Comments about ‘Bennett getting help from Romney for his re-election quest’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 20 2010 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

Mike R.

What do you think Medicare is, a private plan? We are forced to pay into it if we have job or a business.

Government paid healthcare already represents 50% of total health care costs. We are forced to comply. You sound worried that the Bennett bill would have cut Medicare. Isn't this a bit of a double standard. By your standard, Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional. Aren't we all forced to pay for it? Aren't we forced to by a government service that could be provided by the private sector.

What say you?


Romney has the same problem Bennett does: Both have lost the moral high ground to repeal Obama Care, because both are tainted with their own socialized health care legislation. At least Romney did it at the state level, where the constitutional authority to do so resides. Bennett sponsored a federal health care bill with a mandate, which is beyond the legislative authority given to Congress by the Constitution.

We need a Senator who isn't saddled with his own unconstitutional health care legislative history, in order to carry the moral high ground for arguing to repeal the most devastating Obama Care legislation.


To facts_r-stubborn and ground_it:

You can sugar coat the Bennett health care all you want, but it would have taken Congress WAY WAY out beyond its Constitutional limits. Period.

I refuse to vote for any would be congress person who has such flagrant disregard for the principles of limited federal government. We must clean house of such politicians. That is why Bennett has to go.


Can't wait for May 8th -- I'll be on my way home from the convention with Bob Bennett in my rear view mirror forever. . . the future vision includes Mike Lee's leadership in Washington D.C., and the first order of business among the freshman class will be to dismantle the flawed seniority system in the Congress that furnishes us with career politicians like Bennett and Hatch. "I will NEVER become a career politician." -- Bob Bennett when he ran the first time. That's the only promise we asked you to keep Senator, and because you couldn't keep it yourself, we will keep it for you.


JMW, what do you mean by "way beyond constitutional limits?"

Have you heard of the insurance terms, "moral hazard" and "adverse selection?" Fact is, by guaranteeing issue and eliminating pre-existing conditions, you will also be eliminating health insurers by making them insolvent! I'm convinced that is part of the ultra liberals' plan, because then the federal government steps in as the single payer. Goodbye private delivery system, good bye state control. Get it? That's why if you move people out of charity care, which we now all pay for, and insure them, you must have them pay premiums for it. Nothing could be more market based.

Bennett's bill was vastly superior to Obama Care, though not perfect. In fact, it never had a chance of passage, and was merely a starting point for alternatives, and meaningful discussion on how to reign in HC costs.

One of its problems, I agree with you on this, is it relied too much on federal regulation of the health insurance industry rather than state regulation, which is closer to the people and can be tailored to meet local needs.


Is Bennett willing to take this risk. Romney will come out and say what he things the audience wants to hear. He may zig and zag. in the course of his speech, he may support Bennett, then support Lee, the support the others, then come back to Bennett. It will be tortuous to watch.


Just one clarification, so as not to be misleading. Insurers will go insolvent without a mandate for payment of premiums, under any plan to expand coverage to the uninsured. You can't expand benefits to 32 million uninsured without collecting premiums from someone.

Insurers may also feel substantial cost pressures and solvency concerns because of tough federal lost cost standards, 80% for small plans and 85% for large group plans. Federal mandates on state rate regulation could be severe for some insurers, who need to increase claims payments and expenses without the ability to increase rates.

Unfortunately, many of these same costs already exist in the system, and we you have insurance, you are paying the bill. We already have near universal coverage since no one is denied medical care just because they don't have insurance and can't pay out of pocket.

Those costs and the shortfalls in Medicare and Medicaid payments are made up by increased private group plan rates on the rest of us.

Obama Care did nothing to address the real cost drivers of health care cost increases. Until we do that, we are just playing a shell game with the costs.


Correction: that is "loss cost" not "lost cost."



I didn't mean to distract from the core of my comment so much with the aspersion "career politician" for Romney. I guess I simply meant that for the past eight years I haven't seen him involved in a "day job" -- which, really, at his age is probably fine. You're right. He worked hard at a previous career, was successful, and now has embarked on a new career. Good on him.

I am not part of any of the candidate's campaigns -- volunteer or otherwise -- though I am attracted to the campaigns of a couple of the non-Bennett Senators and could see putting out a sign or getting involved in other ways in the future. I'm not just spewing campaign rhetoric when I say that Romney goes around garnering / repaying political favors for already established Republican incumbents. It's pretty normal to do that. It simply does not solve Bennett's negatives.

Less than a year ago Bennett told Utah legislators the Constitution was outdated. He also said we don't need to balance the Federal budget. These are issues.

That said, also agreed: I strongly support Philpot over Matheson this election.


I'm a state delegate who supported Romney but will be voting for Lee. Romney's appearance makes no difference to me. In fact, it makes me question my future support for him.

Bob's belief that simply having Romney speak will sway voters shows how arrogant and out of touch he has become. Rather than admit voter angst he chooses to believe that people against him are so stupid and uncommitted to our own beliefs that we'll change at the sound of one person's voice.

Hey Bob, we're not that shallow.



In all your complaining about delegates not representing the people of Utah you seem to have forgotten that it was the people of Utah who voted for the delegates. If "Bailout Bob" doesn't make it to a primary where he can buy his election then it will be the will of the Utah people, those same people that elected their delegates to represent them and vote they way they did.


