Billy Kristol makes a case but offers no real solution…

He does so in this article at the Weekly Standard.

A conclusion Kristol reaches is that Romney is a technocrat. A conclusion I reached is that Kristol is a douchebag who willingly and with malice smears Romney and does an injustice to a much needed stream of discussion.

A journalist need not offer solutions,that is a luxury they have;however, they have a duty to honesty and in this age it is a bipartisan fail. Those on the Right rail when left leaning and more often flagrantly leftist “journalists” whore themselves out. Where is the outrage when it occurs on the Right? Well with some consistency it has happened on this very blog and I’ve been tarred naive,a tool and a RINO.

Kristols article offers some insight but fails to highlight some basic truths in my opinion. I suppose I can concede Kristol allows the reader to come to their own conclusions and that it is my personal cynicism that causes me to post this. In doing so I have to also concede that Kristol is clearly an agenda driven writer. Fair is fair.

Bottom-line Romney does indeed support mandates.Surprise!?  He does so because free riders harm the economy especially in the health care sector. Free riders exist all along the wealth spectrum. From the indigent to the very well too do. A mandate addresses the problem,screaming “liberty” doesn’t do a thing. Please note I used the term addresses as opposed to solves. In keeping with another of Kristols assertions a leader is someone who actually tries to do something,not just paint pretty pictures with assorted rhetoric brushes and pixie dust.

Romney also clearly has stated he likes states to decide how to address the full problem of uninsured citizens. This is a big difference from the sledgehammer approach Obama and his allies reconciled onto us. I would think allowing states to find a way out of a very real problem would be embraced by conservatives.

Mass. experienced very real problems with the enactment of RomneyCare. The 100% mark has and likely will always be elusive. Access and shortages issues popped up quickly and have been persistent in many areas. This is a particularly weighty issue as the Bay State’s size and medical facilities are optimal compared to other states. Also given the supply and demand reality of capitalism Mass. has seen increases that are quite shocking since the inception of our health care reform. This is so true that the present (D) in the corner, Deval Patrick, looked into price controls before shelving that issue for others to solve some other time.

I offer no solutions other than this. It is far better to have a technocrat like Mitt Romney try to find the real solution that he is indeed capable of than it is to have Barack Obama have four more years to be in charge without the yoke of reelection concerns holding him from his core beliefs. Core beliefs that ironically or perhaps dangerously will see him and his having to deal with the realities of 2014 and beyond.

10 responses to “Billy Kristol makes a case but offers no real solution…

  1. I must confess to some confusion as to why Romney’s health care “solution” earns him leadership kudos from you but Obama’s national implementation of essentially the same thing does not.

    I also think you overlooked the fundamental point made by Kristol. If the government (local, state or federal) should not compel you to buy a product, which is the conservative creed, then Romney is a poor spokesperson for conservatives.

    Believe me, I don’t like Rick Santorum but when he says Romney is the wrong man to take on Obamacare in a debate with Obama, I think he makes a good point.

    • Let me clarify my position then.
      As pertains to Kristol I found the two money shots to be:

      Romneycare was an understandable effort to fix the system over which Mitt Romney presided in Massachusetts. But the country has changed markedly in the last six years—without a corresponding change in Romney’s views. If our current problems lent themselves to technocratic and managerial fixes, Romney could be a reasonably compelling candidate. But they don’t.

      and

      Mitt Romney likes mandates. Conservatives—especially in light of Obamacare—don’t. Conservatives like liberty.

      That Romney is still all in for the states deciding how to address the problem I don’t get Kristol or your confusion.
      It is for that reason that Obama’s ACA is wrong imo. I also disagree with it’s baggage and how it was “passed” and how in its implementation the unknowns are sprouting.
      I thought I disclosed this before but I believe the USA should scrap Medicare,Medicaid and other governmental health coverages and establish a guaranteed level of health care coverage or insurance which would allow folks to increase coverage on their own without penalty. I think this would be important to the US competitiveness in the global economy that a min base was established.
      The ACA imo doesn’t do that and actually does things that “Romney Care” doesn’t do that are harmful.

      • I think it could be inferred that Romney would compel states to come up with their own solutions. And it’s hard to imagine what universal health care solution could possibly avoid some sort of mandate.

        • President Romney WILL compel states to address the health care crisis. Key words are states and address. please note my consistency on the latter.
          I am sure some states could find a non mandate solution.

          • I am against state mandated or non-mandated health care programs. The people in this country are on the move sometimes for only six months at a time. The military health care, Tri-Care covers it’s members where ever they are stationed.

            Health insurance companies have just in the past few years crossed state lines. For example BC&BS of NC is now affiliated with Anthem BC&BS of VA but at one time if you moved from NC to VA you had to get a new policy. If you had pre-existing conditions you might have to reconsider a job move.

            I don’t think people should have to be tied to a job because of health insurance. There has to be a federal program of some type where or not you like the concept. I do agree that Obama’s ACA does not answer the questions because it is so full of baggage.

            All government health programs should be incorporated into a system of guaranteed health care coverage.

            • If I’m reading you right Raji we’re in agreement. The model is available in the portable pension plans concept. You move,the pension goes with you.
              Something along those lines is exactly one of the ways different and exciting possibilities could grow to address the health care issue. Other nations who have been the poster child for the US crowd wanting socialized medicine are even exploring mixes. Sweden,France and Germany are foremost on my mind. there is also some talk now in Canada and the UK.

              • Yes, you read me correctly. The concept of portable pension plans and the concept of portable auto insurance are two good examples. USAA is one insurance company that has achieved that because it is basically military. It’s a concept that can be adopted.

            • I think Raji has hit the nail on the head. The biggest reform needed in health care coverage right now is to divorce it from employment. The two have NOTHING to do with one another. If health care coverage existed independent of employment, we would not be having this Catholic church brouhaha right now.

              • Dang. It’s amazing. Rutherford and I have agreed twice in a week.

                In order to “heal” healthcare costs, insurance should immediately be uncoupled from employment. But I’ll bet a million bucks, the wage increase to pay for coverage will not meet the uncoupling. :wink:

                • Too true Tex. It was one of those things I didn’t have a high comfort level on McCains proposals back in ’08. I work for a Fortune 100 company and then AND definitely now…I don’t see them giving me a $5000.00 + “raise”

Comments are closed.