Massachusetts: the laboratory for ObamaCare

posted at 4:30 pm on August 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this month, we used DirigoChoice in Maine as an example of the disaster a public-plan health-care reform can generate.  Cato Institute looks a little farther down the coast to Massachusetts, where the state began its own health-care reform complete with individual mandates and a government plan.  Cato calls it an “almost perfect” mirror of ObamaCare, complete with promises of reducing cost and extending care — that failed in both respects:

Massachusetts reduced its uninsured population by two-thirds — yet the cost would be considered staggering, had state officials not done such a good job of hiding it. Finally, Massachusetts shows where “ObamaCare” would ultimately lead: Officials are already laying the groundwork for government rationing.

The most sweeping provision in the Massachusetts reforms — and the legislation before Congress — is an “individual mandate” that makes health insurance compulsory. Massachusetts shows that such a mandate would oust millions from their low-cost health plans and force them to pay higher premiums. …

In the three years since Massachusetts enacted its individual mandate, providers successfully lobbied to require 16 specific types of coverage under the mandate: prescription drugs, preventive care, diabetes self-management, drug-abuse treatment, early intervention for autism, hospice care, hormone replacement therapy, non-in-vitro fertility services, orthotics, prosthetics, telemedicine, testicular cancer, lay midwives, nurses, nurse practitioners and pediatric specialists.

The Massachusetts Legislature is considering more than 70 additional requirements.

This might be a good point to revisit another example of government-run care, in Oregon, where the government has a nifty way of determining medical priorities — it has politicians decide them. The Independence Institute had some fun with this:

Let’s get back to Massachusetts, though.  What was the net result of government control and individual mandates?  An explosion in costs:

“The effect,” writes the Boston Globe, “has been to provide more comprehensive insurance than in most other states but also to raise costs.” Premiums are growing 21 to 46 percent faster than the national average, in part because Massachusetts’ individual mandate has effectively outlawed affordable health plans.

In part, that comes from the same reason it costs more than three times as much for a healthy, 30-year-old single male in Maine to get insurance than it would if he crossed the border into New Hampshire.  Massachusetts also imposed must-insure and community-ratings laws on insurers, which means that premiums skyrocketed to cover the risks in the pool:

Massachusetts long ago adopted another feature of the Obama plan: price controls that prohibit insurers from varying premiums based on a purchaser’s health status. Those price controls further increase premiums for the young and healthy.

They also eliminate comprehensive health plans. Obama adviser David Cutler found that in Harvard University’s price-controlled health insurance exchange, “adverse selection” or the attraction of the sickest patients caused premiums for the most comprehensive plan to rise until insurers eventually canceled it. Those price controls also encourage insurers to avoid the sick. And who can blame them, considering that the government is forcing them to sell a $50,000 policy for just $10,000?

One way insurers can avoid the $50,000 patients is to drop benefits those customers find attractive. Shelby Rogers is a 12-year-old girl with spinal muscular atrophy, whose parents chose an Aetna plan through the price-controlled health insurance exchange for federal workers. Last year, Aetna announced it would drop coverage for Shelby’s 12-hour-a-day nurse, who, among other things, helps Shelby avoid bedsores by turning her over at night. An Aetna spokesman explained the reason was to avoid offering a benefit that causes the sickest patients to flock to the plan.

ObamaCare advocates scoff at the notion that public plans and mandates will drive private insurers out of business, but that’s the direction Massachusetts has taken.  The rapidly rising costs have prompted the commonwealth to begin considering care rationing.  The state legislature has begun working on a policy of “evidence-based purchasing strategies” to keep costs down, but which will allow Massachusetts to deny care based on bureaucratic decisions of comparative effectiveness.  Politicians will start making life-and-death decisions instead of patients and doctors.

And for all of that, what has been the fiscal cost?  Massachusetts now spends $2.1 billion a year (and rising) – but you won’t find the state acknowledging that number.  They claim it to be $88 million, as they shunt off most of the costs into budgetary devices intended to hide the true costs of its program.

It’s a disaster that even Massachusetts voters have begun to recognize.  Hopefully, so will the rest of the nation.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I heard Romney pimping the success of this program on Hannitys radio show. He stands by the 88 million number and scoffs at the 2.1 billion. Hannity didn’t challenge him at all.

It looks like they’re going to leave it up to Palin to take him down.

