Video: Massachusetts Democrats celebrate fifth anniversary of RomneyCare

posted at 5:39 pm on April 12, 2011 by Allahpundit

Today’s state party attack ad is tomorrow’s Tim Pawlenty closing argument, my friends. His chief defense of RomneyCare on the trail will presumably be the federalist argument, that the D.C. leviathan should keep its, er, mitts off of health care but that the states are free to innovate to maximize citizens’ well-being. A reply that’s already popping up from rival campaigns: What sort of innovation, specifically, does he have in mind?

He notes in the book, “My own preference is to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model if they choose, or they could develop plans of their own.” Two pages earlier he writes that he was able to obtain federal cooperation because his experiment could be a model for other states, but four pages later, he notes that from the beginning he warned that what worked in the Bay State might not work in California or Texas.

And so it is that Romney’s opponents accuse him of wanting to have it both ways. His critics’ question is: Precisely what does he think is good about the reform law he signed, and what wouldn’t he want for other states?

“He obviously was very involved in the process and knows a lot about it, and that’s why his vagueness is so galling,” said an adviser to one of Romney’s rivals for the nomination. “Which parts does he like for which states?”

South Carolina political consultant Richard Quinn, who would advise Jon Huntsman’s presidential effort, put it this way: “Governor Romney keeps saying his health care program has some good parts that can be a model for other states. Which parts of government-run health care does he like? The unconstitutional mandates? Bringing an end to competition in health care? Higher taxes? Massive new government spending? I don’t think South Carolina wants any part of that.”

His answer will be that he wants all citizens covered in order to spare taxpayers the cost of ER care for free riders, but that’ll lead straight into a killer discussion of the mandate. Philip Klein, who’s celebrating today’s anniversary with a list of the five failed defenses of RomneyCare, is ready for the federalism excuse:

Though the Massachusetts plan was a state-based approach, as Cato’s Michael Cannon has pointed out, the federal government finances 20 percent of the plan through Medicaid.

Putting this aside, there’s no doubt that states should have flexibility over their own health care systems and that a state mandate does not raise the same constitutional questions as a federal one. Yet when governors run for office, we evaluate them based on the policies they enacted as state executives. If states are laboratories of democracy, governors should be judged by the experiments that they initiate. If Romney passed ambitious state tax or education reforms, he’d be running ads touting them. Similarly, he’ll no doubt be criticizing his primary opponents for their own governing records. If Romney were to get away with the federalism dodge in this instance, it would render the process of vetting presidential candidates who served as governors virtually meaningless, because they could respond to any unpopular aspect of their records simply by disavowing the same policies at the national level.

Klein’s conclusion, which seems increasingly plausible, is that Romney wins only if there’s no alternative viable candidate and/or some new issue pops up to command primary voters’ attention, leaving ObamaCare a secondary concern. Pawlenty and Barbour are both viable, though — assuming that one of them wins Iowa — and, barring a double-dip recession, it’s hard to imagine a new policy matter springing up that would potentially favor Romney over his rivals. His best shot, I think (assuming Huckabee doesn’t run), is for Barbour to win Iowa, at which point Mitt would argue that a governor from the deep south is uniquely poorly positioned to defeat the first black president. Electability, in other words. I don’t know how he makes an electability argument against Pawlenty, though, if T-Paw emerges from Iowa. He’d be tough to stop in a two-man race, precisely because of what you’re about to see.

Exit question: Did Mitt really tell a bunch of fundraisers today that he doesn’t know if America’s willing to tackle entitlement reform? I sympathize with his skepticism, and I know he was more aggressive about the topic in his book, but that’s hideously poor messaging the day before the big Obama/Ryan boxing match is set to begin in earnest.


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

Sigh, so much potential squandered on this…

Oh well, on to the next guy.

petunia on April 12, 2011 at 5:45 PM

I don’t know how he makes an electability argument against Pawlenty, though, if T-Paw emerges from Iowa

Simple, he doesn’t. Pawlentys main baggage was his AGW talk which he already walked back. T-Paw isn’t in my top 3, but I think he will hand Mitt his ass quite handily.

