« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Multiple Choice Mitt’s Changing Colors on Romneycare

April 12, 2006 is a day that will live on in infamy.  That was the day that then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed his signature socialized healthcare bill into law with Ted Kennedy standing over his shoulder.  It was the first time in American history that government of any sort compelled its citizenry to purchase health insurance.  It served as the catalyst for an individual mandate on a federal level, paving the road for Obamacare.

At the time, John Kerry heaped accolades on Romney, ominously suggesting that “we really need to be doing that on the national level.” Ted Kennedy praised it as “just what the doctor ordered,” and observed that we “may well have fired a shot heard round the world.”  It took less than four years for the shot to metastasize into a bombardment – one that will permanently attenuate our free-enterprise economy.

So how did Romney feel about his signature accomplishment of an otherwise uninspiring one-term tenure as governor?

At the time of its passage, Romney dubbed it as a “once in a generation” achievement.  He referred to his magnum opus, which created subsidies for government run exchanges (larger than those created under Obamacare), as a “landmark” achievement “to get all of our citizens insurance without some new government-mandated takeover.”

From Romney’s perspective, did he consider final passage of MassCare a meritorious ideal or a mediocre compromise watered down by the Democrat legislature?

Well, immediately after he signed the bill into law, he told Newsweek reporter Jennifer Barrett that “the final legislation incorporates about 95 percent of my original proposal.”

At the time, did Romney feel that the framework for his healthcare plan was a virtuous policy endeavor for the rest of the nation?

On the day he signed the bill, he put out a press release quoting then-Secretary of HHS Tommy Thompson (who, by the way, must be defeated in Wisconsin) saying, “Massachusetts is showing us a better way, one I hope policy makers in Statehouses and Congress will follow to build a healthier and stronger America.”

Being that Romneycare was Mitt’s “landmark” and “once in a generation” accomplishment, you would have expected him to tout it incessantly during his presidential campaign later that year and in 2007.  Instead, Romneycare became the best kept secret of his presidential campaign.

As the crushing costs of Romneycare –both to the public and private sector – became evident, and as Romney began to court conservative voters opposing McCain, he placed his signature accomplishment in the Mittness Protection Program.  Not only did he decline to offer it as a national solution, Romney never spoke about MassCare unless prodded by conservative figures.  When pressed about the vices of his healthcare bill, Romney would summarily dismiss them as problems stemming from Democrat provisions in the bill – unspecified aspects that he supposedly opposed.  In January 2007, at the beginning of the presidential campaign, he told a group of National Romney Review Online supporters that “we believed we’d get everybody insured in an economic way, but I don’t know what is going to happen down the road as the Democrats get their hands on it.”

Romney often cast doubts as to the future success of his plan as a result of the “Democrat legislature.”  In Feb. 2007, he told a crowd in Baltimore “if Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation. If not, other states that are copying aspects of Massachusetts’ [plan] will find a better way, and then we can copy them.”

Well, the facts are in.  Romneycare has failed to control costs, and has dramatically raised the price of health insurance on everyone.  Nevertheless, Mitt Romney denies the facts and continues to view his signature legislation as a success.  He has repeatedly asserted that 92% of Massachussets residents are unaffected by Romneycare.  Yet, he has consistently and vehemently declined to endorse a similar plan on a national level.  What happened to his conviction that ” if Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation?”

In 2006, while he was Governor, Romneycare was a “once in a generation” accomplishment that should be mimicked on a national level.  In 2007, while running to the right of McCain, it was a dirty skeleton in the closet that was exacerbated by Democrat sabotage.  Now it is a resounding success….but only on a state level.  God forbid it to be even entertained on a national level.

So which one is it, Mitt?

This is what we have to look forward to from Democrats in the general election:

COMMENTS

  • Massachusetts_Transplant

    the DNC ad is back again on Red State to hammer Romney. Wow – and yet many attack the National Review and Fox News? Look in the mirror please.

    while some of you are home sulking, many of the rest of us will be working for Romney trying to get hime elected. I know, I know, if only Rick “1% in New Hampshire” Perry were the nominee then we’d beat Obama for shore – I mean, 60% of the vote last night was for the “not-Romney”, of course 99% was for the “Not Perry”, but whose counting.

    • WillWong

      core beliefs on abortion, Romney care, Reagan, Climate Change, Assault weapons ban, etc. This is brutal! Can see how he can beat Obama in the general!

      • WillWong

        Until you pointed it out! And that is the key…..What difference does it make whether it is DNC or purchased by someone else if the stuff are true! It is just brutal! And McCain’s ads against Romney are just as brutal!

        • Stan

          And notice, NONE of the Bain Capital crap is in it. And yet, the talking heads all say that Willard is our best hope to defeat “Dear Leader”? Holy cow, Batman – we’re in a world of hurt.

