his new book.
Fehrnstrom added the usual stuff about how, even though Romney is proud of what RomneyCare/ObamaCare has done for Massachusetts, RomneyCare/ObamaCare may not be right for the entire nation. As David Boaz and I explain in this Cato video, to which Romney has lent enduring relevance, Romney can’t have it both ways:
(…)
It’s as if the guy has just awakened from a 20-year nap and doesn’t realize the world has changed.
February 26th, 2011 at 11:06 am
You play the game with loaded dice because you want a certain outcome, not because you are interested in the facts, and this is why Romney is in a much stronger position than you will allow. Here are some answers to your numbered challenge, and this is way too easy:
1. Because insurance is the last thin thread that ties medical costs to the free market, and you break that thread . . . which freeloaders do . . . and the burden falls on society. (Burden on society = socialized medicine)
2. If insurance represents the free market in medical costs, they have to cover all conditions, or the burden falls on society (see above)
3. Because a lower cost, catastrophe only plan leaves all other costs as a BURDEN TO SOCIETY!!! ARE YOU FOLLOWING THIS?!?!?
4. Because if you don’t, if insurance is a fig leaf, market forces aren’t in play for reducing costs and increasing efficiency, and you get the burden falling on society. (By the way, “even if you don’t want or need them” is an extremely immature understanding of the principle of insurance.)
5. Because insurance is the only tie we have between market forces and medical costs, and America long ago linked employment with insurance. If some employers do and some don’t, there are unfair advantages for those scamming out of the system, like having some pay taxes and some not because they opt out.
6. Those insurance companies who successfully navigate cost containment survive and those who can’t perish. Market forces with reasonable limits.
7. The poor are always with us. We don’t tell sick poor people to die in the streets. By including the poor in the system and extending to them the dignity of maintenance care, the hope is there will be long term savings as people access maintenance care instead of emergency care, but this is long term thinking and has to play out over time to see how it works.
This is where self-labeled, mislabeled conservatives drive me crazy. Short term thinking isn’t all that admirable, folks.
These answers are so obvious to any conservative who has paid any attention at all over even a short length of time and the only excuse for such flimsy logic has to be a hatred for Romney that drives out rationality.
I am opposed to abortion, but it is my observation the most rabidly anti-Romney contributors on this site are nearly universally and collectively focused on that one issue more than any other and will not forgive him his past on the issue.
That’s fine, it’s your choice, but you sure look feeble wtih the health care arguments that try to pass for reasoned conservative thinking.
Sorry, I just ate my oatmeal. I guess I need to stay away from the blog anytime I have oatmeal for at least two hours.
February 26th, 2011 at 11:07 am
What a shock! Another dishonest hit piece by a huckabee zombie!
If you want to talk about dearth panels how about huckabie and his clemencies. Five deaths and counting.
I knew as soon as I read the title who the autrhor was.
February 26th, 2011 at 11:21 am
It may be true that MassCare didn’t lower the cost of healthcare, but you provide no evidence to back it up. You say that MA still has the highest premiums, but that does not mean that costs haven’t declined. And then you quote an article that shows that premiums have increased in MA faster than the national average, but the article specifically states that the effect of MassCare is NOT being measured.
If you have a reference to back up your claim, please provide it.
February 26th, 2011 at 11:48 am
Yeah . . . we should REALLY trust Huckabee and his supporters to give us accurate info on RomneyCare, eh?
Shedlock writes a hit piece on Romney . . . guess Huck’s vindictive pettiness is contagious to his supporters.
Huckabee spends a good portion of his new book trashing RomneyCare, but does so in a very dishonest manner. After assailing RomneyCare’s aims and implementation, Huckabee claims: “You get one guess as to who now has the highest average health-insurance premiums in the country. Yep, it’s Massachusetts!” What he fails to mention is that Massachusetts already HAD the highest premiums BEFORE RomneyCare.
Similarly, Huckabee states in his book ”when the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation stepped into the lab to examine this experiment-in-progress, they found that health care, which was 16 percent of the state budget in 1990, had jumped to 35 percent in 2010.” Someone remind him that RomneyCare wasn’t even law until 2006! Quoting 20 years worth of increases (that have been happening in ALL states anyways) and blaming them on RomneyCare is beyond misleading. And quoting the Massachusettes Taxpayers Foundation (MTF) for that statistic?!?! The MTF said, in May 2009:
“Despite a public perception that the state’s landmark health care reform law has turned out to be unaffordable, a new analysis by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation finds that the cost to taxpayers of achieving near universal coverage has been relatively modest and well within initial projections.
This is the same MTF which said that “Health Law Costs Are Not The Problem” and called RomneyCare “A Great Success . . . with enourmous accomplishments”.
Additionally, Huckabee called RomneyCare “socialized medicine” . . . a term he has never used to describe ObamaCare. Hmmm . . .
Links to all that info here: http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/02/26/mitt-owning-romneycare-no-apology/
February 26th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Excellent article!
Let the Romneybots whine!