Kataklysmic on April 12, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Ouch!

SouthernGent on April 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM

strong target on his back. must be the front-runner.

hanzblinx on April 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM

strong target on his back. must be the front-runner.

hanzblinx on April 12, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Uh, no.

kingsjester on April 12, 2011 at 5:52 PM

“An albatross around, or round, your neck is a problem resulting from something you did that stops you from being successful.”

d1carter on April 12, 2011 at 5:55 PM

You know, for some reason, I think that this strategy is going to backfire for both the Democrats and the likes of Pawlenty if they choose to attack with it. Why?

Seems to me that Romney’s nuanced position on health care reform is exactly what independents and moderates want – the swing voters. We need reform, but what kind, and in what form?

I argued this back in 2008: if Romney can get elected governor as a Republican in one of the most liberal states, cooperate and work together with Democrats on legislation, and still stick to his views on the play between federal and state rights…

Independents want a president who has demonstrated ability to work across party lines, who doesn’t necessarily want to mandate health care reform at the federal level, but recognizes the need to implement some policies nation-wide.

So eh… Good job Democrats, you’re probably moving soured Obama-voters into Romney’s corner.

Seixon on April 12, 2011 at 5:56 PM

When he was asked even then, he said the plan was for Massachusetts, not for the country. That’s the key. he tried it, and it didn’t work in some cases as envisioned, but he tried to get the job done.

That’s a leader. i support him all the way.

Chudi on April 12, 2011 at 5:58 PM

who doesn’t necessarily want to mandate health care reform at the federal level, but recognizes the need to implement some policies nation-wide.

Oh B effing S. He’s only saying that to distance himself from obakacare. He will veto any repeal of obakacare, 100% guaranteed.

ladyingray on April 12, 2011 at 6:03 PM

say what you will, the fact is he sought a solution to the problem and worked to get it in place – however imperfect it may be.

I find it hilarious that so many people find great joy in praising people for inaction out of some sense of esteemed wisdom and at the same time rail against efforts at working toward solution to our challenges.

Mitt may not be ‘the one’ in 2012, but in the end analysis, he tried on this issue, which is more than can be said for hundreds of other governors who have publicly decried the health system yet never found the political consensus to enact significant changes.

ok.. back to all the snarkiness…

gatorboy on April 12, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Romney is just a Republican Obama. All flash and no substance.

sharrukin on April 12, 2011 at 6:06 PM

“He obviously was very involved in the process and knows a lot about it, and that’s why his vagueness is so galling,” said an adviser to one of Romney’s rivals for the nomination. “Which parts does he like for which states?”

He’s “not familiar with that particular clause”.

BobMbx on April 12, 2011 at 6:07 PM

In 2008, in a debate in New Hampshire, Romney said:

I like mandates…The mandate works.

He was speaking about the individual mandate in Romneycare requiring the purchase of health insurance by every citizen of Massachusetts.

Sound familiar?

According to a survey by the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, 98 percent of Massachusetts residents had health insurance in 2010; a March 2011 report issued by Gallup put the figure close to 95 percent. However, that did not happen without a cost. An analysis from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation found that state spending on health care reform grew from $1.04 billion in 2006 to about $1.75billion in 2010

kingsjester on April 12, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Exit question: Did Mitt really tell a bunch of fundraisers today that he doesn’t know if America’s willing to tackle entitlement reform? I sympathize with his skepticism, and I know he was more aggressive about the topic in his book, but that’s hideously poor messaging the day before the big Obama/Ryan boxing match is set to begin in earnest.

Allah, you know he has to wait to find out what the American public’s opinion is on the issue, before he can make a statement of his own – it’s like you pretend he doesn’t have a pattern…..isn’t this the man who endorses candidates after they win their primaries? Yeah he’s a big political risk taker LOL!

Dr Evil on April 12, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Snarktastic.

Philip Klein has been following RomneyCare for years. He used to do blog posts titled something like How’s That Mass Care Working Out For You? in which he would write about the latest mess and repercussions of the program. I used to bookmark them. I believe there were at least twenty posts.

INC on April 12, 2011 at 6:09 PM

“We need reform, but what kind, and in what form?”