Lonetown on August 29, 2009 at 4:40 PM

I heard the same interview. Mitt seemed a bit defensive naturally and the parts I heard sounded like damage control. I was for Fred first in the primary; but he had zero mo jo; so I jumped ship to Romney who got dicked by Huckabe splitting the vote.

Its just a case of the lesser of two or three evils, Obama is the ultimate evil. Everything is optimization. 2010 first then 2012.

Geochelone on August 29, 2009 at 8:03 PM

I don’t care what the Polls predict or currently say – Romney is dead in the water after RomneyCare flopped. The only strong ones out there are Sarah and Rick Perry (Texas) – with Liz Cheney as top advisor. Wow what a team that would be!

Cinday Blackburn on August 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM

Now that the Kennedy dienasty is over maybe its time for a new Cheney Dynasty. Liz top advisor or whatever. She is young too.

Geochelone on August 29, 2009 at 8:05 PM

I’d like to see Romney run for Teddy the Swimmer’s vacant seat, win it, AND STAY THERE!

Khun Joe on August 29, 2009 at 8:05 PM

My biggest issue with these “public option” plan are that they are not sufficiently regulated. Specifically what I mean is working in Massachusetts auto insurance friends of mine who work Bodily Injury claims have told me how doctors driving $80,000 cars are on MassHealth. These SOB’s can damn well afford their own plan yet tax paeyers are stuck front the bill for them.

I also take issue with opponents of policies that prevent HMO/PPO’s from jacking up premium on what could be termed higher risk insureds. I have epilepsy. I will never be rid of it and I hate that fact. It limits what I can do both socially and job wise. But as an insured person I am considered higher risk and some companies if I attempted to get my own individual private plan would deem me uninsurable. Why should I be screwed because I was born with a disease? Do I favor flipping the bill for someone else? HELL NO! I also object to legislation that forces patients onto generic medication. Some is simply subpar compared to the name brand.

Government needs to have minimal involvement in something as personal and important as healthcare. More importantly everyone on both sides need to quit being so disingenuous about what this debate is about. Its not a healthcare debate it is a insurance debate. Everyone is entitled to healthcare no doctor can turn you away. But health insurance is a luxury…you gotta pay to play. You should not just be handed it.

Rattl3r on August 29, 2009 at 8:06 PM

Tennessee had a thing called TennCare. I lasted just long enough for politicians to see how explosive it was. TennCare is now a very limited program.

Pelayo on August 29, 2009 at 8:06 PM

I am a Romney supporter, but I had a feeling that he did this to get to the center, knowing he wouldn’t have to clean up the mess. He was long gone by the time the bill was due. Then during the election he tried to run to the right. Huh? I guess he figured McCain had the center locked down. He is now stuck in the unenviable position of defending this turd. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if he just said, “It was a mistake and if I had to do it over, knowing what I know, I wouldn’t do it.” However, I can’t see that buying him anything politically. It would only add to the “flip-flop” charge that the MSM has worked to pin on him.

drocity on August 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM

If Romney wants to gain the respect of Conservatives, he’ll confess this huge error and expose the ugly truth and take the hit for the sake of sparing us ZeroCare. He won’t get to be president, but TS to that.

This is a sword screaming to be fallen on, and it’s singing Mitt’s name.

Maquis on August 29, 2009 at 8:21 PM

bayview on August 29, 2009 at 7:55 PM

The healthcare fix is quite simple – 1. Phase out Medicare/Medicaid; 2. End federal and state government intrustion into sales and coverage; and 3. limit medical lawsuit awards to actual and consequential damages.

Solved! We’d have the best care for the least price for everyone.

Oneyedman on August 29, 2009 at 8:35 PM

Here is Romney defending his disastrous plan:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/mr-president-whats-the-rush.html
Because of President Obama’s frantic approach, health care has run off the rails. For the sake of 47 million uninsured Americans, we need to get it back on track.

(Now insured: Francisco Diaz of Boston consults with nurse practitioner Anna Hackett Peterson./Josh T. Reynolds for USA TODAY; Mitt Romney./AP)

Health care cannot be handled the same way as the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. With those, the president stuck to the old style of lawmaking: He threw in every special favor imaginable, ground it up and crammed it through a partisan Democratic Congress. Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America’s families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There’s a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.