Romney = toast. 50/50 chance he will even run…and dropping
February 26th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Right on the money as usual, David
POLLSTER.COM FAVORABILITY ..as of Today
Huckabee …. 38.4% / 29.3% … +9.1
Obama …….. 51.2% / 42.3% … +8.9
Romney…. 35.5% / 34.8% .. +0.7 ..and dropping
Palin …….. 32.0% / 55.3% . -23.3
p://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/fav-huckabee_n_725761.html
February 26th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fav-romney_n_725770.html
February 26th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Romney’s a moderate.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Jeff Fuller, Bosman, etc. can write all the pro-RomneyCare articles they want. Mitt’s biggest problem is that his nuanced arguments can’t be neatly packaged in a 30 second ad or debate answer. To date, none of his explanations explain how his plan is different from ObamaCare, other than 1 state vs. 50. While that’s a valid argument, I don’t see that being enough to satisfy the masses. If he were to be fortunate to secure the nomination, ObamaCare would effectively be off the table. Many forget that, after passage, Romney called his plan a “model for the nation.”
February 26th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Two weeks ago, he said “he would do things differently.” Now, he’s proud of it. WTF…..
February 26th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
DeMint – out!
Pence – out!
Jeb – out!
Thune – out!
Christie – out!
Huckabee – out!
Romney 50/50
Gingrich – insane!
T-Paw and Daniels cause narcolepsy.
This thing could be over without firing a shot
February 26th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Hey, RWN: You seem pretty reasonable, unlike some here, so here is a question maybe you know the answer to, and I don’t: What percentage of our population is insured? Is that a smaller percent than last year? what is the trend line for people being insured? I believe that insurance is the only thread that connects free market principles with the payment for medical services. If that thread is getting thinner, then any conservative should be thinking long term and looking for ways to eatablish a firmer foundation for the insurance piece of the medical payment system.
Demographically, what is happening that might be a concern for the insurance healtcare payment piece? (Boomers retiring, fewer workers in the system per retiree, etc. What do these numbers suggest we might do over the long term to keep private insurance sustainable?
If you think the Party is really so dumb that only a cool 30 second sound bite to explain the nuanced issues involved in the medical care reform debate, maybe we deserve to lose anyways?
February 26th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
If you want the truth about Huckabee’s problem with Romney. It’s his religion – pure and simple. When Huck was a preacher with his own congregation, some Mormon missionaries converted a prominent family in the congregation. This was a family that had historically donated heavily to the church. I know this family personally. Huck went off on the family and screamed “Devil worshipers!” at them and all kinds of other things. This was on their front porch, in front of their young kids. The next Sunday at the church, he had an explosive sermon about the Mormons being “devils in sheeps’ clothing”
I have been urging this family to go public with their story for a few years now, but they are humble people who don’t want the attention. I actually had a reporter all set to go and interview them back in 2009, but they called and cancelled, not wanting to relive the whole ordeal. In their own words, they had donated upwards of $40,000 to Huch’s church over the years, and they felt so insulted by the way he treated them.
So, it’s all about religion with Huck. Their is deep hatred for the Mormons on his part.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
As a Mass. resident, this article is right on. Not being able to get a low-cost catastrophic plan is what has hurt me in the pocketbook the most.
But rather than get bogged-down in the details, what RomneyCare and his defense of the plan shows more than anything else is that he is another Bush-like big government Republican. Just look at how other northeast Republicans (like Snowe, Collins, Brown) make decisions and that is the type of Republican you’ll get with Gov. Romney.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Do things differently: tax incentives instead of mandates for the puny minds that swallow the camel and choke on the gnat’s eyebrow difference.
Proud of it: Over 98% insured and counting.
What magical thinking in the lower and duller regions of the Republican Party is there that sweeps away with such ease the relevant question of what to do with the uninsured in our country? Is Ron Paul’s way of thinking actually seeping into the marrow of our conservative bones? Just let ‘em croak? Is that really our answer?
And crucify anyone who dares to change the dynamic moving forward, even when leaning on principles developed in the most conservative circles of the Party.
I swear, this gets dumber and dumber every day.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
That is a very believable story, Greg.
I know many evangelicals who dismiss Romney out of hand for his religion.
They’ve said, “How can he get anything right if he can’t get religion right?”
There is a very strong anti-Mormon bias in some religious circles, especially among evangelicals.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
And Greg plays the religion card on cue out of desperation again.
Didn’t work in Iowa last time and won’t work again.
Mike Huckabee Arkansas Republican 40,841 … 34.41%
Mitt Romney Massachusetts Republican 29,949 … 25.23%
Fred Thompson Tennessee Republican 15,904 … 13.40%
John McCain Arizona Republican 15,559 … 13.11%
Ronald Paul Texas Republican 11,817 … 9.96%
Rudy Giuliani New York Republican 4,097 … 3.45%
Duncan Hunter California Republican 524 … 0.44%
Tom Tancredo Colorado Republican 5 … 0.00%
February 26th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
I think we have seen that Romney is a better leader and decision-maker than Snowe, Collin and Brown. He got rid of a huge budget deficit, and the sky-rocketing budget is our single largest problem, nationally.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I have never posted about Huck and religion before, Craig. I am not even Mormon, though my brother and his family are.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
20 Greg: But how is Romney going to get the media to talk about what he did to balance the state budget?
February 26th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
It’s obvious the solution is low cost catastrophic insurance coupled with a strong Health Savings Account Plan that can grow during a persons’ younger years when they don’t require much medical care.
This would lower up-front costs, make people aware of how much medical care was costing them and put the consumer in a posotion of power.