Tort reform (to get the trial lawyers back in their cages)

Insurance sales across state lines adopted.

Obamacare repealed.

It’s a start.

ncjetsfan on April 12, 2011 at 6:10 PM

It’s my opinion that Mitt went with RomneyCare as part of positioning himself for his 2008 run. I think he expected to become president before reality set in.

INC on April 12, 2011 at 6:10 PM

That ad is pretty devastating. Romney touting his own plan which has been a fiscal nightmare for MassachusettEs, claiming aspects of it(the mandate?) will work at the national level, noting the presence of Ted Kennedy right behind him at the signing of the law, and even though he was joking, he sounded like he was onboard the global warming bandwagon there at the end.

Doughboy on April 12, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Seems to me that Romney’s nuanced position on health care reform is exactly what independents and moderates want – the swing voters.
Seixon on April 12, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Yeah, that’s the ticket — “nuanced.” The apologist’s term for “Godawful.”

rrpjr on April 12, 2011 at 6:13 PM

It’s my opinion that Mitt went with RomneyCare as part of positioning himself for his 2008 run. I think he expected to become president before reality set in.

INC on April 12, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Thread winner!

gary4205 on April 12, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Mitt, please exit stage right. Nobody buys your act.

wraithby on April 12, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Is this the Democrats picking a Harry Reid plan to throw off the candidates they’re most afraid and push us with a Sharon Angle?

amazingmets on April 12, 2011 at 6:17 PM

gatorboy on April 12, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Actually, my former DEM Governor cut a whole lotta people from TennCare because of the costs…yeah, all Governors need to increase taxes, including mandates, to find a solution.

ladyingray on April 12, 2011 at 6:19 PM

noting the presence of Ted Kennedy right behind him at the signing of the law, and even though he was joking, he sounded like he was onboard the global warming bandwagon there at the end.

Doughboy on April 12, 2011 at 6:13 PM

From No Apology…

“I believe that climate change is occurring — the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor.”

I am sure you will also find a quote saying it isn’t happening and human activity has nothing to do with it.
Thats how he rolls.

sharrukin on April 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM

The Anti-Mitt campaign commercials just write themselves, don’t they?

Mitt is damaged goods. It was a self inflicted wound.

Mitt has nobody to blame but himself.

portlandon on April 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM

I can’t support this man for this reason. He is just as much of a enemy to freedom as Obama is.

jawkneemusic on April 12, 2011 at 6:23 PM

When he was asked even then, he said the plan was for Massachusetts, not for the country. That’s the key. he tried it, and it didn’t work in some cases as envisioned, but he tried to get the job done.

That’s a leader. i support him all the way.

Chudi on April 12, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Then why does RomneyCare depend on Federal Money?

Mitt’s little experiment is being paid for my my federal tax dollars.

portlandon on April 12, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Is this the Democrats picking a Harry Reid plan to throw off the candidates they’re most afraid and push us with a Sharon Angle?-amazingmets on April 12, 2011 at 6:17 PM

No, this is Mitt Romney handing the Democrats a gift.

Mitt the opportunist saw his main chance in 2008. He let the Massachusetts left wing Democratic cadre write and implement RomneyCare. He didn’t care because he needed something besides his Utah Olympics “triumph” to propel his lackluster candidacy.

Result: a public policy disaster and total lack of leadership by Mitt.

Payback for Mitt- you ran a crappy campaign in 2008 and the feces hit the fan in Massachusetts before you could gain the White House. Adios Mitt.

vilebody on April 12, 2011 at 6:28 PM

He will NOT veto any repeal of obakacare, 100% guaranteed.
ladyingray on April 12, 2011 at 6:03 PM

FIFY. I hate when people do that, but this is such a preposterous prediction that this girl can’t help it.

Buy Danish on April 12, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Then why does RomneyCare depend on Federal Money?

Mitt’s little experiment is being paid for my my federal tax dollars.

portlandon on April 12, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Excellent. Point.

ladyingray on April 12, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Between all the Mitt and Trump postings, I have to admit, I got nothing.