No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts. The bill that made it happen wasn’t a rush job. Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to insure all our citizens. It took almost two years to find a solution. When we did, it passed the 200-member legislature with only two dissenting votes. It had the support of the business community, the hospital sector and insurers. For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats.

Massachusetts also proved that you don’t need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no “public option.” With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn’t necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals’ dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option.

The cost issue

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn’t have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

When our bill passed three years ago, the legislature projected that our program would cost $725 million in 2009. At $723 million, next year’s forecast is pretty much on target. When you calculate all the savings, including that from the free hospital care we eliminated, the net cost to the state is approximately $350 million. The watchdog Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation concluded that our program’s cost is “relatively modest” and “well within initial projections.”

And if subsidies and coverages are reined in, as I’ve suggested, the Massachusetts program could actually break even. One thing is certain: The president must insist on a program that doesn’t add to our spending burden. We simply cannot afford another trillion-dollar mistake.

The Massachusetts reform aimed at getting virtually all our citizens insured. In that, it worked: 98% of our citizens are insured, 440,000 previously uninsured are covered and almost half of those purchased insurance on their own, with no subsidy. But overall, health care inflation has continued its relentless rise. Here is where the federal government can do something we could not: Take steps to stop or slow medical inflation.

At the core of our health cost problem is an incentive problem. Patients don’t care what treatments cost once they pass the deductible. And providers are paid more when they do more; they are paid for quantity, not quality. We will tame runaway costs only when we change incentives. We might do what some countries have done: Require patients to pay a portion of their bill, except for certain conditions. And providers could be paid an annual fixed fee for the primary care of an individual and a separate fixed fee for the treatment of a specific condition. These approaches have far more promise than the usual bromides of electronic medical records, transparency and pay-for-performance, helpful though they will be.

Try a business-like analysis

I spent most of my career in the private sector. When well-managed businesses considered a major change of some kind, they engaged in extensive analysis, brought in outside experts, exhaustively evaluated every alternative, built consensus among those who would be affected and then moved ahead. Health care is many times bigger than all the companies in the Dow Jones combined. And the president is rushing changes that dwarf what any business I know has faced.

Republicans are not the party of “no” when it comes to health care reform. This Republican is proud to be the first governor to insure all his state’s citizens. Other Republicans such as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sens. Bob Bennett and John McCain, among others, have proposed their own plans. Republicans will join with the Democrats if the president abandons his government insurance plan, if he endeavors to craft a plan that does not burden the nation with greater debt, if he broadens his scope to reduce health costs for all Americans, and if he is willing to devote the rigorous effort, requisite time and bipartisan process that health care reform deserves.

Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007.

The Massachusetts plan
• Everyone must buy health insurance or face tax penalties.

• Hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on free hospital care were converted into subsidies to help the needy buy insurance.

• A health insurance “exchange” was established to help connect the uninsured with private health plans at more affordable rates.

• Health plans can offer consumers higher deductibles and more restrictive physician and hospital networks in order to lower costs.

• Businesses with 11 or more workers that do not offer insurance must pay a $295 per employee fee.

Source: Massachusetts Health Connector Authority

takeamericabackin10 on August 29, 2009 at 8:38 PM

Mitt honestly believes he acomplished something with Mass’ Healthcare. Which shows he isnt as conservative nor as good a executive as some made him out.

William Amos on August 29, 2009 at 8:44 PM

Tennessee had a thing called TennCare. I lasted just long enough for politicians to see how explosive it was. TennCare is now a very limited program.

Pelayo on August 29, 2009 at 8:06 PM

It was a disaster; costs eventually spiraled out of control and the program was rife with Waste-Fraud-and-Abuse. Notice how none of our resident lefties here can explain to us how ObamaCare will control costs.

ddrintn on August 29, 2009 at 9:34 PM

Did anyone else notice that Ed didn’t put the word “Romney” or “RomneyCare” in the title, or anywhere in what he wrote or what he quoted?

Yeah. Me too.

portlandon on August 29, 2009 at 10:29 PM

Here is Romney defending his disastrous plan:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/mr-president-whats-the-rush.html
Because of President Obama’s frantic approach, health care has run off the rails. For the sake of 47 million uninsured Americans, we need to get it back on track.

