You are using an outdated browser.
Please upgrade your browser
and improve your visit to our site.
Skip Navigation

A Better Argument For Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney explains his states' rights-based position on health care:

If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.
As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are “laboratories of democracy.” They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another. 

So the argument here is that health care policy, like real estate, comes down to three things: location, location, location. Some states will choose health care systems that promote freedom, and other states will choose health care systems that destroy it, like, um, Massachusetts.

Hmm. I don't think this argument is going to hold up. I think Romney needs to try another tack. He should say that he destroyed the freedom of the people of Massachusetts because the people of Massachusetts do not deserve to live in freedom. This would be in keeping with the long-standing Republican position that Massachusetts is not part of America. Indeed, he destroyed freedom in Massachusetts as a warning to the rest of America that it should cherish its freedom to show up the the emergency room without health insurance and pay for their life-saving treatment by handing over their entire net worth, as the Founders intended.