I must be low on snark today. Where are some more Huck posts? Those are at least good for a few puns…

Fallon on April 12, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Cap and Trade.

Governor Mitt Romney signaled his support yesterday for a regional agreement among Northeastern states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite opposition from power companies and other business interests that have been lobbying the administration against the plan.

In opening remarks to a clean-energy conference in Boston, Romney said the first-of-its-kind agreement, under which Massachusetts and eight other states could be required to cut power plant emissions by 2020, will not hurt the economy, as some have charged. He argued that it would spur businesses to develop clean- and renewable-energy technology to market worldwide.

”This is a great thing for the Commonwealth,” Romney said, his strongest endorsement of the pact to date. ”We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs.”

sharrukin on April 12, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Mittens, ya had yer shot. It was 2008. This is 2012, and it’s just not in the cards.

Tim Zank on April 12, 2011 at 6:33 PM

I cannot see how any reasonable conservative or libertarian could ever support Romney in the face of (1) RomneyCare to begin with and (2) his failure to admit he made a mistake and to thoroughly renounce RomneyCare as a bad idea.

CatoRenasci on April 12, 2011 at 6:33 PM

I dont even think that video is that bad for Romney.

Many of his detractors like to imply that he wanted to make RomneyCare national. He clearly says its not a national model. Many of his detractors also like to criticize him for chumming it up with Kennedy, but that wasa pretty good zinger at the end of the clip

swamp_yankee on April 12, 2011 at 6:36 PM

”This is a great thing for the Commonwealth,” Romney said, his strongest endorsement of the pact to date. ”We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs.”

sharrukin on April 12, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Yeah, but that was when he was for it, before he was later against it.

steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 6:37 PM

An analysis from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation found that state spending on health care reform grew from $1.04 billion in 2006 to about $1.75billion in 2010
kingsjester on April 12, 2011 at 6:08 PM

There was a recession from 2008 through 2010 so an increase in spending by the state would be expected as people lost jobs and employer-provided healthcare. To what extent this would have occurred without a recession is a legitimate question.

I’d also like to know what states get little or no federal funding for their healthcare programs. I find it hard to believe that Massachusetts was the only beneficiary of federal largesse.

Buy Danish on April 12, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Let Mitt add his voice to the debate…

… the more voices speaking against Obowma, the better.

If his past truly catches up to him, then so be it…

Seven Percent Solution on April 12, 2011 at 6:38 PM

I cannot see how any reasonable conservative or libertarian could ever support Romney in the face of (1) RomneyCare to begin with and (2) his failure to admit he made a mistake and to thoroughly renounce RomneyCare as a bad idea.

CatoRenasci on April 12, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Don’t forget (3) Poor political instints. After a lifetime of flip-flopping for politcal expediency, this guy decides to die on the socialized medicine hill? In the wake of a historical mid-term defeat for Democrats that was largely due to the passing of Obamacare? If Mitt wanted to lose the nomination I don’t see how he would have acted differently.

Kataklysmic on April 12, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Even though Romney likes to recycle, his logo isn’t so minty fresh.

mizflame98 on April 12, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Yeah, but that was when he was for it, before he was later against it.

steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Oh, alright my mistake. I thought he was against it before he was for it. It gets a little confusing with Mitt. /

sharrukin on April 12, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Yawn! These clowns have had their 15 minutes on stage.

GarandFan on April 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM

say what you will, the fact is he sought a solution to the problem and worked to get it in place – however imperfect it may be.

gatorboy on April 12, 2011 at 6:04 PM

So did Pelosi and Reid. If this is seriously the best Mitt-bots got, you guys must have some really really low standards.

miConsevative on April 12, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Even though Romney likes to recycle, his logo isn’t so minty fresh.

mizflame98 on April 12, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Oh my. That’s GREAT! I was laughing out loud. Will never be able to look at his logo the same again.

miConsevative on April 12, 2011 at 6:51 PM

You know, for some reason, I think that this strategy is going to backfire for both the Democrats and the likes of Pawlenty if they choose to attack with it. Why?

Seems to me that Romney’s nuanced position on health care reform is exactly what independents and moderates want – the swing voters. We need reform, but what kind, and in what form?

