Posted by | December 21, 2011 15:25 | Filed under: Top Stories

Chuck Todd pressed Mitt Romney on his belief in the individual mandate as a conservative concept. Romney backed himself int a corner  saying states have two options: emergency care paid for by the government and taxpayers, or an individual mandate. Tommy Christopher has good analysis.

Todd asked Romney to explain a major flaw in his state-by-state approach. “Are you concerned, though, that that could create, and I know this is an awkward term to use, sanctuary states, where some states are going to just cover more people than other states? Massachusetts versus a Mississippi, say?”

This is where Romney runs into some trouble, as he seems to explain that a state-by-state approach is okay because of the emergency care mandate he just got done denouncing. “Well, that’s something that would be worth looking at for any state to consider. People have to look at Massachusetts and to see what the record has been of its experience. But my own understanding is that, under federal law, people are able to get covered. Virtually in any state in America, someone that is seriously ill can go to the hospital and get treated even if they can’t pay for it.”

Perhaps noticing what he’s done, Romney adds, “In my opinion that’s a big government solution.”

“So how do we stop that?” Todd asked. “That’s how the mandate came in, right?”

Here’s where Romney seems to suggest government-run clinics, although it’s unclear if he means on a federal or state level. “That’s how it arose, how do we get individuals to take responsibility for their own care. There are a lot of different models. One is to have clinics where people are treated at low cost or no cost. The other is to do as I suggest, which is to have, if you will, tax breaks given to people who have insurance.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2011 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.