Over at the Primary Event, I found this write up on Mitt Romney’s "healthcare speech", and my eyes zeroed in on this (emphasis mine):
Romney also vigorously defended the individual mandate in Massachusetts, saying “the state decision we took was to insist upon personal responsibility.” He illustrated the need for a mandate by talking about how “many citizens who could afford insurance … were saying ‘I’m not going to buy insurance. If something really bad happens to me, I can go to the hospital and I can get treated for free.’” Romney called the previous status quo in Massachusetts — where government and taxpayers paid for the uninsured’s health care treatment — an example of “big government.”
He is absolutely right about Big Government about being the point of failure, but most don’t get the real reason – start thinking "pincer movement" where the first part of the pincer has been in motion and is now in position after a number of years of manipulation. Now we are seeing the "top half" of the pincer shutting tight around us. But first, let’s go over the obvious FAILs of the write up.
Personal Responsibility – In the present political time epoch, the TEA Party is the singular philosophy that incorporates "personal responsibility", but it also speaks to "individual liberty" (derived from the theological idea of "free will"). While the two are not incompatible, it does take explanation to tie them together. From the Free Dictionary is this:
- a person or thing for which one is responsible
- the ability or authority to act or decide on one’s own, without supervision
It is easy to see that Mitt’s usage of "personal responsibility", like that of those defending Obamacare, is depending on the first definition, as in "We place this responsibility upon you – whether you wish to accept it or not". Effectively, an externality has been placed upon us all whether we like it or not – and once that premise has been applied, further manipulation is possible to exploit that.
The problem is that the…
…TEA Party / Liberty and Freedom movement rejects that definition for the second, where it is an internalized responsibility. Sure, we want people to be self-reliant and responsible, but more along the lines of self-responsibility and not a responsibility that forced upon us (at least in this issue – most of us are not voluntaryists yet).
The top pincer begins to close…
"many citizens who could afford insurance" – this is akin to the current Progressive mantra of "You got money? You don’t own it – we have better uses for it". For many, this is the violation of individual liberty, as it forces one give up their private property for someone else’s purpose or need (at yet another’s behest) . Now some may well say "hey, it is just the cost of living in a civilized society". My flippant answer is "hey, you want instant Socialism? You can have it in hours – just fly to Europe". Oh, by the way? Britain is walking theirs backwards – ditto with Sweden and Norway. They have realized – it ain’t sustainable with a large welfare state and a population that is loosing its work ethic (and large scale immigration doesn’t help either). Effectively, it is another part of the top pincer being closed shut – the run for the money we need the money to pay for what we have already done.
Ok, two quick stabs at the top line – revenues. There’s much more to it, but this suffices for this small example. Now for the bottom pincer:
"I can go to the hospital and I can get treated for free" – absolutely true and Mitt is not understating the cost. Nor, is anyone else. Very few times, however, have I seen anyone discuss the cost side, especially the Left. All they want to bring up is "What a compassionate society we have!". After all, they are the ones that ratcheted this side of the pincer up and up and up over the years – on the idea that we, as a rich society, should take better care of "the less fortunate". Sure, there are some absolutely need assistance, but ask yourself this: has this created a moral hazard? It is an ethical and moral issue but not the one that those that beat their chests and cry out "you selfish conservatives!".
Why shouldn’t I go to the E.R and get taken care of for free? The Liberal / Progressives have already set up the expectations that someone else will (and should) pay for my healthcare costs – why should I pay? Or care? After all, they’ve made it a Right, right? I have the right to make the claim on someone else to provide for me! And you are NOT compassionate if you refuse my demand that you take care of me (for that is what it has morphed into).
And Mitt, and all the others who defend universal healthcare, refuse to acknowledge this.
"an example of “big government." – and this is the utterly backwards reasoning. The problem is NOT that Big Government is demanding that everyone pay – it is that Big Government (and those that have manipulated it to bring in stealth healthcare in this manner) is now only demanding that all pay for it.
Here in my hamlet in NH, I’ve see this play out before (albeit, writ small). Start a sports team (football, lacrosse, hockey) – fund it with charitable gifts. Suck in a lot of kids, then complain that the donations are drying up and that the program has to be picked up by the school system – and paid for by taxes. Immediately, the costs go up and Big Government ramps up paid staffing that used to be done by volunteers. And then we all are on the hook for yet another cost of Government (make no mistake, public education is Big Government).
Bottom line, however, is the overarching message Mitt brings forward for the rest of the Presidential Primary season: I’m not apologizing and I’m not sorry.
Again, in this time of the TEA Party movement, is this stance a good strategic move for Mitt?
Doubtful. To TEA Partiers, I would hazard to guess, Mitt is on the wrong side of one of the most important issues to the movement – individual freedom and liberty – regardless of the "good" it may be doing. Sure, he’d sign an Executive Order his first day as Prez giving waivers from Obamacare to all 57 50 States. Just the fact that the he was willing to impose that cost (and perceived loss of choice which is freedom) on his fellow citizens in MA is sufficient for many to say "nice guy, good on a lot of stuff, but this is just a bridge too far for me".
Tim Pawlenty has had the good sense to say that his support for Cap N Trade was a bad decision ("clunker") and has apologized. As many have pointed out, Mitt’s new book is named "No Apology"; many may well respond with "No Vote".