Our ‘third party’ payer system along with onerous government mandates (insurance companies MUST cover this and that, etc.) have been a disaster
February 26th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
watchintall, I appreciate your questions. While they have merit, the same arguments could be, and have been made by Obama and the Democrats when defending ObamaCare. THAT is Mitt’s underlying problem.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
I think Craig is mistaken, saying the ‘religion card’ didn’t play in Iowa.
It did play in Iowa, that’s part of the reason Huckabee won here.
60% of Iowa caucus voters self identify as evangelical Christians. They don’t care for Mormonism and see it as an anti-Christian cult.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Romney is a moderate all right,
what about Huckabee?
This liberal baptist preacher never had a harsh
word about Obamacare or anything else Obama does.
Never!Occasional mild remark about something,gays,
just to keep his cover.
February 24th, 2011
HUCKABEE PRAISES(my emf.) & criticizes Obama
By: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Washington (CNN) – If President Obama is looking for a conservative endorsement, he might find it from potential GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.
At the same time, the former Akansas governor is also quite critical of the president.
“It did, in fact, give me cause to celebrate that in my own lifetime I saw an African American elected to the presidency. I could have wished it to be a republican and now that we have been there and done that we can elect a Republican next year. But I genuinely felt a sense of great satisfaction of seeing in my life that moment come.”
But Huckabee also critized the president over Obama’s move Wednesday ordereding the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and woman”.
=====================================
The Rome is burning and the major difference
between Obama and Huckabee is gays and their
lifestyle.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Well, Romney has not been in the media very muchfor a while, but when he does, it will get attention. Our $13 trillion deficit will be the biggest theme of the next election. Personally, I don’t think any Republican can beat Obama if the economy continues its upward trend. It’s a tried and true pricipal – if the economy improves on your watch, you get re-elected.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
“It did, in fact, give me cause to celebrate that in my own lifetime I saw an African American elected to the presidency. I could have wished it to be a republican and now that we have been there and done that we can elect a Republican next year. But I genuinely felt a sense of great satisfaction of seeing in my life that moment come.”
===
TEX,
You have a problem with that?
February 26th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
As Sarah Palin has said many times, we need a “bottom up”, as opposed to a “top down” approach to fixing the system. It comes down to whether you believe government or the free market is better postioned to lower costs and make insurance more accessible. A prime example of this is her advocacy for medicare vouchers. Rather than let the government manage medicare, give them a check and let them buy their own private coverage. Is it a perfect solution? Perhaps not, but I imagime it would be more efficient and cost effective than what we have now.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
The Romney/Huckabee feud, while entertaining to watch, will have no influence on the election of 2012.
They are not even going to be in the game.
This is so obvious to anyone with their eyes open.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
TEX Says:
February 26th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
“..what about Huckabee? ..never had a harsh
word about Obamacare”
===
Wrong as most always lately, TEX.
Huckabee has been talking about the problems with ObamaCare/RomneyCare since day one, either on his daily 600 ABC radio stations or on his Fox News shows in front of millions.
Tune in some time.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
In addition, I don’t buy into laying blame at the feet of Gov. Patrick and the Dems who overrode the vetoes. Why didn’t Romney anticipate that an overwhelming Dem majority would pass a law of their choosing? In addition, he knew it was likely the The People’s Republic of Massachusetts would eventually elect a liberal Democrat, who would rework the bill to his liking. It happens every time more government control is given over the private sector.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
It won’t matter. Obama is going to win unless the economy goes back in the tank. Consumer confidence is on the rise, and we are expected to see a strong gain in jobs this and next year. The U.S citizens will not want to rock the boat if things are improving
February 26th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Craig, In the days and weeks after the passage of ObamaCare, Huckabee advocated for a “partial repeal” of he bill. I watched as he told Sean Hannity that “there are some good things in there.”
February 26th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
TEX,
You have a problem with that?
=====================================
Not at all,except he talks like guilt ridden liberal.
I really think he voted for Obama in 2008.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Greg,
You give up waaaaay too easily. The economy IS in the tank.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Mike Huckabee endorses drive to Repeal It Now!
“The most massive petition drive this nation has seen.” – Huckabee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17hwDVymJhU
February 26th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Craig
“Wrong as most always lately, TEX.
Huckabee has been talking about the problems with ObamaCare/RomneyCare since day one, either on his daily 600 ABC radio stations or on his Fox News shows in front of millions”.
=============================================
Well,then it’s easy for you to show us the link.
You spam this site constantly with meaningless
numbers,show us for once something that counts:
Tough criticism of Obamacare and the rest of his
socialist policies.
Sarah Palin has been leading the charge against
Obamacare and forced Chicago thugs in White House
to change the certain things(“death panels”)in
Obamacare not once but two times.
Show us what Huckabee has done,besides praising
Obama every time he mentions his name.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
When the health care bill is repealed and replaced, the Dems that survive reelection may get a few (if they compromised) items put in the new bill from the old one. That’s how open government works.
But 95+% of what they threw into ObamaCare is staying out of the new bill that we’ll pass right after we take over all three branches of government in 2012!
!
February 26th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
What else would you expect from those who have railed against the whole idea of health insurance?
Of course a front-page hit piece seems to represent a serious drop in quality on this site, but lets make a few things clear:
1) Our willingness to pay high prices for medical care is exactly what has afforded the United States top-rate hospitals and doctors.
