Getty Images
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a far-right rising star who'll be vetted for the Republicans' vice presidential nomination, has a history of saying things that aren't especially helpful to Mitt Romney.
In March, for example, a day after endorsing the former Massachusetts governor, the Florida senator said, "There are a lot of other people out there that some of us wish had run for president, but they didn't." Ouch.
Now it's falling on Rubio to defend Romney's health care reform law, which happens to be nearly identical to President Obama's health care reform law. Specifically, Rubio was tasked with explaining why Obama's tax penalty for failing to have insurance is outrageous, but Romney's identical tax policy for failing to have insurance is perfectly acceptable.
The defense isn't coming together especially well (thanks to Dan Sachar for the tip).
The immediate response to the Democrats' tax rebuttal from Republicans was less than impressive.
Romney "supported it on the state level. Which means if you didn't like it in Massachusetts, you could move to another state," Rubio said on Bloomberg Television. "What are people supposed to do? Leave the United States now because of Barack Obama's brilliant idea to stick the IRS on millions of people? More importantly, the state of Massachusetts doesn't have the IRS."
First, Massachusetts has a Department of Revenue, which is the state version of the IRS. Second, I realize public policy isn't Marco Rubio's strong point, but "millions of people" won't have to pay the tax penalty under the Affordable Care Act.
But I'm especially impressed with the idea that Romney's former constituents "could move to another state" if they were outraged by Romney's health care policy. Or as Jon Chait put it, "Right! At least it's possible to flee the socialist hell that Mitt Romney constructed in Massachusetts for another state, but there's no way you can leave the country! Even if you make it past the armed guards, you'll be killed by the electrical fence! No, wait -- I'm thinking of East Germany."
Now, it's true that very, very few Americans would flee the country to avoid the individual mandate. It's also true that very, very few people have left Massachusetts to flee the individual mandate.
But, obviously, Rubio considers the possibility of fleeing for the sweet, sweet freedom to potentially die of an easily treatable condition crucial — crucial enough to define the difference between Romney's pro-freedom health agenda and Obama's tyrannical health agenda. So, I would note that there is still a lengthy list of countries that don't oppress their citizens by subjecting them to universal health care. You're ruling out most of your wealthy countries, but some decent selections remain. Afghanistan has no universal coverage! It also features low taxes, little regulation, and strong family values, if you're into that kind of thing.
If Obamacare's tax penalty is to be considered somehow different than Romneycare's identical-in-every-way tax penalty, they'll need to do better than Rubio's weak tea.
Leave a Comment:
Please let this guy be Romney's veep if he doesn't choose Ayn Rand, er, I mean Paul Ryan. A Mormon and a Gusano. Yeah, America wants that.
That would be Paul Raynd, been choosing that spelling for about one year now.
Ayn Rand Paul Ryan, the faux-libertarian horror! Watch it slither its way to the Social Security office for its check, while decrying social spending! Hear it gibber incoherently about constitutionality, and talk out of both side of its head on spending ("We must cut spending!/We must increase defense spending!")! The GOP freakshow, already in a Congress near you!
RUBIO ..... is a Morman also .
Do you think he can hear what he says?
Mario has a point. Why, back when Romney was governor of MA, and introduced "Romneycare", I was severely injured here in PA by a stampede of disgruntled Baystaters, fleeing southward- toward, I believe, TX, where there is NO fear of getting any sort of health care, at all, at all!
Strictly speaking, Steve, if 1-5% of people (the varied projections) have to pay the penalty, then yes, millions will pay it.
And it will be as little as $90,depending on your income and added to you income tax ,big freaking deal!!! The biggest tax hike in history!!!
The subsidies needed to make insurance affordable for all
— is only about a third of the cost of the tax cuts, overwhelmingly favoring
the wealthy, that Mitt Romney is proposing over the same period. The Affordable
Care Act, by contrast, is fully paid for, with an explicit combination of tax
increases and spending cuts elsewhere. When anyone making less than $1 million
per year votes Republican, he's advocating his own subjugation.
I'm still wondering why, if you can get subsidies to help you if you cannot afford it, anybody would want to go without insurance? If you can't afford it, help will be given to you to help you in affording it. Why would you go without? Does the GOP think that these people LIKE to go without insurnce? Can't afford to take your child to the doctor? come down with a bad illness and afraid to go to the doctor? Everybody with any sense would want health insurance, as long as it doesn't break the bank.
ITS not a tax unless you make it one by not haveing med.ins.
$ 95 .00 the first year in 2014 , and then it goes up each year . There will be many chances to buy med.ins. between now and then , they will be on the market soon .
most people have ins. on their job . all of these ins. will be going down since the ins. co. must pay you back 80 % of what you paid out if you dont use it . If you want to know more about it watch MSNBC. not fox .
No one likes Romney, and that goes double for his friends. Two hundred and fifty mil will buy you a nice car elevator, but it gets you sh!tty friends.
Some people don't know they're defending the indefensible until they try to defend it. Something to bear in mind when Steven Bochco dies and God asks him about Cop Rock.
Hey, now. I loved Cop Rock. And also, Hill Street Blues buys him all kind of get-out-of-hell-free passes.