I argued this back in 2008: if Romney can get elected governor as a Republican in one of the most liberal states, cooperate and work together with Democrats on legislation, and still stick to his views on the play between federal and state rights…

Independents want a president who has demonstrated ability to work across party lines, who doesn’t necessarily want to mandate health care reform at the federal level, but recognizes the need to implement some policies nation-wide.

So eh… Good job Democrats, you’re probably moving soured Obama-voters into Romney’s corner.

Seixon on April 12, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Perhaps, but your logic only works if he manages to get to the general election. It’s Republicans, and pretty conservatives ones at that, that come out to vote in the primaries. They don’t give a flying fig about Romney’s “nuance”.

It’s my opinion that Mitt went with RomneyCare as part of positioning himself for his 2008 run. I think he expected to become president before reality set in.

INC on April 12, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Yeah, it’s my opinion too that he thought Hillary was going to be the likely nominee, and he wanted to have a health care bill under his belt to go toe-to-toe with her, as contrast. During the primaries, he was always touting his bill vs. her “Hillarycare” disaster.

yogi41 on April 12, 2011 at 6:54 PM

I dont even think that video is that bad for Romney.
swamp_yankee on April 12, 2011 at 6:36 PM

It frankly doesn’t even make sense for the Democratic Party to try mocking him because Ted Kennedy approved of his legislation. If this was a GOP ad it would make better sense.

Buy Danish on April 12, 2011 at 6:58 PM

say what you will, the fact is he sought a solution to the problem and worked to get it in place – however imperfect it may be.

gatorboy on April 12, 2011 at 6:04 PM

So did Pelosi and Reid. If this is seriously the best Mitt-bots got, you guys must have some really really low standards.

miConsevative on April 12, 2011 at 6:50 PM

For that matter, so did Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., etc., etc.

steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 6:59 PM

How exactly can Dems use Romney-Care against him without admitting what a turd sandwich O-Care is? His Primary opponents can, should, and will use it against him. But the Dems? They’re hoping he’s the candidate because it neuters the GOP argument against O-Care, and no I don’t care about the difference between state and federal on this one. It’s a weak argument that doesn’t have a chance of working. Hey Mitt, guess what? Dead. To. Me.

SittingDeadRed on April 12, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Even though Romney likes to recycle, his logo isn’t so minty fresh.
mizflame98 on April 12, 2011 at 6:38 PM

I’m glad we have this solved. Allah told us that he recycled it from Obama (who stole his from Pepsi, or was it vice versa?). I’m more bothered by the fact his theme (Believe in America) was Kerry/Edwards’ than by a red white & blue logo.

Buy Danish on April 12, 2011 at 7:06 PM

“I dont even think that video is that bad for Romney.
Many of his detractors like to imply that he wanted to make RomneyCare national. He clearly says its not a national model.” swamp_yankee on April 12, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Ridiculous-it’s a disaster for the Commonwealth of Massachuseets. If the states are the “laboratories of democracy” then Mitt allowed the Mass Democrats to blow up the lab with a toxic mixture.

Where’s the leadership in handing over a health care policy for your political opponents to write and implement?

It’s not that bad for Romney in the same way typhoid “was not that bad” for Typhoid Mary.

wraithby on April 12, 2011 at 7:08 PM

For that matter, so did Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., etc., etc.
steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Oh please!! Can we cool it with the idiotic hyperbole? To equate RomneyCare with Hitler and other mass murderers is beyond stupid.

Buy Danish on April 12, 2011 at 7:09 PM

How does it make sense that the Dims are celebrating R-care???? Maybe they want him to fail. Maybe they want to drive a wedge thru the R party, cleaving the conservative from the rest. Maybe they hope to damage R so much that if he were nominated, someone would try a Trump Party. Hmmmm?

I don’t trust the Dims, period, hard stop.

Maybe, just maybe, they don’t want to run against a smart business savvy person who could crush barry in fiscal debates.

Seriously, Huck vs Mitt…I say Mitt. Barbour v. Mitt, I say Mitt. I love Palin, but she will not be the nominee. Same for Newt. We have to be real, people. We have a short list…very damn short.