For the sake of 300 million Americans, any politician using the bogus 47 million uninsured number is a no-go.

xblade on August 29, 2009 at 10:38 PM

A detour from the discussion of the thread: I learned from the Boston Herald just now the death of Richard Egan, the founder of EMC, a stalwart GOP and a strong support of Cheney. He was 73, a Korean vet and a very rich self made man. He had terminal lung cancer, chronic lung disease ( both I am sure were from smoking) and diabetes. He shot himself in the head with a shotgun at home. I am saddened by that kind of news , and wonder, again, why a person’s end has to be so gruesome. I am for control of one’s life as well as one’s death, and I see nothing wrong with having end of life choices. provided it is truly of one’s own volition and not based on coarse reasoning such as cost saving for the society.

Reading some posts on this thread, as well as remembering the discussion on control of one’s death several weeks earlier, I am struck by the fair bit of closed-mindedness among the right as there are among the left.

bayview on August 29, 2009 at 11:16 PM

Mt Father was in the USAF from 53 thru 73, putting in his 20.By the time he was retiring, he got a small pension and a guarantee of family health coverage. The gov’t tried to weasel out the health care for life, so they formed a group to protest this change using a march on Washington. It got repealed with Tricare introduced. Now Tricare has been modified with a ‘Tricare for Life’ plan which my folks are glad to be under.

Part of my Dad’s active duty was as a recruiter. This promise of lifetime medical care after 20 years service was written in explicitly in recruiting materials. This kind f stuff should be honored– but pension plans in the private sector with many weasel clauses; I’m not so sure.

GnuBreed on August 29, 2009 at 11:58 PM

can’t wait till we get the same

uber on August 30, 2009 at 12:01 AM

Reading some posts on this thread, as well as remembering the discussion on control of one’s death several weeks earlier, I am struck by the fair bit of closed-mindedness among the right as there are among the left.

bayview on August 29, 2009 at 11:16 PM

Carbon monoxide from a car’s tailpipe is less messy & relatively painless. Yet, physician assisted euthanasia can be even less painless and allow your family to gather around.

The key is not to have this government mandated but to be a completely rational free will choice of the one who dies. The government’s role can be constrained to being sure that no coercion has been applied. This would definitely not be true in VA recipients of the “Death Book”.

GnuBreed on August 30, 2009 at 12:08 AM

The Massachusett’s Taxpayers Foundations had a positive spin on it:

PollyTix101 on August 30, 2009 at 12:31 AM

Here is the link: http://www.masstaxpayers.org/publications/8

PollyTix101 on August 30, 2009 at 12:32 AM

Mitt honestly believes he acomplished something with Mass’ Healthcare. Which shows he isnt as conservative nor as good a executive as some made him out.

He did. He saved MA from an all-out Obamacare, single-payer system by fashioning a compromise with an 85% liberal legislature. It was something of a miracle it worked out as well as it did given the hostile territory in which he was operating. Of course, it is far from perfect (as he admits), as they did override 8 of his vetoes and then continued to alter/add to the plan LONG AFTER he was no longer the governor.

Yet, he did get everyone insured and didn’t resort to a government takeover. And, according to the link above, the MA Taxpayer Foundation finds the costs within original estimates (not sure why there are other estimates which seem dramatically different. need to evaluate motives, I guess).

Were rising costs addressed adequately? Of course not, and that will never happen without tort reform in the equation. Interestingly, tort reform was a big part of Romney’s campaign platform during the primaries. Mitt’s campaign platform on health care reform looked nearly identical to the one Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey, recently unveiled. What a coincidence!

PollyTix101 on August 30, 2009 at 12:48 AM

Personally, I think expanding health care could evolve into better healthcare.

But that’s obviously just a belief.

I do know, certainly, that privatization has led to some really nasty stuff.

It’s hit that tipping point, for sure.

AnninCA on August 30, 2009 at 1:27 AM

Personally, I think expanding health care could evolve into better healthcare.

AnninCA on August 30, 2009 at 1:27 AM

Tell us how.

It was something of a miracle it worked out as well as it did given the hostile territory in which he was operating.

