Mitt Romney’s first post-ruling email

This came from the Romney campaign:


Today, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. But regardless of what the Court said about the constitutionality of the law, Obamacare is bad medicine, it is bad policy, and when I’m President, the bad news of Obamacare will be over.

It was always a liberal pipedream that a 2,700 page, multi-trillion-dollar Federal Government takeover of our health care system actually could address the very serious problems we face with health care. With Obamacare fully installed, government will reach fully half of the economy — that is the recipe for a struggling economy and declining prosperity.

On Day One, I will work to repeal Obamacare to stop the government’s takeover of our health care and intrusion in our lives. I will push for real reform to our health care system that focuses on helping patients and protecting taxpayers.

We cannot afford Barack Obama’s on-the-job learning, Big Government proposals, and irresponsible spending. Our basic liberties are at stake — and I will fight to restore our freedoms, renew the respect for our Constitution, and halt the government takeover of health care.

This November it’s all on the line. The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Donate $10 or more to put a stop to the policies of Barack Obama and the liberal Democrats.


Mitt Romney

I hear that Mitt raised $2,000,000 in the hours after the ruling came out. That wouldn’t surprise me at all.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • jj

    I guess the obvious solutions are too simple for the complex thinkers who infest DC.  For example, I don’t know how many health insurance companies there are nationwide, but I’m pretty sure it’s a fairly substantial number.  And yet in the state of Washington – not the state of mind that is DC, the actual state – we have access to only four.  Everybody with health insurance in this state is covered by one of only four companies.  I don’t know why this is, maybe these four are the only ones who come up to the state insurance commissioner’s standards (speculate about why that is all you want); but I do know that right down the road in Oregon residents of that state have access to 19 different companies.  California, I seem to remember reading, has over 24 companies allowed to provide coverage there.  In New York years ago there were around 30.
    It seems to me, me being simple, that in a country based on a market economy, if you want to get a handle on costs, more is better.  This causes competition, and more or less automatically lowers prices, and makes coverage both broader, and available to more people.  Were I sitting in Flatulence-on-the-Potomac, the first thing I’d do – if I had any genuine interest in trying to control costs – would be to knock down all the artificial state barriers and let every company compete everywhere.  It would take about four seconds to lower prices by this simple expedient – increasing competition – and get more people covered.  You don’t need 2,700 pages of BS, just the time it takes to sign your name to a law knocking down the barriers.  Is this too simple?  Too straightforward?  Too logical?
    By the same token, if you’re worried about air pollution and want to do something that might have an actual, measurable effect, look at Amtrak.  Amtrak is a federal operation, so whoever’s sitting in the big chair at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is de facto the boss.  Amtrak runs hundreds of diesel engines, spewing crap into the air.  Spend four seconds signing your name to an executive order saying that within 90 days all of those engines will have been converted – it’s an easy conversion – to burn salad oil as fuel.  Or hemp oil.    Or peanut oil.  (When Rudolf Diesel first invented the damn things he ran demonstrators at the Paris Exposition in 1900 on hemp and peanut oil.)  Four seconds.  Sign your name, and you’ve done more for air quality than Solyndra accomplished.  You’re the boss of Amtrak, you don’t need anybody’s approval, you don’t require a bill, nobody has to grant permission: just sign your name.  Done.
    I guess this kind of stuff is just too damn simple for our masterminds.  I don’t know why, you’d think “simple” would be right up their street, but it seems so.  Given a choice between actually accomplishing something and filling the air with BS, we’ll fill the air with BS every time. 

  • Earl

    “On Day One, I will work to repeal Obamacare…”
    Well, whoop de (freaking) do!!
    I’ll believe that Romney is genuinely serious about this when he says something along the lines of “On Day One, I’ll sign an executive order giving a waiver to any state than wants one, and directing the IRS not to collect the taxes associated with this unconstitutional law.”
    I don’t believe that any President should be picking and choosing laws that he will and won’t enforce, but after the last four years, it’s clear that that’s how the left thinks the Presidency should be operated, and for THIS law, what’s good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.

  • Mike Devx

    I guess the question is, should a conservative trust Mitt Romney when he says “I will work to repeal ObamaCare”?

    1. Romney is just placating conservatives, keeping us quiet and on the reservation, but he’ll throw us under the bus if he becomes President.  Because statements like “I will work to do X” are actually meaningless. They’re empty promises; they’re actually not promises at all.


    2. Romney means what he says because he is a principled man, and he *will* focus on “repealing” ObamaCare from the first day of his Presidency. But he’s not going to give the left anything during the campaign to beat him about the head with.  If he can get away with just a vague statement like this during the campaign, and it meets the needs of the voters, he will do so.  Between the election on Nov 6th and Jan 20th, he’ll have plenty of time to choose whatever is most effective.  Including your comment on signing an executive order.  In other words, why give the left any ammunition during the campaign if you don’t have to?

    I’ll just say you shouldn’t assume that just because your health insurance companies are actual businesses, that they’re conservative, or that they believe in the free market.  Corporate welfare collusion with government exists, and many such businesses are bad actors, and not interested in the free market.  ALL such companies would be friendly to Obama, and he to them.  They would be hostile to free market solutions to problems.

    Corporations and businesses that want to restrict competition in their favor, that want to belly up to the Washington D.C. pig trough where that money is just gushing in their direction, are just as much a part of the problem as big-spending government bureaucrats.  And they’re out there.


  • Mike Devx

    Earl, what I really meant to say in #2 is that any specific proposal can be attacked or demagogued.  A general statement such as “I will work to repeal ObamaCare” is awfully hard to attack or demagogue.  So if Romney gains support from voters who agree with the general statement, but would be vulnerable to those attacks… why not just stick to the general statement?

  • Ymarsakar

    Romney can promise to fight evil all he wants, but people need resources to get the job done .Romney will not have those resources, either due to Democrat sabotage or Republican sabotage.

  • jj

    Mike – I don’t say they are.  I do say, you want to do something about prices you don’t put barriers in the way of competition between them.

  • Earl

    My variation of that question is:
    “I guess the question is, WHY should a conservative trust Mitt Romney when he says “I will work to repeal ObamaCare”?”
    If you really believes that this is an unconstitutional law, and if you are genuinely going to give states waivers (something Romney’s hinted at, if not said straight out, earlier), then you take your stand as a principled man and tell the “undecideds” that you’re not going to be cute during the campaign and then surprise them after you’re elected, as some have done in the recent past.
    Or something like that.
    At least, that’s what THIS conservative would respect in a candidate.  The way Mitt is playing this makes me VERY nervous about what we’re getting when we elect him.