Mr. Romney, do you have a better solution for covering the uninsured?
A Muddled Political Response From the Right
NYT editorial
The future of the health care system is now back where it should be, out of the hands of judges and into those of voters. With the constitutional question about President Obama’s health care law now settled, the public will have a chance to examine Mitt Romney’s claims that it is terrible for the country. Based on his remarks on Thursday, they will not have much to go on.
Mr. Romney’s speech was clearly not the one he wanted to give, and it showed. He stumbled by reminding people that the Supreme Court did not proclaim the law to be a good one, implying the constitutional question was a minor issue. The court’s role, of course, is not to judge the wisdom of the laws that Congress passes, as much as Mr. Romney might wish it had.
Because the Supreme Court did not repeal the law, Mr. Romney vowed to do so himself on his first day as president, a vow that will be impossible to fulfill, not just on his first day, but ever if he cannot round up 60 votes in the Senate. Otherwise the heath care law will stay on the books, and as much as he may try to defund it or ignore it, he will have taken an oath to uphold it. Even if he should succeed in a repeal, he has provided very little information on the kind of law he would put in its place.
Will he try to provide health care for the nearly 50 million people who are now uninsured, 30 million of whom would have health coverage under President Obama’s law? They went unmentioned in Mr. Romney’s speech, as they almost always do when he is on the stump, except in a vague, indirect reference: “We also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their efforts to assure that every American has access to affordable health care.”
(More here.)
NYT editorial
The future of the health care system is now back where it should be, out of the hands of judges and into those of voters. With the constitutional question about President Obama’s health care law now settled, the public will have a chance to examine Mitt Romney’s claims that it is terrible for the country. Based on his remarks on Thursday, they will not have much to go on.
Mr. Romney’s speech was clearly not the one he wanted to give, and it showed. He stumbled by reminding people that the Supreme Court did not proclaim the law to be a good one, implying the constitutional question was a minor issue. The court’s role, of course, is not to judge the wisdom of the laws that Congress passes, as much as Mr. Romney might wish it had.
Because the Supreme Court did not repeal the law, Mr. Romney vowed to do so himself on his first day as president, a vow that will be impossible to fulfill, not just on his first day, but ever if he cannot round up 60 votes in the Senate. Otherwise the heath care law will stay on the books, and as much as he may try to defund it or ignore it, he will have taken an oath to uphold it. Even if he should succeed in a repeal, he has provided very little information on the kind of law he would put in its place.
Will he try to provide health care for the nearly 50 million people who are now uninsured, 30 million of whom would have health coverage under President Obama’s law? They went unmentioned in Mr. Romney’s speech, as they almost always do when he is on the stump, except in a vague, indirect reference: “We also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their efforts to assure that every American has access to affordable health care.”
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Yes, I have a better plan. Let liberals buy them health insurance with their own money. But, it's much easier to have liberals buy them health insurance with someone else's money.
Post a Comment
<< Home