2) Without significant insurance, most people would not be able to afford even routine medical care, yet measures that would significantly drop the quality of medical care available.
3) If you want to complain about rationing, death panels, etc. – then you need to look at people like Governor Mitch Daniels, who have made cracking down on “overconsumption” a main point in their proposals.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
“In addition, I don’t buy into laying blame at the feet of Gov. Patrick and the Dems who overrode the vetoes. Why didn’t Romney anticipate that an overwhelming Dem majority would pass a law of their choosing? In addition, he knew it was likely the The People’s Republic of Massachusetts would eventually elect a liberal Democrat, who would rework the bill to his liking. It happens every time more government control is given over the private sector.”
Because those were excuses for inaction – and the fact that the population may make stupid decisions later, to their own detriment, is not a sufficient reason to do nothing about the present problems.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
I tried to listen to Mitch Daniels and cracked my forehead on my desk when I passed out from boredom…
The guy is a human cure for insomnia.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Tex, you lazy dude..
You’ll get 88,600 results in 0.14 seconds when you simply google three words: huckabee obamacare youtube
Google is your friend. I’ve heard they have it in France, too.
Huckabee’s Powerful Speech Against ObamaCare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIoPvdrEaXA
February 26th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Huckabee: The Obamacare ‘Frankenstein Should Never Have Left the Lab’ Feb 24, 2011 … Facebook, YouTube Transformed the Middle East. Timmerman … As for Obamacare and whether it should be killed, Huckabee declares: “It needs …
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/huckabee-health-care…/387342 – Cached
February 26th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
LOL!!!
In the second paragraph, David attempts to refute Romney’s plan on the basis of statements by “his own Boston Globe”…..the SAME Boston Globe that’s been trying to end Mitt’s Career since 1994. Everything the Globe has ever objected to concerning MassCare is phony. They PRAISE ObamaCare on a regular basis and the only time they ever criticize MassCare is when they’re trying to bring down Mitt.
One thing’s for sure, they’ve never criticized their beloved President for his attempts to increase the number of insured Americans.
There are dozens of differences between the two plans, but the biggest difference is that of intent. Romney’s intention was to SAVE the private health insurance industry while increasing the numbers of those covered by it, and in Massachusetts, there’s a good case to be made that he succeeded. Obama’s intent was to shift things to a single-payer Socialist system…..and one of the most cogent criticisms of his plan is that it would put private insurers out of business within a few years.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Craig, what’s your thinking on why Huckabee has such a hard time raising money?
I mean, for a guy who seemingly polls so well, and, according to you, is vastly popular and has the best chance of defeating Obama, he cannot raise any money.
I just don’t get it.
Do you have some insight on this? I know he performed well on a shoestring last time, basically spreading his message through evangelical church meetings and home school organizations.
If he wins the nomination, will he tour the nation in a series of tent revival meetings?
February 26th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
46.
Ask me after he wins Iowa and South Carolina also this time while Palin does Dancing With The Stars.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
..or a season two reality tv show. “Cooking in Alaska” perhaps.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
How ’bout “The Joys of Snow Machining in Anchorage”.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
I’d rather have a campaign money problem than a voters can’t stand you problem in Iowa, South Carolina, and beyond….
February 26th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Geez Craig,
This is campaign stump speech.
He talks about Pelosi,Reid,Nelson,
how bad Washington is.
He NEVER mentioned Obama’s name.NOT ONCE.
We need a link when Huckster goes after Obama,
not after Dingy Harry.
After Obama,Craig.Get it?!
February 26th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
So what is the libertarian proposal to expand healthcare in this country at the same level of quality currently enjoyed?
Answer: there isn’t one. I might once have said the only thing they want to do is make insurance cheaper for those who can already afford it, but with the jihad against third-party-payer systems, and the insistance against “overconsumption”, and the promise to bring Americans “face to face” with the “real costs” of their care, I’m not really sure what they want anymore.
Libertarians are not more interested in making medicine more affordable than they claim plans like Romneycare do.
February 26th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Actually, since you didn’t address my question about his poor financial situation…perhaps we could offer some advice.
“Mike Huckabee’s Arkansas” would surely be a ratings hit on The Comedy Channel.
They could have segments on “Frying squirrels in a popcorn popper” and “The proper way to tortue and sexually mutilate a dog” just for starters.
Of course “Roadside etiquette after causing an accident” would surly be a crowd pleaser.
Along with a cautionary ‘Be careful who You Let out of Jail.” educational documentary episode.
Man, I could plan out a whole season.
February 26th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
52. Matthew,
I laid it out in # .23
Try to keep up…
February 26th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
and what happens when the Health Savings Accounts run dry? What happens for those too poor to afford to build substantial health savings acocunts?
We can require hospitals to publish bulletins listing the cost of care, to have frank (though not pressuring) discussions about the chances for success of each procedure.
But you seem to prefer we simply plug a little “cost counter” next to the bed of each ICU patient…
February 26th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Yeah,the liberal baptist preacher from Arkansas
is so liked by his tent revival crowd that he’s
constantly and permanently broke.
Craig,think of massive response and flood of money
when the time comes and Sarahcuda ask for help.
Tens and hundreds of millions of dollars,flood of
money like broken dam.