    • Vegas_Rick

      As long as the GOP has enough “win at all costs, values, policy and ethics be damned…” people like you, it really doesn’t matter who runs.

      The Washington GOP elites will get their way.

      Romney may be marginally better than Obama in the short term. But in the long term he is just another engineer driving the big government train over the rest of us.

      I WILL vote for him and I may even work for him, but I honestly think it’s a waste of time and effort. If Romney is the best we can do after Obama, we are soooooo screwed.

      • maybenexttime

        I’m sure 95% of those reading this site would prefer Mitt Romney over Barack Obama any day of the week. The problem is that Romney doesn’t represent the solid, unwavering principles that most in the Republican party hold dear. Time after time, he has shown a willingness to change his values to suit the prevailing political environment. A courageous leader doesn’t do that.

        If enough GOP voters say Romney is the best candidate their party can offer, I’m worried about what that statement could do to the conservative brand in years to come. The Republican party is just beginning to recover from the damage George W Bush did over the past decade. Romney seems poised to erase those gains should he win the presidency.

        • swami7774

          No, he’s not an “unwavering” conservative. But neither is Gingrich, and if you think he can be elected nationally this (or ANY) year, you’re smoking something.
          BTW, I’m not sure if any “unwavering” conservative could get elected nationally. Times have changed since RR’s day; the Left is far more entrenched now than it was then. Whoever we nominate will have to pick off a few Dems here and there(not to mention large chunks of unaffiliateds). A down-the-line conservative can win statewide(witness DeMint), but not nationally.
          Sorry, that’s just the way it is. I wish it were different, but it’s not.

          • maybenexttime

            If you’re going to base everything on electability, then perhaps the GOP should’ve convinced Obama to switch parties in 2008 and run as a Republican. He clearly was the more electable candidate in that cycle.

            If it’s always going to be about winning just to have an “R” in the White House for purposes of bragging rights, there’s no real need for holding firm on policy positions. That’s precisely what Romney’s strategy has been during his political life.

            Romney will be the leader of the Republican party and the Conservative movement should he win the White House. Whatever positions he takes (or flips) will reflect on the party as a whole. Are you comfortable trusting somebody like Romney with that responsibility given his previous track record?

          • goodgovernance

            Is that let’s say Romney actually wins in the general (odds are Obama will, though, but just barely). What do we get? Sure, we don’t get Obama’s vast government agenda, but we get a moderate who won’t have the courage to enact the big changes that need to be made, out of fear of what will happen to his poll ratings.

            We get a status quo Republican party for four years, possibly eight if the country doesn’t turn on Romney in his first term. But after eight years of status quo, the nation most definitely will be in the mood to go Dem, change for change’s sake.

            And so where does that leave conservatives? We’ll have to wait another decade before we really get a chance to change Washington!

            Look at the way the Romney crowd has returned to comment on RedState, flooding the board with talking points straight from Romney Central. I do think it’s kind of strange there’s no way to take Romney on without being labeled as a Leftist, but the Establishment has thought their strategy through, give them that much. They just don’t have a real plan for the future.

          • jimmyneutron

            The tipping point has been reached. Either we begin to seriously reverse course now or there will be no reversing course.

    • cfogel1973

      Clearly Willard is not as electable as the republicans think he is.

      So which Willard are you working for?
      The one for TARP or against it?
      For abortion or against abortion?
      Banning guns or 2nd amendment supporter?
      For his own socialized medicine or against it?

      Good luck and good bowling.

  • ethos

    Romney’s ‘flips’ leave Republicans with the choice of either accepting him at his word, or vilifying his character. Romneycare is fair game.

  • A_Texan

    This issue provides him with an opportunity–and opportunity to rally conservatives (and even some Ron Paul supporters)–and the opportunity can be summarized in two words: TENTH AMENDMENT! And no, the sheer fact that he once quoted Tommy Thompson’s comment is not decisive.

  • AndrewHyman

    Personally, I don’t much like RomneyCare in its original form or as it exists today, but its original form was vastly better than ObamaCare (which is an extremely bureaucratic national program and unconstitutional to boot), and the original form of RomneyCare was also better than doing nothing. I don’t think that people ought to lose decades off their life spans due to not being able to afford medical care or not having insurance, nor does it seem fair that uninsured people obtain free care while the rest of us get stuck with the bill. How does Mr. Horowitz propose to solve these problems? Have any states solved these problems satisfactorily?

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      where you are citing this vague notion that Romneycare was vastly better than O-Care. The subsidies under the govt run exchanges are actually steeper and disincentivize upward mobility even more than Obamacare. Moreover, he dumped 200,000 people onto medicaid, which is funded by taxpayers of all states. So in that respect it is worse than Obamacare.