Actually, to show you how shallow the field, Huntsman? Are you kidding…zero name recognition. Buddy Roemer??? Are you kidding??? Trump???? Ok, I have to stop, this is too depressing.

r keller on April 12, 2011 at 7:19 PM

r keller on April 12, 2011 at 7:19 PM

True, listen to your enemies. They will let you know who they fear by who they try to destroy in the primaries. It seems they are working hard to undermine Romney right now.

swamp_yankee on April 12, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Many of his detractors like to imply that he wanted to make RomneyCare national. He clearly says its not a national model.” swamp_yankee on April 12, 2011 at 6:36 PM

So, failing spectacularly on a local level is now a positive attribute for a presidential candidate?

tommyboy on April 12, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Oh please!! Can we cool it with the idiotic hyperbole? To equate RomneyCare with Hitler and other mass murderers is beyond stupid.

Buy Danish on April 12, 2011 at 7:09 PM

I didn’t equate Romney with mass murderers and I didn’t equate RomneyCare with gulags or concentration camps or anything of the sort. I’m just saying, “seek[ing] a solution to [a] problem and work[ing] to get it in place – however imperfect it may be” isn’t the hallmark of a good leader. It isn’t necessarily something to be admired, as gatorboy implied it was. The wrong “solution” is often worse than the “problem” itself

steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 7:29 PM

True, listen to your enemies. They will let you know who they fear by who they try to destroy in the primaries. It seems they are working hard to undermine Romney right now.

swamp_yankee on April 12, 2011 at 7:24 PM

No one really has to work that hard to undermine him. He pretty much took care of that himself.

steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 7:31 PM

steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Uh huh. And you’re criticizing Mitt for his arguments? If you really wanted to demonstrate that wrong solutions are worse than no solutions there are plenty of examples you could have chosen which didn’t violate Godwin’s Rule.

Buy Danish on April 12, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Uh huh. And you’re criticizing Mitt for his arguments? If you really wanted to demonstrate that wrong solutions are worse than no solutions there are plenty of examples you could have chosen which didn’t violate Godwin’s Rule.

Buy Danish on April 12, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Like RomneyCare? Or ObamaCare?

steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Mitt is trying to be too cleaver by half.

K.I.S.S. dummy!

csdeven on April 12, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Like RomneyCare? Or ObamaCare?
steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 7:43 PM

So you’re back to comparing RomneyCare to RomneyCare? How about say, Reagan’s immigration amnesty program as an example.

You’re welcome.

Buy Danish on April 12, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Seixon on April 12, 2011 at 5:56 PM

yep

windansea on April 12, 2011 at 7:54 PM

So you’re back to comparing RomneyCare to RomneyCare? How about say, Reagan’s immigration amnesty program as an example.

You’re welcome.

Buy Danish on April 12, 2011 at 7:53 PM

The New Deal. The Great Society. Price controls in the 1970s. Frank-Dodd. TARP/bailouts. Cap and Trade.

steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 7:57 PM

So you’re back to comparing RomneyCare to RomneyCare? How about say, Reagan’s immigration amnesty program as an example.
Buy Danish on April 12, 2011 at 7:53 PM

A more apt example is Reagan signing a liberalization of abortion law for California during his first term. Unlike Mittster, Reagan admitted it was a complete disaster and vowed never to commit such an atrocity again.

Stick a fork in Mitt, he’s done.

wraithby on April 12, 2011 at 8:05 PM

oh Allah left out the biggest hit on romney care today:

Romneycare a big bust

As governor, Mitt Romney accomplished a feat that most Republicans would have thought impossible. With the single stroke of a pen he convinced the liberal population of Massachusetts that they, too, hate government-run health care.

As a health care plan, Romneycare is an unmitigated fiasco. It has caused costs to skyrocket, insurance premiums to soar and nonprofit providers like Blue Cross to suffer hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.

But as a political policy, Romneycare is nearly unparalleled in Republican history. It has destroyed one front-runner’s presidential hopes (Romney’s) and helped undermine an entire presidency. For, as Barack Obama’s supporters keep reminding us, Romneycare was the precursor to Obamacare…….