PollyTix101 on August 30, 2009 at 12:48 AM

So, what would a President Romney be doing right now with an overwhelmingly Democrat Congress?

ddrintn on August 30, 2009 at 1:32 AM

Olympia snowe
this is off topic but it has to be posted here. She is going to cave and side with the libs on healthcare. Burn her phones at her offices. Pick a zip code or a town in Maine, call her office saying you represent a group of seniors and let her know she’s out if she votes with the libs. Better yet, take a page out of alinskys rules for radicals and say your moderate democrats against the bill. Stop her now before she caves! Call now!!

texaninfidel on August 30, 2009 at 3:30 AM

Huck is getting heavier by the week.
He must be stressed-out about someone/something.

spacewife on August 29, 2009 at 6:58 PM

huckabee’s getting fat again…love it! This charlatan wolf in sheep’s skin is no doubt learning that karma can be a real B****!

Better pig out some more, huck, cause I think you’ll be paying for your dirty deeds for quite some time.

Shelby on August 30, 2009 at 4:29 AM

Yeah, I don’t trust any state that can’t make meth without blowing up the joint. Didya see the picture of that lab? Holy cow!

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 30, 2009 at 5:04 AM

Romney only signed becouse it’s Massachusetts. He couldn’t get away with it in too many other states. There has to be a reason BO is not flaunting the MA healthcare, Hmmmmm……

Frances on August 30, 2009 at 7:31 AM

I appreciate the information about ‘Romneycare’

Romneycare provides hard evidence of the unintended consequences of certain practices.

This is much better than one side telling the other side what they think will happen. Romneycare happened and it can be dissected.

Opponents of Obama’s package should move fast to take apart the details procided here. Creeping coverage is one of the worst. It happend in the UK. Everyone’s favorite disease gets added and the basics get reduced to cover the fringe

This helpe bring down social security, which was originally for old age, but soon got young widows with childern under 18 and disability added. Nice idea, but widows could stay home collecting for 18 years if they had kids, and disability got expanded to include drug addiction, alcoholism, and mental illness. And disabled adults could get more money as they had more kids. And kids could get benefits beyond 18 if they were still in school. And disabled adult kids could collect forever. And so it goes.

When politicians control the purse it is opened over and over until empty

entagor on August 30, 2009 at 9:14 AM

What you all do not understand is that Obama is doing this. Obama will make this work because he is Obama and he said he would.

If you keep bring previous performance, facts, and reality to the argument you will lose because Obama is doing this. Don’t you understand it’s OBAMA.

jukin on August 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM

If Romney wants to gain the respect of Conservatives, he’ll confess this huge error and expose the ugly truth and take the hit for the sake of sparing us ZeroCare. He won’t get to be president, but TS to that.

This is a sword screaming to be fallen on, and it’s singing Mitt’s name.

Maquis on August 29, 2009 at 8:21 PM

It’s not only to gain respect of conservatives; it’s far more important that he prove he’s a man of principles and not some political hack who wants to bask in the glory of higher office. I would actually support the guy if he went on a campaign pointing out what a mistake he made and this proves to the country that government run health care is a disaster. I doubt he will, he’s just another oily politician.

Ann NY on August 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Where’s the media when it comes to reporting the failed and/or failing programs in Tenn., Mass. and Hawaii. $Ido believe all these programs were set up like Bambi and Axelheads programs. The media in this country are whores and cheap whores at that.

bluegrass on August 30, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Personally, I think expanding health care could evolve into better healthcare.

But that’s obviously just a belief.

I do know, certainly, that privatization has led to some really nasty stuff.

It’s hit that tipping point, for sure.

AnninCA on August 30, 2009 at 1:27 AM

The problem is that in California capping the price that a utility can charge for electricity, and forbidding long term contracts with electricity suppliers is called “deregulation.”

If I remember correctly, they hired a contractor to administrate a state run insurance program. While this might technically be considered privatization, it is in fact nothing but shifting the blame.

Slowburn on August 30, 2009 at 11:04 AM

I heard Romney on Hannity trying “Fred Astaire” his way around the issue of his plan’s failure. He claimed the state legislature hobbled the concept with a bunch of extras. Gee, that can’t happen nationally, so I guess we’re safe there.

