Romneycare vs. Obama Care (Short)

I'd love to spend all day writing about this topic, but I can't. I do want to say that those arguing that what Mitt Romney did is the same as what Pelosi and President Obama did are crazy.

Two main principles:

Limited Powers and the Tenth Amendment

Police Power

The founders knew that they would never get a constitution on the books unless they made concessions with the states. The end solution was for a powerful, but very limited federal government. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There are many reasons why the 10th amendment was a good idea. Among them are First, it's the reason the country survived; second, the states became laboratories for experimentation; third, freedom increased wildly because people could move to other states freely if they were looking for different laws or environments.

There are many cases which have expanded (or just interpreted) federal congressional power. The necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause are two of the main provisions that congress uses to justify it's actions. "Obamacare," at a minimum, stretches the commerce power. Many argue that the Raich court case provides a precedent to uphold the individual mandate. I think Raich was wrong, and I think this case is distinct from Raich.

By contrast, Massachussets has broader powers including a police power. Romneycare could possibly be unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution, and it could be argued that it violates the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments to the federal bill of rights. However, Romneycare is not analyzed under the federal commerce power. The analysis would be wildly different. Furthermore, anyone who wishes not to be involved in Romneycare can move to another state, which is much easier that moving to another country.

I am moderately federalist, (meaning, I believe most decisions should be made at the lowest (local) political level possible. I want states to have more freedom because I want to have options in the future. I hope that some states can remain as havens for freedom. I hope those states offer few entitlements and require great personal responsibility. And I hope those states can prove that through freedom and responsibility, citizens may gain prosperity. Unfortunately, federal involvement in almost anything is making it nearly impossible for any states to engage in the psuedo-libertarian model.

I support what Governor Romney did even though I don't completely agree with the bill, but that doesn't mean that he would do, or be allowed to do, the same thing at the federal level.