Obamacare vs Romneycare

Just to be clear from the start: I don’t like Romneycare.  I think any time a government thinks it knows better how I should allocate my resources and my priorities than I do, it’s making a grave mistake.  Against that background, I want to look at the “debate” over Obamacare and Romneycare.

Here’s President Obama:

[W]hen you hear all these folks saying, oh, no, no, this is a tax, this is a burden on middle-class families, let me tell you, we know because the guy I’m running against tried this in Massachusetts and it’s working just fine.

Except that it’s not working that well, as President Obama surely knows, since of course he looked into the matter before he began pontificating on it.  Between half and two-thirds of those uninsured before the plan was implemented remain so—not quite universal coverage.  And this failure stems from the same thing that makes Obamacare a failure: it’s cheaper to pay the penalty in MA than it is to get health insurance.  Furthermore, as recently as 2011, National Review Online was reporting that Massachusetts still has the highest health costs in the US.  Mandates and subsidies—here for folks required to buy insurance but can’t afford it—just don’t work, whether implemented by Republicans or Democrats.

Against that baseline, there are major differences between the two programs.

President Obama has inflicted a trillion dollars in tax increases over Obamacare’s first 10 years to cover its cost.  Romneycare didn’t raise taxes at all.

Stan Dorn, of the Urban Institute, claims that Romney got Federal financial help in the form of Federal Medicaid money.  This is disingenuous, though.  Romneycare simply diverted Federal Medicaid funding it already was getting from its originally targeted hospitals (vis., to pay unpaid bills) to subsidies to individuals with which to buy their own policies.  As Josh Archambault, of the Boston-based Pioneer Institute, put it

Affordable insurance on their own.  The federal approach simply put them on the public rolls….

There’s another difference that both candidates are ignoring, and that difference centers on the 10th Amendment.  What one state does for its own citizens, for good or ill, is not a valid reason for the Federal government mandating or proscribing that same thing for all states and all Americans.  Each state, under the 10th Amendment, is free to makes its own decision concerning what is appropriate for its citizens.  Of course, this States’ Rights argument would be wholly irrelevant were the Progressives willing to admit that Obamacare is originally and completely President Obama’s idea, instead of trying to blame it onattribute it to Governor Romney.

Taxes

It’s tax season, again, because the Obama tax increases are looming at the start of next year—just 6 months off.  It appears that President Obama is bound and determined to tax his favorite disliked group of Americans.  In an interview with North Carolina’s WRAL TV, Obama was asked whether he would veto any bill that extended all the tax cuts. [President] Obama said,

[Y]es, and the reason is, we can’t afford it.

We can’t afford to cut spending?  How does that work, exactly?  President Obama had more to say:

We don’t need more top-down economics.  We need policies that grow and strengthen the middle class.

If he truly believes that second part, when is he going to let the 20+ jobs bills languishing in the Senate to come to a vote so they can be passed, he can sign them, and the middle class can grow be strengthened?

Then he doubled down on his demand to increase taxes.

So let me be clear to [House Republican Leader John] Boehner and everyone else: we should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer[.]

In response to which I have to ask, when are you going to stop, then, holding Americans hostage to your taxing demands?  When will you cancel your tax increase and make the Bush tax cuts permanent, instead of vetoing a tax cut bill that includes all Americans and not just your preferred group?

Then Our Obama added this amazing remark:

With all the other budgetary pressures we have—with all the Republicans’ talk about wanting to shrink the deficit—they would have us borrow $700 billion over the next 10 years to give a tax cut of about $100,000 each to folks who are already millionaires[.]

Really?  What borrow (which, incidentally, the Republicans are not proposing)?  President Obama is saying he can’t find $70 billion of spending cuts in his budget each year?  Obama’s 2012 budget proposed spending $3.8 trillion in spending.  He really can’t figure out how to cut his spending proposal by less than 2%?  Hmm….

Moreover, the tax bill he has said he’ll sign–extending the Bush tax cuts exclusively for his favored Americans–is only a temporary extension.  He won’t even allow that to be permanent.  This despite the fact that the continued uncertainty can have no favorable effect on our economy as individuals and businesses continue to husband their resources against that continued uncertainty.

Oh, yeah: President Obama also is imposing a penaltytax increase of some $285 per year, for not buying Obamacare’s health insurance starting in just 18 months.  And this rises to $2100 per year in 2016.  And those are floors: households that make more than $28,500 per year (or rather less than those $250 thousand Obama “promised”) in those 18 months will have to pay 1% of their income as that penaltytax, and beginning in 2016, households that make more than $83,400 per year (still way less than those $250 thousand Obama “promised”) will have to pay 2.5% of their income as that penaltytax.