February 26th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Matt, there would still be a safety net…as Jesus said the poor will always be with us.
But by giving consumers more responsibility in purchasing their health care, market forces can be brought back into the equation.
In a free market, goods and services are plentiful and inexpensive. Always.
We need to get back to that. In the 1940′s and 50′s, health care was affordable by all. Going to the doctor wasn’t a life altering financial like it can be today.
A forced savings plan would never ‘run dry’ if coupled with a catastrophic insurance plan, so that most young people would have a huge nest egg for health care costs as they get older, and if a young person came down with a serious medical situation, the catastrophic coverage would cover it.
February 26th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Ha,ha,ha….
Teledude,you sure have creative mind.
Comedy channel:
“Adventures of Arkansas Hillbillies”.
I’ll pay good money to see it.
February 26th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Matthew, There are a lot of things that can be done. I’m sure you’re aware of these, but here’s a refresher…
Portablility
Medicare vouchers
Malpractice reform
Health savings accounts
Allowing purchase across state lines
Giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers
I’m sure I missed a few, but these would certainly lower costs and increase access. None of them involve giving more power to future administrations to shape policy to their liking.
February 26th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
” In the 1940?s and 50?s, health care was affordable by all”
In the 1940s and 1950s:
- What was the survival rates for heart attacks, strokes?
- What treatments were available for cancer, etc?
- What was the quality of primary care?
- How many conditions were simply untreatable?
One of the things I think Libertarians sometimes forget is that it is not just cost that has gone up: the quality of medical care has increased several-fold. The list of conditions that are treatable, the metods of treatment available, and our capacity to detect, treat, and conquer disease and even natural health decay are all far ahead of where they were several deacdes ago – in large part because of the substantial profit motive available to medical companies, thanks to our insurance system.
Your proposals might walk back that progress – which is why I have suggested that, if Daniels was elected and able to fully implement his vision, he could be the first President to oversee a decrease in the average lifespan.
February 26th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Here are the benefits of what Romney did with Health Care according to the very left wing (at least in David Shedlock’s Mind) Heritage Foundation:
While Massachusetts has had a long tradition of heavy health care regulation, former Governor Romney was able to secure greater flexibility for the state’s market. Five reforms were key:
Allowing insurers more flexibility to develop value-driven, tiered networks of health care providers;
Allowing insurers to offer products with higher annual deductibles and co-payments;
Allowing HMOs to offer health savings accounts (HSAs);
Creating a new class of more affordable health insurance products for persons ages 19 to 26 with dollar-limited annual benefits; and
Imposing a three-year moratorium on the imposition of new health benefit mandates.[7]
Thanks David for a balanced article highlighting the free market items in the plan. Also, thanks for clarifying that the Pre-existing condition requirement became the law of the land in Mass in 1996.
Obviously, you would have gotten all of the above information on Romneycare from David’s post if you just could somehow read between the lines.
Here is the link to Heritage’s post: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/04/the-massachusetts-health-plan-an-update-and-lessons-for-other-states
February 26th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Portability and
Purchase across state line
alone would revolutionize Health Care.
February 26th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
David – exactly which of the above item’s in post #61 do you disagree with?
Obviously, these were not important to put in your article because there obviously could have been nothing conservative about Romney’s health plan. Only goofy left-wing organization’s like Heritage could have been duped into supporting this right?
February 26th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Boy, look what Heritage says about Romneycare – looks exactly like Obamacare -
1. Three year moratorium on new mandates
2. Health savings accounts
3. greater flexibility in heath plan regs
4. allowance of higher deductible plans (less regulation)
5. new class of affordable plans aimed at the young.
Wow, I wonder how I missed the obvious similarity.
February 26th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
.60 wrong Matthew.
Look at what the free market has done with consumer technology. Prices continually drop while we are blessed with a never ending cornucopia of innovations and improvements and new products.
My $200 netbook is 100 times more powerful than my $1500 IBM desktop I purchased in the late 80′s.
Market forces are like magic. They work. Our health care disaster is caused 100% because we have gone away from market principles. This is self evident. It matters not that technology has advanced and we have better success now, it is still too needlessly expensive.
You cannot lower costs by rationing care or dictating price controls.
This is elementary stuff.
February 26th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Boy, I must not be getting this! Oh look Obama’s plan has an individual mandate in it and so does Romney’s – that must mean they are the same.
Also, Obama would never have pushed for a top heavy gov’t takeover of healthcare without Romney doing something on health care first.
The Democrats, of course, are not the party that has had a plank in their platform pushing for heavy regulation and massive intervention into healthcare for the last 75 years or so.
It’s only because this Romney guy came along, sure…
February 26th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Whenever the details see the light of day, Mitt’s foray into healthcare becomes an asset. Has there EVER been an issue more consistently demagogued before any candidates have even announced?
I’m thinking of putting together a file folder on the subject. It will be really thick. That way, whenever the topic is raised, we will be treated with the same facts and figures ad infinitum ad nauseum…..until even the most learning curve challenged RDS sufferers get it.
February 26th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Why is it that Huckabee’s legions of fans are always attacking Romney? In the words of Romney King, can’t we all just get along?
