If you’re a conservative that has been thinking you could support Mitt Romney in his presidential run, think again. If what he is attempting to do in Massachusetts is a harbinger of his thought on federal policy, conservatives have good reason to keep him out of the White House.
Sally Pipes says here, “In a nutshell, then, the Republican presidential hopeful is pouring political capital into creating a new state health-care bureaucracy, further regulating health insurance, forcing individuals to spend their money on a government designed product, and increasing spending by $200 million.”
Why is this bad? “Conservatives who believe in free markets simply cannot accept the rhetoric equating morality and compassion with universal third-party health insurance coverage.” Pipes says that government regulations bear a significant portion of the blame for the high cost of health insurance. She argues that Romney should be abolishing agencies and deregulating if he is truly interested in helping those that can least afford health insurance.
Here is another interesting article about how reducing government interference can help create “a vibrant, competitive medical marketplace that puts constant downward pressure on prices while striving to improve quality” that will ultimately serve everyone better.
I’m afraid that Romney’s Massachusetts proposal throws him in the same boat with Hillary. Sure, he looks better and hits on the power phrases in speeches that give conservatives goose bumps, but actions speak louder than words.
Ooh. That is definitely a chink in Mitt's armor as far as I'm concerned. The argument that moral government is big government is a fallacy that has often left eveyone worse off.
Sounds like Mitt's not terribly familiar with the teachings of Ezra Taft Benson.
Post a Comment