I love winning. But what does winning mean in a political sense? Is winning just getting someone with an (R) next to their name? Does winning mean just getting rid of Obama?
We know we do not want to go down the direction Obama wants us to go. We know Obama believes in state control and this creates a lot of fear in common sense people. We fear what will happen if we lose this election: ObamaCare will become part of everyday Americans’ lives. People will come to depend upon it. And so, yet another government program is created. One that cannot be opposed because any change might harm some people.
These are reasonable fears. Romney voters correctly figure that anything designed by Democrats must lead to big government. But where Romney voters are different is that they believe systems designed by Republicans and designed to be carried out by the states will all be–wonderful market-driven solutions making everyone’ lives better with government not interfering in vital decisions.
Government, Romney voters believe, will not be intrusive under a Romney designed system. And they believe even if Romney’s plan is not very good—the Democrats’ plan would be much worse. There is an amount of truth in this belief. For example, Bush’s Medicare part D designed with market incentives rather than government run directives, for all its faults, actually came in under cost projections (first time I can recall for any government program)
So is Romney care designed in the same fashion as Medicare part D?
Under Medicare part D:
“The standard benefit is defined in terms of the benefit structure and not in terms of the drugs that must be covered”
Is this how ObamaCare is structured? RomneyCare?
No. Both ObamaCare and RomneyCare specify exactly WHAT must be covered. In recent days, we have seen the failure of this type of approach—Catholics who do not believe it is ethical to use birth control are being FORCED to purchase plans that include this coverage. At this moment, Catholic churches are risking huge fines by refusing to agree to this ObamaCare provision. But this is just one example. There are hundreds of other decisions about what will be covered or not covered. So there are decisions about who will get care and who will not.
Who decides this and is RomneyCare any better?
“RomneyCare calls for the state’s Connector to specify which benefits must be included in health plans (Section 101)”
Gee, under RomneyCare a government official tells you what you get when you buy insurance. You have no say. Does that sound market oriented to you? Is this like Medicare Part D, that leaves the decision of what drugs are covered to the plan chosen by the customer? Does RomneyCare enable people to get the coverage THEY want? NO and NO.
So how do we convince Romney supporters to change their mind? That a man who deisgned this type of system and does not speak out against this government intrusion is not right to be a Republican President?
I am afraid Romney voters are so afraid of Obama that even after reading the above they will just simple say ‘Still, he is better than Obama and maybe we can sway his views’
SO WHAT CAN BE DONE TO STOP ROMNEY IF HIS VOTERS ONLY CARE ABOUT WINNING?
The answer is simple: We must show them that Romney is likely to lose. That is the only thing that will convince them. So what this means is that we must show them the attacks the left will make on Romney. This does not mean we agree with these types of attacks but Romney voters must be shown that Romney is not likely to win–otherwise they will keep supporting Romney.
I suggest a series of ads based upon what Democratic consultants tell you they will attack him on. Once Romney voters are no longer confident that Romney can win, taking a chance with Newt or Santorum will not seem so scary since they know these men are fighting for something worth believing in–less government control over our lives. Not just winning for winning sake.