I have noticed a sad trend over the last few years. I am sure a similar trend can be found on the radical left. The list of those being purged from the Republican Party is growing; a few of these casualties might included Jon Huntsman, Mike Levitt, Bob Bennett and now Mitt Romney. It seems that anyone who has real ideas to real problems is a RINO. That is why people who have been strong supporters for years are now finding the Republican Party irrelevant.


DougB, I respect your more well reasoned and reasonable tone, and also your right to support whoever you wish. I also am just a regular citizen and not working on any candidate's campaign.

I think you may be taking Senator Bennett's comments out of context. First, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. The last amendment was adopted in 1992. It was designed with a mechanism to change itself. By design it is not easy to do, so as not to fall victim to political whim, but it is possible.

For example, I believe in an amendment for congressional term limits. Others do not. The point is not that the entire Constitution becomes outdated, but rather, it occassionally needs to be amended to take into account a changing world.

Second, there are times which should only be temporary when a federal budget deficit is acceptable, even necessary. For example, WWII. The question is how much and when and how do you re-balance after surviving a crisis.

I think that this is a more fair assessment of what Senator Bennett was referring to, although I don't pretend to speak for him.



Would those be the same caucus goers who didn't want anyone to speak unless they were anti-Bennett?

The same caucus goers who had never been to a caucus before, and weren't interested in any facts, just being angry and being anti?

They certainly don't represent me.

Mike Richards

@9:23 & 9:42,

You have every right to agree with Mr. Bennett, particularly if he signs your paychecks. Your response is almost exactly the response that I received when I emailed Mr. Bennett and asked him how his health-care bill was authorized by the Constitution.

Whoever answered that email did just as both of you have done: You ignored the Constitutionality of the bill and focused on the fact that Mr. Bennett thought that he was helping people.

Let him help all that he wants, but as an Elected Senator, he is bound, 100%, by the limits of the Constitution.

Yes, Medicare is NOT authorized by the Constitution. Has Mr. Bennett done anything in all of his years in office to correct that problem? Of course not. He is afraid of the people. He's not a leader. He's a follower of whatever is popular.

No one respects a man who will not keep his oath of office - to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He has not learned to be submissive and obedient to that document. He puts self above the Constitution.

I could never vote for Mr. Bennett.



You sure are painting with a very broad brush. Your labeling of those new comers as "not interested in facts" and somehow making "newcomers" a bad thing is why so many people are angry. And since when is being angry a bad thing?

Most of the people I met, although new to the process (myself included)knew the facts and were no more vocal than Bennett supporters.

As for representing you, I'm sure they don't. But with your hyper-generalization of "new comers" I wouldn't be surprised if you spent the time being angry yourself instead of listening to what they had to say.

Thomas Jefferson

to mike r:

Let me say this again for the thousandth day in a row. You are NOT a constitutional expert except in your own mind. NONE of the people that matter agree with your uneducated and imbecilic interpretation of the constitution. Just because your favorite talking head agrees with you doesnt make you or him right. If you were right then you would have a case you could take to court but you dont. Go ahead, sue. You will lose.

Mike Richards

@ 10:41,

You and Mr. Bennett can have any kind of tantrum that you want about the Constitution. If YOU can read, then read Article 1, Section 8 where the AUTHORIZED DUTIES of Congress are enumerated. For the uneducated, an enumeration is a LIST. It's all spelled out in words that an elementary school student can understand. It's the contract that WE, THE PEOPLE have with the Government. It RESTRICTS Congress, including Mr. Bennett.

When YOU have taken the time to read that section, perhaps YOU could tell Mr. Bennett to read it also.

Your attacks on a fellow citizen who encourages others to READ the Constitution shows that you don't want people to know what is written. YOU and Mr. Bennett want people to believe you, rather than their own eyes.

Mr. Bennett does not want limits placed on his authority as a Congressman. Well, that's just too bad for him. He has proposed bills, including his health-care bill that is NOT allowed by the Constitution. He now knows that fact. Everyone who can read also knows that. He wants to hide that fact. You want to hide that fact.



Mr. Richards,

I read the Constitution and teach the Citizenship in the Nation Merit Badge to scouts. I am not on Senator Bennett's payroll and have no affilation with any campaign.

I also study history, biology, political science and insurance regulation, if you can believe that. Obviously, I never read the letter Senator Bennett sent you, and had no idea what his response was.

If my post wss similar to what his response was, perhaps that's because I've studied the issue, and presented the facts, as he did.

On a previous thread you challenged me to provide a cite for the federal goverment's right to regulate insurance. I gave you the cites but I'm not sure you ever got them.

The Supreme Court Case affirming federal juriscition over insurance is: United States vs. South Eastern Underwriter's Association, (322 U.S. 533), in 1944. In response to this decision, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945, which granted an exemption for federal regulation of insurance, and returned that responsibility to the states, where it had always been and still is today. Congress can change that at any time.


I apologize for the generalization. I'm sure every caucus meeting was different. I'm only giving you my experience at my caucus meeting.

My only point is that some delegates feel they have the more informed view than the general voter. That may or may not be true, but isn't it the same thing some accuse Bennett of knowing more, which probably is true most of the time, because that't the job of an elected representative.

You said it yourself, "If "Bailout Bob" doesn't make it to a primary where he can buy his election then it will be the will of the Utah people."

And yet you say you will not be influenced by an endorsement, but you also seem to say the average primary voter will be influenced by money spent on ads. So you are saying you are smarter than the average voter, and represent the will of the people more than the people themselves, who presumably can be influenced, right?

Why not just make it simple, and let the voters decide?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments