A couple of articles today discuss the healthcare albatross crippling Mitt Romney’s presidential dreams (See here and here).  This blog discussed this issue months ago (See here and here).  Republicans still wax eloquently on repealing “Obamacare” and replacing it with their plan that barely expands access to health care.  They also still talk about barring insurance companies from discriminating for pre-existing conditions but do not specify how they will address the freeloader problem.  No wonder that the man from the party of no ideas who wants to be speaker admits that he has no solutions to offer.

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

Matt Yglesias has a good article comparing Romneycare to Obamacare and Mitt Romney’s transparently dishonest attempts to run away from his legacy.  See link.  He also discusses the fundamental flaw in the Republican position which accepts the need to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions without understanding that such a provision cannot stand alone.  This point is not new.  Others like Paul Krugman and Jonathan Chait have raised this point in responding to people like Peggy Noonan.  See here and here.

The point is simple.  If insurance companies cannot deny people with pre-existing conditions you create an incentive for healthy people not to get insurance until they fall sick.  Hence you need a mandate to take care of the free-riders.  But once you create a mandate you need subsidies for people who cannot afford health care.  The end product is something along the line of Romneycare, Obamacare or a robust public option (which is probably more popular than either).

Given that Republicans support an ban on insurance companies discriminating against pre-existing conditions they need to come up with a meaningful alternative to Obamacare, not that nonsense of a plan they previously issued which expanded coverage by only 3 million.  Otherwise it is time for them to focus on responsible fixes to the plan, notably on the issue of cost control.  Somehow, I don’t see that happening.

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

The passage of health care reform may have had the unintended side effect of winnowing the 2012 presidential field.  While the 2012 Republican convention is over two years away, an eternity in politics, Mitt Romney may have just seen his hopes of securing the Republican nomination go up in smoke.

Romney’s ambitions and his willingness to adapt his positions to the prevailing winds are no secret.  Even by the low standards of politicians he displayed a chameleon like ability to change his colors for the prevailing audience and the brazen chutzpah to attack people for holding positions he held a short while before.  This made him very unpopular among his fellow Republican candidates notably John McCain and Mike Huckabee who barely concealed their disdain for him.  The 2007-8 Republican presidential debates often degenerated into “whack-a-Mitt” sessions where all the candidates ganged up in the self funded Romney with cheerful glee.  See link.  His Mormon faith also acted as a handicap as the Republican evangelical base looked at him with suspicion.

When John McCain all but wrapped up the Republican nomination the ever malleable Romney promptly dropped out to stump for McCain in hopes of securing the Vice Presidential nod.  Unfortunately all that sucking up came to naught when McCain went for the wonderfully clueless Sarah Palin.

In the aftermath of the elections Romney has tried to reposition himself as the only remaining adult among the Republican candidates.  His extensive business background lends him a public perception of gravitas on economic issues.  He has stayed away from an embrace of the occasionally unhinged tea party protests.  His attempts to burnish his credentials on foreign policy were less successful since his Palinesque use of jargon and tough words largely drew snickers.  See here and  here.

But for a long time the sword of Damocles hanging over Romney was his signature accomplishment as governor of Massachusetts – health care reform.  In the Republican primaries Romney defended his plan but faced a dilemma when the contours of Obamacare started to look very similar to Romneycare.  While even the latest Wall Street Journal editorial replete with Republican talking points (some discredited) refers to the two plans as “fraternal policy twins” Romney has been busy tying himself in knots in explaining how the plans are different and whining about the alleged abuse of power by the Democrats in not deferring to a minority that lost the last two national elections.

This is a big problem for Romney.  With the Republican base whipped up into a frenzy the next nominee will have to attack Obamacare.  A federalism argument could work, but can also be countered by the fact that the balanced budget obligations on most states make it extremely impractical for any of them to pass health care reform.  In any case federalism will not explain away Romney’s willingness to sign on to government interference at the state level, something that has the base in a lather.

Even with Romney penchant  for short term memory loss on his previous policy positions, it is hard to see how Romney will be the candidate to perform that task.  Democrats will gleefully paraphrase the attack used on the last nominee from Massachusetts that Romney was “for health care before he was against it” to cement Romney’s reputation as an unprincipled flip-flopper.  A base already predisposed to distrust Romney will have a hard time trusting him as the man to take down Obamacare, which practically will be very hard to pull off in any case.

So the man who should have been the Republican nominee and had the best understanding of economic policy will enter primary season severely hobbled.  Again things can change.  A continuing bleak economic outlook could cause Republicans to hold their nose and vote for Romney, like they did for McCain in the last election cycle.   Repealing health care reform could be a fringe issue by 2012 and Romney could position himself as the man best equipped to fix it.  But at present it is hard to see Romney securing the support of a distrustful base.  IMO the man the Obama campaign should worry about comes from next door Indiana – Mitch Daniels, though a lot can change in the next two years.

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

For those who have not heard of this before, the scene below from the German-Austrian movie Der Untergang (Downfall) has been gleefully parodied since the movie was released in 2004.  A quick search of You Tube will display many such parodies of Bruno Ganz’s depiction of an unhinged Hitler at the moment he realizes the war is lost and as he lashes out at the Generals stuck with him in his bunker.  Even though the movie attracted some controversy for the somewhat sympathetic portrayal of some Nazi officers and for sanitizing the fate of many German women in Berlin after the Russians took the city, it is definitely worth seeing.

The clip below has a humorous take on the Scott Brown election, whether or not you accept the subtitled text or the riff on Obama.  Enjoy…

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email

Joe Lieberman’s sudden opposition to the Medicare buy in and other aspects of health care reforms seems to have been triggered by liberal enthusiasm for the proposals.  Also, like many of the conservative Blue-Dog Democrats the opposition seems co-related to the amount of campaign contributions from health insurance companies.  It likely explains the general incoherence of his recent explanations on why he abruptly abandoned his long held views (including some like supporting the Medicare buy-in this summer).  Also see here.  The man cannot afford to further tarnish his sanctimonious public persona by explicitly outing himself as an unprincipled narcissist.

Lieberman’s pique at being humiliatingly defeated in the 2004 Connecticut primary have been on display for some time.  Not understanding why some Democrats would be upset at essentially being branded traitors for opposing a poorly planned war and occupation of Iraq, he used the same slander against Barack Obama last fall.  Luckily for him, Barack Obama chose to forgive and forget.

While Lieberman has been a somewhat reliable Democrat on other issues, he chose once again to stick the knife in to the Democrats on a public issue that was hotly debated in the Democratic primaries last year.  Markos Moulitsas seems to have a valid point when he notes that the bill forced by Lieberman would include mandates to buy insurance but no cost controls and is essentially a give away to the insurance industry.  Maybe it is time for Barack Obama to retreat to his original campaign proposal to avoid mandates.

It was very unlikely that Lieberman was ever going to get the 2012 Democratic nomination for re-election.  His victory the last time around was fulled by Republicans and independents (the latter group having soured on him significantly since then).  It will be interesting to see if he makes a last ditch attempt to save his career Arlen Specter style by switching parties in 2010.  With his re-election prospects dim, I will personally not be sorry to see this self important figure fade out of public view.

Subscribe to Rashtrakut by Email