Romneycare: Does It Matter? (Spoiler: Nope)

I haven’t decided who I’m going to support for president, so this is by no means a defense of either President Obama or Governor Mitt Romney. As always, the choice is between a douche and a turd sandwich, so it’s always hard for me to pick a candidate. (More importantly, having professional political experience, I no longer share your denial of a fundamental truth: It doesn’t make a difference which party wins because the system, which is partially broken, is what determines our fate.) Something that drives me nuts, though, is when the American public fails to appreciate how our government works, and what really drives me nuts is that the politicians don’t defend themselves on those grounds. For example, according to the United States Constitution, Congress has the “power of the purse.” That is, the budget, national debt, national deficit, overspending, underspending, and all of those other bad words are the responsibility of Congress. The President’s impact is minor and can be taken away, or severely modified, whenever Congress chooses to do so.

So, when someone brings out a chart that shows the national debt increasing under Republican presidents and decreasing under Democratic presidents, he’s arguing either ignorantly or dishonestly. How do the Republicans respond? Do they point out that Democrats generally have controlled Congress under Republican presidents, and Republicans generally have controlled Congress under Democratic presidents? Nope. Instead, they claim the chart is misleading or doesn’t tell the entire story (which may or may not be true depending on the chart), rather than dispel the misconception even though dispelling the misconception is in their interest. For some reason that I can’t understand, politicians want the populace to hold these misconceptions. Some of this is pretty simple stuff, so even if the politicians are assuming you’re lazy or stupid, it still doesn’t explain the politicians’ behavior.

Why Is This Important?

In a democracy, who’s the sovereign? Who’s in charge? In theory, we are. The citizens as a whole are the sovereign. Of course, were a representative democracy, so we give people power to educate themselves and then make decisions for us, but ultimately we hold the power, and if we’re smart (we aren’t), we’ll take it back when appropriate. If you don’t even know the job descriptions of your representatives, how can you properly rate them? Do you actually think the little “D” or “R” next to their name is a good indicator of whether they’ll throw us under the bus? (If you answered the second question, “yes,” then you’re truly lost and can probably ignore the rest of this essay.)

Romneycare

This leads me to a double-whammy that’s occurring with respect to the attacks against Mitt Romney over the so-called “Romneycare” (also known as Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 of the Massachusetts General Court: An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care). The complaint goes something like this: Mitt Romney “passed” a public option plan or socialized medicine or something for Massachusettes. I don’t know what to call it because no matter what I call it, someone gets angry. You know what I’m discussing, so I’ll leave it at “Romneycare.” What’s important here is that it shares similarities to Obamacare.

What’s not important here is whether or not it’s a good idea. I’m not passing judgment on any of these plans, and I ask you to avoid doing so in any comments you choose to leave. Other than the fact that it’s clearly unconstitutional at the federal level – a clarity that’s muddied by piss-poor Supreme Court decisions handed down since FDR destroyed our judiciary – I haven’t formed a substantive opinion on whether I’d support it if it ever came to the Commonwealth of Virginia. I also don’t know whether it would be good at the Federal level assuming the Supreme Court upheld it (it won’t EDIT: A poor prediction, eh?) or if a constitutional amendment were ratified to clear a path to its legality. For the purposes of this essay, I don’t care.

Here’s what’s important.

Error #1: He Was Governor, Not a One-Man Legislature

Romneycare is a creature of legislation, and Gov. Romney (and President Obama for that matter) is not a one-man legislature. The legislature passed it. The only power Gov. Romney had over it was the threat of a veto, which he knew wouldn’t work. (Gov. Romney vetoed 8 of the sections, and the legislature eventually overrode all of them.) Thus, he couldn’t have stopped it if he wanted. His job, as Chief Executive of Massachusetts, was to enforce the law once it was on the books, and he had to do that whether he liked it or not. Also keep in mind that, as the “leader” of the Commonwealth, he has to put on a happy face even if he doesn’t like the law. So, with all the flip-flopping Gov. Romney has done as a professional politician, should we believe he likes Romneycare or not? The answer is that it doesn’t matter. He has to act like he does, and he has to enforce it.

(Take a note people that either praise or criticize President Obama for his role in Obamacare. Though it’s clear President Obama supports Obamacare, it’s likewise irrelevant because it’s Congress that determines whether or not it passes and remains in place.)

Error #2: You’re Equating Romneycare with Obamacare

My friends (and enemies) on my side of the aisle will say, “Hooray, Rob! Thank you for pointing out its unconstitutionality!” Assuming I’m right, so what? While it’s arguably unconstitutional at the Federal level, state governments are governments of “general powers,” which means they can do anything not expressly forbidden by their state constitution (or that contradicts federal law). Romneycare is clearly constitutional at the state level, and there’s a very good reason for that. Issues such as these are best left to the states. States are better able to understand and address the needs of their local populations, so unless you’re a resident of Massachusetts, it’s none of your business or concern whether they choose to pass Romneycare.

On the other hand, as a government of “limited powers,” the federal government deals with only those issues that should be applicable across the board, and bad Supreme Court decisions aside, unless the Federal Constitution expressly grants those powers (or they’re fairly inferred), the federal government doesn’t have them.

Because of this huge Constitutional difference, there’s absolutely no reason to believe that Gov. Romney would support Obamacare even if he honestly supported Romneycare. Saying that it’s legal at the state level says absolutely nothing about whether it’s legal at the federal level, and saying it’s viable and useful at the state level also says absolutely nothing about whether it’s viable and useful at the federal level. They’re two separate animals, and Gov. Romney’s honest stance on one isn’t a good indicator of his honest stance on the other.

Of course, as error #1 points out, it doesn’t matter if he supports Obamacare. He’ll be executing it if it’s still in force during his presidency, and he won’t be executing it if it’s repealed. It’s simply not up to him.

Conclusion

There are a number of simple lessons you can learn about our government that would greatly clear up many of your misconceptions. This one is just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe your substantive opinion on Romneycare or Obamacare is correct, but if you’re like the typical American, you’re right for the wrong reasons, making your correctness an accident. If that’s how you form your opinions, you’re just as well off flipping a coin. Remember, you’re the sovereign. Is that anyway to govern?

BTW, the media doesn’t help.

Follow me on Twitter @RobertEBodine
Follow President Barack Obama on Twitter @BarackObama
Follow Governor Mitt Romney on Twitter @MittRomney
Follow the Washington Post on Twitter @washingtonpost