…..Romneycare has also blown a hole in Romney’s reputation as a “numbers” guy, a savvy business guru who, like him or not, knows how to handle your money.

Uh, anyone checked these Romneycare numbers lately?

Taxpayers now spend $2.5 billion more on our state’s health care budget. The direct cost of Romneycare has gone from less than $100 million a year to at least $400 million — and even that number is suspect. But we do know we’ve spent more than $35 million in a single year on health services for illegal immigrants, and tens of millions more on illegal, unallowable or outright bogus claims.

If you want to know why Romneycare’s costs keep rising, check out this simple statistic from the Patrick administration: In 2006, 85 percent of the insured in Massachusetts got their coverage through private group coverage at work. Today that’s down to 79 percent.

Meanwhile the percentage on the MassHealth dole has doubled, and more than 150,000 people are now subsidized through Commonwealth Care.

Romneycare supporters like Brandeis University health policy professor Stuart Altman brag that “the basic reason for the reform was to extend coverage, and on this, we have done amazingly well.” But that’s only if you use the phrase “extend coverage” to mean “the government forced you to buy your own insurance.”

Romneycare hasn’t made that insurance more affordable — just the opposite. Many people have seen their premiums double in the past five years. Supporters also never mention that when Romneycare was signed, Massachusetts already had one of the nation’s lowest rates of uninsured.

Billions of dollars spent to accomplish so very little — that’s Romneycare’s legacy, and a glimpse of Obamacare’s future
devestation on the Mitt express. Off the rails and the trip just started…too bad really…

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_0412romneycare_a_big_bust/

OUCH!

unseen on April 12, 2011 at 8:06 PM

ROFL…I love this line, it never gets old:

As governor, Mitt Romney accomplished a feat that most Republicans would have thought impossible. With the single stroke of a pen he convinced the liberal population of Massachusetts that they, too, hate government-run health care.

unseen on April 12, 2011 at 8:07 PM

I’m really starting to hate Romney.

Does anyone in the field have any character?

disa on April 12, 2011 at 8:20 PM

I’m really starting to hate Romney.

Does anyone in the field have any character?

disa on April 12, 2011 at 8:20 PM

Gov Palin.

unseen on April 12, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Just watched the Kudlow interview. Mitt was awesome! Hope you guys can watch it. Kudlow questions him on healthcare and Trump’s birtherism.

I can think of no other republican who could of survived such an interview with flying colors. Romney really was excellent.

Lori on April 12, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Perhaps, but your logic only works if he manages to get to the general election. It’s Republicans, and pretty conservatives ones at that, that come out to vote in the primaries. They don’t give a flying fig about Romney’s “nuance”.

yogi41 on April 12, 2011 at 6:54 PM

You’re absolutely right that Republicans can once again bet on another person who cannot win and ignore Romney’s inherent strengths with moderate, independent voters. Early on in 2008, I tried to make people here at HotAir see that Romney was the way to go, but no. Now apparently Sarah Palin is the new thing?

Seriously, you Republicans are your own worst enemy. Stop supporting people who cannot win, start betting on a winning horse.

Seixon on April 12, 2011 at 8:41 PM

He was speaking about the individual mandate in Romneycare requiring the purchase of health insurance by every citizen of Massachusetts.

Sound familiar?

kingsjester on April 12, 2011 at 6:08 PM

To which I say: if liberals in Massachusetts want to tax themselves to death and have an individual mandate to get health insurance coverage for everyone, who cares?

Let liberals be liberals, let conservative be conservatives, let moderates be moderates. That’s the difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare, the latter is a one-size-fits-all policy while the former let’s the People of a state decide for themselves.

Plus, RomneyCare meant that insurance companies in Massachusetts got a lot more business, which was the initial draw to mandates like that from Republicans – because it lined the pockets of their friends in the insurance business.

Seixon on April 12, 2011 at 8:47 PM

You’re absolutely right that Republicans can once again bet on another person who cannot win and ignore Romney’s inherent strengths with moderate, independent voters. Early on in 2008, I tried to make people here at HotAir see that Romney was the way to go, but no. Now apparently Sarah Palin is the new thing?