America faces a monumnetal crisis which is rapidly deteriorating under Obama. All Republicans need to be united in our quest to oust him from office. There will be a series primaries where we will have the opportunity to consider the merits of each candidate for the nomination. They all have strengths and weeknesses. Ceritanly Romney has drawbacks but so does Huckabee. Let’s consider each of them from the standpoint of who is best equipped to beat Obama and save our land. The petty fighting and insults really aren’t helpful to the cause. They create an atmosphere where we become so polarized that Romney supporters would stay at home should Huck get the nod and Huckabee supporters would likewise refuse participation should Romney win the prize. We that climate develops, we are certian to get four more years of Obama which is the one thing both sides agree they don’t want.
Can we please be a bit more civil and end the cannabalizing.
February 26th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Ci2Eye Says:
February 26th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
“Why is it that Huckabee’s legions of fans are always attacking Romney?”
===
Or vice versa. Each side could ask that question. And since Romney has more harcore legionaires at Race than Huck, it’s Mike therefore, who gets hit even more, imo.
And then you have the Palinites, who don’t so muck attack but whine incessantly about their perfect gal who polls at the very bottom. And all other potential candidates are mere RINOS who had better step aside for the Sarahcuda or………
they’ll whine some more.
February 26th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
*hardcore legionnaires
February 26th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
69. but if only “mike” had a plan…. and implemented it in Arkansas whilst he was gov.
February 26th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
If you end insurance for basic care, and the cost of going to the doctor for a cold costs $200, people are going to stay home, stay sick, and get more people sick.
That is the exact opposite of advancement in Healthcare.
February 26th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Craig for Huck,
I disagree. All I have read this morning here are attacks on Romney. Dr. Jeff Fuller posted his thoughts on why Romney would be a good candidate and the Massachusetts healthcare program is not a liability. It was positive about his guy. It was met with non-stop negative attacks by Adam X and other Huck fans. Mr. Shedlock here elects to create a Romney hit-piece. Instead, I think his energy would be better spent to write something positive about Mike. If healthcare is the subject, tell us what the Governor of Arkansas did on that subject. I’m sure Arkansas has the same problem as Massachusetts where people (primarily illegals) use emergency rooms for free healthcare so how did Huckabee address that? How are his ideas superior?
I haven’t seen the so-called Rom-bots on an equavilent rampage against Mr. Huckabee. Perhaps it has happened but if so, it serves no useful purpose. I would suggest that Huck’s Army might consider what Jesus himself would do. I doubt he’d be hurling attacks at his fellow man.
February 26th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Well, I tried to respond to this piece, but my comments were not allowed. So I posted a response to Shedlock at my blog
http://www.thecrossculturalist.com/2011/02/no-mitt-romney-is-not-socialist.html
February 26th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
I think that my favorite part of this post is how Shedlock equates cost-saving mechanisms with socialism. It is really quite a compliment to Marx and the legions of various socialists that have carried his basic thoughts into the 21st Century.
February 26th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Pablo – did you include links in your response?
What I find amazing is that the same people who worship Republicans for proposing Merit pay for teachers – who are arguably given the product of their parent’s own problems, are apparently raising hell about an element of the plan which pays doctors based on results.
In the end – the Libertarian opposition to Romney will always be the same: he told people that the HAD to do something, and no matter how much they talk, libertarians will be like perpetual children, throwing a tantrum when told they have to do something they don’t want to do – even when it could be the most responsible action they could possibly take.
——
It is all very good to talk about a cost-centered approach, about “overconsumption”, and what have you…but the purpose of our healthcare system is to keep people well, and, ultimately, keep people alive – and all this talk about how we are overmedicated, overtreated, overdiagnosed, overtested – it goes against the very purpose of the system.
February 26th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Attacking RomneyCare is off limits, Ci2-eye?
Wow, you better not watch the debates then.
It’ll be a full force gale against RomneyCare/ObamaCare.
February 26th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Matthew, if you end third party payer for simple things like check ups and basic care, the costs of those things will come down dramatically.
I’m not throwing a tantrum. I do understand the effects of market forces on pricing.
The current system forces insurance companies to cover so many things they shouldn’t and that drives the cost of everything up. It would be like turning in every oil change to your auto insurance…eventually oil changes would cost $100 and your auto insurance would go through the roof.
Mandating a third party payer system does not address the issues causing the high inflation of health care costs and insurance costs. As has been proven in Massachusetts.
February 26th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Poor form David. I thought you were better than this. If your man runs he will be spanked by Mittens. Deal with it.
February 26th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
“Matthew, if you end third party payer for simple things like check ups and basic care, the costs of those things will come down dramatically.
The current system forces insurance companies to cover so many things they shouldn’t and that drives the cost of everything up. It would be like turning in every oil change to your auto insurance…eventually oil changes would cost $100 and your auto insurance would go through the roof.”
….and so you’re going to dramatically drop the price of something, through forcing docts to charge less just as much as anything Romneycare does, without decreasing the quality?
Getting rid of third-party payer would do very little – if anything at all – to decrease the cost of providing the care, but it would almost certainly decrease what was available…for one thing, how many primary care doctors do you think there will be if we continue to expect them to go through all of med school, but drastically decrease what they make?
I thought you understood the market?
February 26th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
I do understand the market, and your response shows you have no clue.
Matthew, c’mon, man…
No where did I say ‘force docs to charge less.’