Boy, I bet the Republicans are glad they nominated the "electable" one. Just imagine the stupid things one of the others might have let fall out of their mouths!
They should have gone with Bachmann; she'd lose, too, of course, but her entertainment value is much higher...
It wasn't Bachmann's turn. They'll run her against Elizabeth Warren in 2016.
That would be GLORIOUS.
On one of the MSNBC programs last night - it might have been TRMS - they showed an example of all the advertisments broadcast in MA, touting the RomneyCare after it passed. That's what Obama and the Dems should have done, over and over again, two years ago when the law passed in Congress. For a group of people renowned for great messaging skills - and normally they are good - Obama dropped the ball on this one, big-time.
They allowed the Republicans to control the message and we got "death panels" as a result. Obama HAS to do a better job NOW!!!
And, by the way, I was watching Jean Schmidt's initial reaction when she thought the law had been struck down and how happy she and her supporters were. I wonder if any of them have family and friends who have been able to take advantage of Obamacare? I guess not, or she wouldn't be cheering its demise.
I think Mean Jean Schmidt would be delighted to have family members who couldn't afford medical care. Their suffering would just confirm her own righteousness.
And would show her how much better she is than the people who cannot afford health care. Darn Anti Americans!
now hang on a minute, lets not put this notion down so quickly. you mean if I live in a purplish state and we manage to get progressive health care, that might make conditions so unbearable that the wingnuts would self-deport? i can work with that.
Fine comments, all. But people seem to have missed one important aspect of Rubio's "ouch" event -- it is also a single (perhaps only) shining moment of spoken Conservative truth in the 2012 election.
As I understand it, the ACA mandates that I must purchase private "healthcare" insurance from a private corporation. If I don't, the Federal Government, backed by the IRS, will assess a "tax" against my assets. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this is constitutional, not as a mandate to purchase a product or service covered by the Commerce Clause, but a Constitutional taxable event (My words; I didn't read the ruling) enforceable by the IRS.
I further understand that the ACA is almost identical to what is now called Romney-care, upon which ACA was modeled. How does Mitt Romney defend the crafting of "his" plan and at the same time pledge to terminate ACA, which he, in effect, successfully passed into law in MA while he was Governor?
The ultimate question is: Where is the media with these questions? If Romney won't answer them directly, then it is incumbent upon the media to ask it at every opportunity, whether Romney is present or not. His hypocrisy and that of the media is the issue in this campaign season. You may say it is jobs, but I say it is Integrity. I believe Romney and his supporters are sociopaths. Not a judgment, but an observation.
Romney and his campaign have been called upon to answer those questions many, many times. Not often directly, but that is more a product of the outlets Romney avails himself to for direct questioning.
All four justices who voted to overturn the Affordable Care Act, have guaranteed for life government provided health insurance!
Once the ACA is established, all of the legislators and govt. employees will go onto the ACA. They will have the option of several providers, just as we will. I was on something similar as a Colorado state Employee (dept of corrections) and it was kinda neat to see a list of about ten different plans and the good things provided by them.
The media is not allowed to ask those questions.
The media refuses to challenge any candidate with questions that matter.
It's simply not done.
If they did, we might know too much.
It's preferred that the "common man" be kept in the dark, because after all, a little knowledge is indeed, dangerous.
I wonder if team Romney will consider this part of Rubio's "thorough vetting process"?
Well, at least Rubio didn't have any serious VP aspirations. : D
Romneycare, years a head of it's time!
I really would like to see some journalist with guts ask Romney or Rubio questions about Romney-care. A republican strategist was asked that question this morning on CNN was she was speechless and stunned. When prompted for an answer by the news anchor her answer was they are focused on the economy. HUH?
Just like all of the GOP legislators at the state level enjoy crowing about their wonderful social agenda. However, when pushed to talk about it, they will immediately switch to the GOP line: That stuff is not important. The only thing the people want us to take care of is jobs jobs jobs." And they can spin this for hours.
I don't know why anyone in their right mind would run for any elected office today. They and their family and friends will be ripped to shreds for anything they may have said or did since they were twelve. The only people who might come through unscathed live in their parents basements and have never done anything at all. Oh, I just realized, we have raised an entire generation that would qualify. Never mind. There are lots of people out there that are electable and don't have any evidence of poor judgement associated with them. Vote for your neighbors kid!
Did the IRS in Andover Mass move?
IOKIARDI!!!! (It's OKay If A Republican Does It)
Need I say more?
Can't we just call him "Senator Batista" from now on?
I can see the bumper stickers now: Romney '12: He Turned His State Into a High-Tax Socialist Hell That Residents Wanted to Flee!
In the picture above, Mitt doesn't have his hand up Rubio's back. That explains Rubio's gaffes ...I'm sorry, thoughts ... I'm sorrier, verbiage. Jeff Dunham would have had more control of the situation(s).
MEANWHILE: The President should take every opportunity to thank Mitt for his pioneering work in affordable health care legislation. That'll make the conservatives love Mitt so much more, and remind everyone else of his pioneering work in outsourcing (or is it offshoring?).