Does it matter if a so-called “conservative” presidential candidate believes, and practices, “big government” liberalism on a state level? Do we believe that a governor, who may have worked to implement “big government” mandates and policies in his state, and excused them as “states’ rights,” will later be able to rein himself in and become a small government proponent and leader in Washington?

Frankly, I don’t see a heck of a lot of difference between the approaches taken by both Mitt Romney and Rick Perry when it comes to their respective “hot seat” issues, namely, mandated health insurance, for Romney, and immigration and mandated vaccines, for Perry.

In Tuesday night’s debate, when Perry challenged Romney on the Romneycare issue, Romney responded rather defensively- moreso than at any other time- that he wanted to insure all the children in his state because he cares. He attempted to contrast his caring with, in his view, Perry’s “lack of caring,” with figures reflecting the many children in Texas who are uninsured.

Romney also asserted, as he now often does in his defense of his signature healthcare legislation, that Romneycare was the right decision for his state, a decision to which his state was entitled to make, while Obamacare was a bad decision for the country. Surprisingly, there was no mention, during the debate, of the news that President Obama apparently consulted with Gov. Romney’s staff to obtain ideas for the implementation of Obamacare. Nevertheless, it sounds like Romney wants us to believe that caring is a good reason to support a “big government” mandate, albeit on a state level.

(more…)

With much of the health care reform debate still focused on the wisdom of including a government-run, “public” health insurance “option,” too many of us are neglecting a far more insidious feature of the Democratic proposals:  the mandatory purchase requirement.  Under each of the bills moving through Congress, every person living in the United States would be required by law to have health insurance.  And, if your employer doesn’t provide you with it, you’ve got to buy it yourself or pay a monetary penalty.

What’s more, the proposals would make it more difficult to get some of the options that are available now — particularly the low-cost insurance plans that cover only catastrophic health events and have substantial cost-sharing features.  And, depending on which bill would eventually be enacted into law, Congress, state insurance commissioners, and/or a federal Health Choices Commissioner would get to dictate what benefits have to be covered in every policy, and would be empowered to determine whether any given plan even qualifies as health insurance.  The end result will be considerably higher costs for almost every person living in the country.

(more…)