      The bottom line is that there aren’t enough substantial differences between the two in order to rationalize support for one (Romneycare) but visceral opposition to the other (obamacare). Either you believe that an unencumbered free market drives down costs and that more mandates and third-party programs drive up costs, or you believe, as Obama does, that more intervention is the way to go. Romneycare is completely premised on the latter.

      By all accounts, health insurance premiums in Mass. have skyrocketed as a result of MassCare. So it is actually these gov’t interventions that make insurance unaffordable and “help lose decades from people’s lives”. In order to save those who suffer from such gov’t-induced price increases, Romneycare and Obamacare dump so many people on Medicaid.

      In order to understand the way forward, we need to learn why healtcare and health insurance is so expensive? On the healthcare side, a big part of it is tort problems. On the insurance side, it is the lack of a free-market. It is these very policies of guaranteed issue, community rating, restrictions on purchasing across state lines that are distorting the marker and driving up the cost of insurance. We need to move away from them, not double down on them, as Romney and Obama have done.

      The reason why states have a difficult time dealing with this issue is because they are precluded by the government, which runs most of healthcare (even before Obamacare) with an iron fist; Medicaid, SChip, VA, and the 800-pound gorilla -Medicare. There is not much a state can do when the largest drivers and movers of healthcare policy and costs are inexorably driving up costs. We need reform from the federal level in which we subsidize a voucher program (or, at the very least, premium support) for Medicare and veterans healthcare. This will open the biggest drivers of healthcare spending up to market forces and create downward pressure on prices.

      Nothing is free in life, and certainly, the best healthcare in the world cannot and should not be free. But only free-market reforms will make the cost somewhat manageable. for the remaining people who can’t afford it. we should have one safety net program that works similar to food stamps. Instead of a third-party market-distorter like Medicaid, we should give them medical stamps to purchase private insurance. But either way, the overarching goal should not be dependency; we should structure the program to encourage people to become more independent.

      Remaining reforms would include modifying the medicare payroll tax to go into HSAs, leveling the playing field between employer-based insurance and personal insurance by either offering both tax credits – or neither.

      There are many other free-market ideas, but the federal gov’t must act first so states can be free to experiment. What Romney did is 180 degrees the opposite of prudent market-based reform.

      I think you are right in the sense that healthcare costs are very high -to high. Republicans need to do a better job articulating and empathizing with those who suffer from the costs. They must do so, not by mimicking Obama’s failed socialist interventions, but by showing how it is those very policies that have engendered the problem in the first place.

      I’ll have more on free-market healthcare in the coming days.

      • AndrewHyman

        Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

        In my opinion, RomneyCare is vastly better than ObamaCare primarily in that the latter is a nationwide program that bars states from trying different innovative approaches, while also exceeding the constitutional powers of Congress. ?Additionally, as I understand it, ObamaCare grabbed half a trillion dollars from Medicare, thus jeopardizing the elderly. ?In terms of making a bureaucratic mess, it seems like Romney’s 70-page bill was much less onerous than Obama’s??2,700-page bill.

        You mention the “iron fist” of the federal government controlling?Medicaid, SChip, VA, and the 800-pound gorilla -Medicare, but hasn’t Romney explicitly said that he wants to take that federal money and send it back to the states so they can directly control those programs?

        If someone has a heart attack, or cancer, or the like then they ought to get life-saving treatment. ?I’m not sure why that wasn’t already covered in Massachusetts pre-Romney under MediCare as a last resort, which is why I am not crazy about RomneyCare. ?But there there do seem to be huge differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare, including that the former is illegal.

        • AndrewHyman

          Oops, the title should have said “vs” instead of “bs”. :-)

          • AndrewHyman

            Oh, and I meant to say “under MedicAid as a last resort” instead of “under MediCare as a last resort”. I will now retire for the night before completely exhausting the word “oops”. :-)

      • darkswen

        seems to indicate that Obamacare also dumps everyone under 137% of the poverty line into Medicaid. The calculator indicates that a family of 4 at $31,000 a year or a single person at $15,000 a year is dumped into Medicaid. Same people at $32,000 for 4 or $15,000 for 1 receives can receive a tax credit(welfare) to their insurance company for 90+% of their premium. By adjusting the ages I was able to get the amount of tax credit(welfare) over $30,000 dollars a year.It appears to incentivize people to keep income low. Do not see how it can possible work. It seems to be designed to push government spending to economy collapsing levels. http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

  • Carol Tarasewicz

    Nothnig good ever happened when a Republican worked with Ted K. We have No Child Lef Behind, Romneycare, the 2006 or was it 2007 McCain/Kennedy amnesty but we managed to stop that one.