His inability to accept that the concept of government providing healthcare to all is wrong is the main reason I can’t vote for him as President. He is that type of politician that thinks government does belong in every aspect of our lives, how much is the only question. I believe this is a false argument.

http://truthandcommonsense.com/2009/08/12/heres-a-novel-thought-respect-the-old-young-and-infirm/

archer52 on August 30, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Huckabee has much more to answer for

Just looking for info here, what are the major beefs with Huckabeee so many here are referring to? Because I don’t think I could support Romney unless he came out & admitted what a mistake this all was & I do NOT see that happening.

kg598301 on August 30, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Here is Romney defending his disastrous plan:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/mr-president-whats-the-rush.html
“Because of President Obama’s frantic approach, health care has run off the rails. For the sake of 47 million uninsured Americans, we need to get it back on track.“
For the sake of 300 million Americans, any politician using the bogus 47 million uninsured number is a no-go.

xblade on August 29, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Exactly. A Republican who mimics the talking points of Obama/Pelosi/Reid will never be the GOP nominee.

Case closed.

Norwegian on August 30, 2009 at 12:08 PM

What was Swimmer’s involvement in this? I assume he played a large role. Seems like everything he touched won’t float.

ultracon on August 30, 2009 at 12:27 PM

LOL…..I love all these soothsayers predicting Mitt’s demise. And the drama words: “case closed”, “stick a fork in him”, yada, yada, yada.

And archer52…your statement “His inability to accept that the concept of government providing healthcare to all is wrong is the main reason I can’t vote for him as President.”

Good grief do you even understand the argument that is taking place on this topic.

Do you understand the concept of government paying for health insurance for those who can’t afford it versus the government BEING the health insurance/insurer?

From your statement above I don’t think you. And until you understand the fundamental nature of the argument I don’t think you have the facts to critize Romney.

Or the Heritage Foundation for that matter(Rush and Sean’s favorite think tank). They helped and advocated bringing this healthcare model to MA.

There is a lot of innovation & market friendly ideas in Mitt’s plan and anyone idiot enough to simply toss Romney aside as a viable POTUS candidate because they think he’s a RINO in their rino eyes better get use to the idea of Obama for 8 years.

sheryl on August 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM

sheryl on August 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Well he’s a RINO for plenty of other reasons but that’s beside the point. Explain why the miserable failure in MA is not Romney’s fault in any way.

There is a lot of innovation & market friendly ideas in Mitt’s plan

Then why has it failed so badly? I will listen, I sincerely want to know.

kg598301 on August 30, 2009 at 6:37 PM

sheryl on August 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Any links you could provide to back up what you are saying would be very helpful as well.

kg598301 on August 30, 2009 at 6:39 PM

There is a lot of innovation & market friendly ideas in Mitt’s plan and anyone idiot enough to simply toss Romney aside as a viable POTUS candidate because they think he’s a RINO in their rino eyes better get use to the idea of Obama for 8 years.

sheryl on August 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM

If you, like a lot of the GOP Establishment, really think that Romney can beat Obama in 2012, then you really should get used to the idea of 8 years of Obama.

ddrintn on August 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM

Well I’m not sure a person who prefaces a question with “well he’s still a RINO for plenty of other reasons” is open to listen but……

The Heritage Foundation is a good place to start your sincere quest for knowledge:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/upload/bg_1953.pdf

sheryl on August 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM

“If you, like a lot of the GOP Establishment, really think that Romney can beat Obama in 2012, then you really should get used to the idea of 8 years of Obama.”

GOP Establishment? WTF? Conspiracy coded language and thinking like that is stupid.

I’m not apart of any “GOP Establishment” [insert evil background music].

sheryl on August 30, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Plus just about every conservative hero of mine endorsed this man last go around: Rush, Sean, Hugh, Krauthammer, KLo & National Review,Laura, etc.

If that’s what you mean by the GOP Establishment well then I guess I’m in good company.

sheryl on August 30, 2009 at 8:23 PM

Well I’m not sure a person who prefaces a question with “well he’s still a RINO for plenty of other reasons” is open to listen but……

Well I’m not sure someone who supports Romney is worth listening to but… thanks anyway. Regardless of that unnecessary comment, I’ll check out the link.

kg598301 on August 30, 2009 at 11:11 PM

sheryl on August 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM

I have started to read it & it is very interesting. Will get back to you tomorrow with some legitimate questions that hopefully you will not shrink from answering- most chiefly, what went wrong? “Talking Points” on the first page would be a great start I would think.

kg598301 on August 30, 2009 at 11:25 PM

If Romney decides to run in 2012 he’ll have to come out and do a major mea culpa on RomneyCare and renounce his idea as a patent failure. Otherwise, he has no chance in hell.

redfoxbluestate on August 31, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Comment pages: 1 2