There is no ‘force’ in a free market. That’s the ‘free’ part…free to let prices go to their natural level. Of course prices won’t adjust over night.
You need an education, you’re NOT helping Romney with this nonsense.
You should also keep an open mind about some of the other candidates, because Romney is no longer the establishments choice, and that was really all he had going for him.
It’s 50/50 if he’ll even run now.
February 26th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
“No where did I say ‘force docs to charge less.’”
Because when you deprive the healthcare system of the third-party-payer system, you put the current cost schedule out of reach of most people. Doctors will be forced to charge less – yes, it will be the “market” doing the forcing. Of course, by eliminating broad-range healthcare, you are interfering in the market as much as anyone – it just happens to suit your extreme libertarianism better.
If you decrease the price, you push down the supply. If you decrease profit, you decrease innovation.
You cannot possibly promise anyone that we could get rid of the third party payer system without a substantial decrease in the availability of top-rate primary care.
February 26th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Ted Kennedy <3 Romneycare.
End of story.
February 26th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Matthew, you are one very confused individual.
You should go back and read my last post very carefully. I’m trying to help you.
I’ll say this, if you’re not in Iowa or New Hampshire, or possibly South Carolina, you won’t have a chance to vote for Romney.
He’s toast.
February 26th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
right, ………. (edited for taste) keep your hands off the medical care keeping Americans alive, thank you very much.
February 26th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Even if Mr. Romney does not get the nomination, I have still learned and admired how he has responded to attacks. Again I will say I appreciate Mike Huckabee’s support for life; But when some of his supporters attack Mr. Romney with cheap shots and then in the same thread come back and condem all suporters of mr. Romney as the perpetators It reflects quite corretly the man they proxy for.
Zeek
February 26th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Sorry for the miss-spellings (86#)…I guess it shows my decreasing interest in all of fighting among the four or five people.
zeek
February 26th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Zeek: I seem to have noticed, going back to the 2007-2008 primaries, every candidate would take a cheap shot at Mitt, and he would usually responded by smiling and complementing them. It continues today with Huckabee. Mittens need to attack fellow Republicans for Romney, since he won’t.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
“every candidate would take a cheap shot at Mitt, and he would usually responded by smiling and complementing them.”
All the while having his lackeys do the dirty work for him so he can claim he is above the fray. Don’t pretend your candidate is some kind of saint, he is the one who when low to began with when he fired attack ads at Huck and McCain when he found himself losing to them in Iowa and New Hampshire. He was the first candidate to do so.
Mitt Romney sowed the wind, he reaped the whirlwind.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Stephen Hall,
My opinion is that Romney should not have run the so-called contrast ads or as you characterize them, attack ads against Huckabee in Iowa. They created the impression of a David v. Goliath battle with the essentially money-less Huckabee unable to respond while multi-millonaire Mitt had no limit to his resources. My personal opinion is also that those ads cost Romney Iowa and thus, perhaps the nomination. I think Huckabee capitalized on the ads and played the victim role beautifully causing the evangelicals to flock to his side.
Having said all that, I hardly think they justify Huckabee’s continued petty comments about Romney. In his latest book and in the one entitled Do the Right Thing, Huckabee has made it a habit to lobbying insults at Romney. His fans follow his lead and post even stronger insults. I have never heard Romney say anything negative about Mike. In fact, after the murders of the four police officers in Washington, interviewers tried to get Romney to be negative but he didn’t take the bait. He refuses to be negative about Sarah Palin too.
I would like to see Huckabee and his fans try not to be so divisive. We are all in this together. We have the same goal of defeating Obama and in the long run we will all be better off if we don’t develop a hatred towards any of the candidates because one of them will win and when that happens, we will need everyone to come together.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
In other news, sources here in Atlanta are reporting that Newt will be in the city 10 days from now to announce the formation of an exploratory committee. I would expect that once someone like Newt makes an announcement, the field will begin to officially develop. We are likely only weeks away from the official start of the race42012. May the best man win.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
oh shed, shed, shed….you got it bad dontcha. RDS—Romney derangement syndrome.
February 26th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
“In fact, after the murders of the four police officers in Washington, interviewers tried to get Romney to be negative but he didn’t take the bait.”
Like I said, why be negative when you can get your lackeys to do so for you ?
February 26th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
As somebody who has an actual business degree, thus has an actual education involving economics, and as a person who will be going to medical school next year, I find it deplorable the way health care is being treated as a political game. I’m fairly familiar with the changes Romney supported and what changes actually took place when Commonwealth care was instituted. Distorting those things to harm one politician without regard to how this will affect the health care debate is irresponsible and probably immoral. Now maybe a lot of people are just repeating things they’ve heard or read from others who are the real problem, but a lack of knowledge doesn’t justify these mischaracterizations.
The easiest way to identify if somebody is ignorant, uneducated, or deceptive on this subject is to look and see if they use the fact that Mass pays the highest premiums nationwide. Mass has a high cost of living, and high incomes, so a dollar to dollar comparison means almost nothing. If somebody makes that claim without saying how much Mass residents pay per median income (lowest in the nation) then they are just ignorant about that central fact, uneducated about economics, or just trying to be deceptive.
February 26th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
As one of Mitt’s “lackeys” who frequently criticize the Huckster for his statist governance of Arkansas and for being snidely duplicitous in general, I feel I have an obligation to point out that I have NEVER accused him of Devil Worship.
That would make me feel morally unclean.
February 26th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
95.Dave Says:
February 26th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
“That would make me feel morally unclean.
====
Among those who say social issues and moral values are most important issues
•Mike Huckabee 28%
•Sarah Palin 19%
•Mitt Romney 7%
•Newt Gingrich 6%
Among those who say government spending and power are most important issues
•Mike Huckabee 18%
•Mitt Romney 17%
•Newt Gingrich 13%
•Sarah Palin 11%
Survey of 1,326 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was conducted February 18-20, 2011.
February 27th, 2011 at 2:19 am
Response to Watchinitall (#3)
1. Massachusetts increased the burden to its citizens. Insurance, regulated by states, is a move away from markets.
2. How silly to think that insurance should cover all costs! Why should I pay a third party to pay for a $75 visit when it would be cheaper to pay myself and remove the middle man.
3. People who pay for catastrophic insurance pay for the cheap stuff themselves. We are not idiots and don’t want to be slaves.
I am not going to respond to the rest of your points. You have not once suggested that your ideas are free-market. You have simply justified them because you are looking for a perfect, government-controlled system, where, as I have pointed out, the councils decide every last detail of our health and our lives.
February 27th, 2011 at 2:33 am
…some Mormon missionaries converted a prominent family in the congregation…
If you can prove any of this, put it up, otherwise I have to think you are making the whole thing up.
February 27th, 2011 at 2:42 am
“2) Without significant insurance, most people would not be able to afford even routine medical care, yet measures that would significantly drop the quality of medical care available”
Insurance runs between $6000 and $12,000 or more per year. You can’t get routine medical care with that much money?
February 27th, 2011 at 2:44 am
“who have made cracking down on “overconsumption” a main point in their proposals”
You didn’t follow the link to Romney’s cost containment panel did you? The whole premise of almost a hundred pages is that MA citizens overconsume health care. What do you say to that hot shot?
February 27th, 2011 at 2:52 am
“Everything the Globe has ever objected to concerning MassCare is phony.”
Heee, Heee, Haaa, Haaa, Haaa!
I was talking about Romney’s own Op-Ed piece where he said it would reduce costs. I guess you can’t believe anything published in the Globe.
February 27th, 2011 at 3:08 am
“Allowing insurers more flexibility to develop value-driven, tiered networks of health care providers;”
If you will explain what that means and give me links to the actual laws/policies in the 2006 Act that did this, I would be glad to remember to include this in any future articles. None of this was listed in the official explanation of the Health Care Plan on the official websites. Everything I posted came from directly from official documents, not opinion pieces, speeches or promotional items or news stories.
“Allowing insurers to offer products with higher annual deductibles and co-payments;”
While simultaneously limiting yearly and lifetime caps, and limiting premium rates. Also increasing the number of required coverages is not free-market.
“Allowing HMOs to offer health savings accounts (HSAs);”
Meaningless if insurance is required of everybody, and catastrophic insurance is not available. Insurance pays for everything except deductible, but you just bragged that they could offer higher co-payments and deductibles. Without the freedom to buy and sell as you want these changes are cosmetic only. It is like saying that we now give grocery stores the option of offering six kinds of cereal, while telling them the ingredients that must be in each kind!
February 27th, 2011 at 3:11 am
Looked at who wrote this “article” and didn’t even waste the time to read it…
The Huckabites will just have to wait until the campaign to see how this plays out.
First they were screaming, “He’s a Mormon,” then it was “He’s a flip-flopper,” now it’s “He is Mr. RomneyCare, the mastermind behind “ObamaCare.”
OK, OK, yuda, yuda…
Mr. Huckabee and his cronies are just playing to the same loyal gang of alligators but the rest of the voters will see through it…
February 27th, 2011 at 3:24 am
“the cost of going to the doctor for a cold costs $200″
It already is $200. You just don’t see it because you only paid $25 directly. The other $175 you paid for either in premiums or lowered salary because your boss paid so much out for insurance. Not to mention the paperwork and costs of another handler. If you had paid for the visit there would be no middle man, thereby reducing costs.
February 27th, 2011 at 3:54 am
Jerald, only a fool speaks before he listens. You responded to a post you didn’t read. I sometimes ignore posts or comments when I think they are a waste of time, but I would never think of responding to them.
February 27th, 2011 at 7:04 am
David, actually, only a fool gets burned repeatedly by the same thing.
I know you are a good-intentioned died-hard Huckabee supporter, which is OK, but none of your stuff has passed my fair and balanced smell test (well actually some has, but not related to Mitt).
And you are right…..I should not have wasted my time responding either…
February 27th, 2011 at 10:09 am
90# Ci2eye. As a Romney supporter (Unless someone better comes along.) I think your evaluation of both Romney’s and Huckabee’s actions are objective and correct. Thanks for the brevity and non emotional observation! we need to proclaim the goodness of our own candidate while avoiding intense damage to all others.
Zeek (an accused “lackey”)
April 23rd, 2011 at 5:36 am
hello, it’s a great post, how can i follow you on the Tweeter?
November 12th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Woah this weblog is wonderful i really like studying your posts. Stay up the good paintings! You realize, many persons are looking round for this information, you can help them greatly.