  • carolynr

    companies or the federal government

  • WillWong

    Will not be voting for him in the primary! But if he is the nominee, God forbid, I will likely pull the lever for him but I do not expect that I will be planting yard signs for him, contributing any money to his campaign, or try to win people for him. I still do not see how he can beat Obama in the general.

  • maybenexttime

    Romney is skilled enough politically to beat a wounded incumbent like Obama. Of this I am quite sure. Obama is going to have an uphill battle with the economic climate, which is still very lousy.

    The only problem is someone with Romney’s record can do serious damage to the conservative brand in a very short time. He has been going through a series of curious epiphanies since he began running for the presidency five years ago. Do you think these were genuine, heartfelt changes by Romney…or were they hastily contrived for his own political gain?

    That is what worries me…and it should worry any conservative who wants a principled leader in the Oval Office.

  • WillWong

    I surely can’t tell by looking at his poll numbers! Anyone else with his record, or lack of, would be at the lows thirty’s or mid twenties and yet he is at mid 40′s. A slanted MSM is worth at least 15~20 points for Obama. Mitt would not be able to campaign on our strongest weapon…the repeal of Obamacare, for Obamacare’s predecessor was named after himself! On top of that, Mitt is the perfect foil for the 1% and the left will have a field day with his flip flopps and his tenure at bain Capital!

  • furiouschads

    Wooden
    Inevitable
    Electable (I don’t like him but normal people will vote for him.)
    Privileged
    Well funded
    Moderate (within his party’s spectrum)
    From Mass.
    Flipflopper

  • AceInTX

    ….if he wins the election…Republicans will be in the impossible position of defending something Mitt has said…they will go out on a limb on a line of attack to defend Romney only to find ourselves all alone while Windsock Willard will be back at the tree sawing the limb off by changing his position to pander to the media.

    If he wins the nomination…he will have my vote…and nothing more….I won’t spend this election being berated and brow beaten about supporting the nominee…I will go silent….I will vote for the bum…but that’s it.

    My integrity means something to me….it has value…I will NOT sell it or give it away defending Romney and that video says all that needs be said about why!

  • redcal

    * Far more liberal than superficially thought
    * A videotaped Francophile (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyP2M0DTch8
    )
    * Insincere/Inauthentic
    * Unable to generate a sense of mission, even among his own base
    * Entitled

  • goodolboy

    Federalism is all about the states basically doing as they see what is best for them in that state. If they screw it up they learn from their mistakes and press on. Either they can entirely what they were doing or modify it. So many times things look good on paper and in discussions and trial runs but are totally different when put into practice. My point being let states experiment as they want on an individual basis and others can look at it and take it or leave it. The Federal Government should have no role in those types of issues cause one size does not fit all. Just remember at the federal level it is not about solving a problem but gaining power and control over peoples lives. This is what the Founders feared and want things left at the state level and the federal government had only those powers given to it in the Constitution. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of states mention Jesus and God in their constituions and Christianity was basically state religions. This did not violate the Constitution. What concerns me is we basically have only two viable choices for the Republican nomination…Gingrich and Romney. None of the “perfect candidates” are running so we have to go with what we have. I have been very disappointed in Gingrich and Perry’s recent anti-capitalist comments made as to Romney and Bain Capital. I supported Cain, and then shifted to Newt when Cain dropped out. Now Newt’s actions of the last two days are a concern. Let’s work to get a 60 seat majority in the Senate, maintain control in the House, and get a maybe-not-so-perfect Republican as president. We have got to stop the socialism that’s now going on .

  • gracie

    that does not have an embed code so I cannot paste the link. I wonder if any of you have heard of this…

    A neurosurgeon called Levin on the way back from a meeting in DC on Obamacare. He states that it is not known by the public yet but but at the age of 70 a person who presents at the emergency room with a brain bleed will only be given “comfort care,” That is, Strokes will not be treated!

    Not only that persons are not called patients; we are call “UNITS!” Ethics panels, will get together and decide what type of care will be approved and NOBODY over 70 will be approved. This information was provided to the neurosurgeon by HHS.

    So what do you all think? Do you trust Romney to get rid of Obamacare? Last I heard he said he was going to fix it. That is both before and after he said he was going to repeal it…all in the same month.

  • tonotisto

    Or did he say he’ll repeal it?

    Either way, we should take him at his word, as he has never said things just to get elected before. Just look at You Tube, he has been very consistent.

    Also, he is not known for flip-flopping.

    Plus, as a moderate progressive (Romney’s words not mine), he will be dedicated to Conservative values.

  • gracie

    n/t

  • metairiemike

    pointed out that she believes Mitt Romney is to the right of George Bush when it comes to Supreme Court appointments, has Robert Bork as his advisor on legal and SCOTUS matters and would nominate justices like Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia to the court.
    If anyone needs a reason to vote for Romney, guys, there it is.