Seriously, you Republicans are your own worst enemy. Stop supporting people who cannot win, start betting on a winning horse.

Seixon on April 12, 2011 at 8:41 PM

Latest rassmusean poll shows Obama beating Mitt by 5pts. 45-40. So much for the electability argument. He only does 2 pts better than Palin. she gets 38%.

the differenc eis Mitt can only go down from here since he failed to engage over the last two years and has not been the targets of attacks. Palin’s numbers can only go up. she has hit bottom. the 385 has been around that level for the last couple of months even with the blood libel.

If you were betting at this stage who had a better chance to win a smart person would have to pick Gov Palin and write off Mitt

unseen on April 12, 2011 at 8:52 PM

The New Deal. The Great Society. Price controls in the 1970s. Frank-Dodd. TARP/bailouts. Cap and Trade.
steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 7:57 PM

There ya go. No Mao, Hitler, Stalin references. Although the jury is still out on Tarp.

Buy Danish on April 12, 2011 at 8:56 PM

If you were betting at this stage who had a better chance to win a smart person would have to pick Gov Palin and write off Mitt

unseen on April 12, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Exactly. Romney spent more money for less support than any candidate in modern history in 2008. How does he possibly improve those numbers with a more mobilized and far less RINO-friendly grassroots poised to flex its influence? He couldn’t out-debate or out-finesse McCain or Huckabee or even respond to their attacks in 2008 — how will he possibly stand up to Obama’s billion-dollar’s worth of it?

rrpjr on April 12, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Latest rassmusean poll shows Obama beating Mitt by 5pts. 45-40. So much for the electability argument….

unseen on April 12, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Your are so right. Mitt should pack it in– Rasmussen calls it for Obama a year and a half before the election.

entropent on April 12, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Romney really was excellent.
Lori on April 12, 2011 at 8:28 PM

I’ll look for it on YouTube. You do realize that you are now officially a RINO who must be destroyed:)

Buy Danish on April 12, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Dang, that was a good interview with Kudlow.

Buy Danish on April 12, 2011 at 9:52 PM

I don’t understand the scoring system on RINOism. You guys fail to grant any points for battling in the belly of the beast and defer instead to people who talk but are not really challenged or had to stand up and battle.

Resolute on April 12, 2011 at 10:11 PM

I don’t understand the scoring system on RINOism.

Resolute on April 12, 2011 at 10:11 PM

If you back socialist policies we have no use for you.

If you hold to conservative policies even when its easier to fold you get extra points.

sharrukin on April 12, 2011 at 10:13 PM

They were celebrating PatrickCare, and THAT mode; will be more like ObamaCare.

bayview on April 12, 2011 at 10:31 PM

If you back socialist policies we have no use for you.

If you hold to conservative policies even when its easier to fold you get extra points.

sharrukin on April 12, 2011 at 10:13 PM

No, the scoring system is out of whack. You grant points to lipservice and deduct against anyone actually battling in the trenches because they got their hands dirty. Romney fought for an employer based voucher system when congress wanted state run universal coverage. If you guys can’t fathom a degree of merit in that hard fought battle then your RINO meter is not measuring anything useful in the real world.

Resolute on April 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Resolute on April 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Romney is a Democrat just like Arlen Specter.

sharrukin on April 12, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Pawlentys main baggage was his AGW talk which he already walked back.

Kataklysmic on April 12, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Perhaps I’ve missed something, I haven’t heard a walk back from Pawlenty at all. So far all I’ve heard from Pawlenty is a terse “I don’t support Cap & Trade.”

After a decade of fervent support and championing of anthropogenic global warming and Cap & Trade I need some explanation of his thinking. Did he realize the fraud, or did he just realize that “Cap & Trade” is a loser politically so like the liberals, he simply ditched the name “Cap & Trade” but still supports everything under the Cap & Trade umbrella?

I live in Minnesota, last week we received notice that utility rates are going up. They are going up at lease in part because of Pawlenty pushed legislation requiring public utilities to purchase increasing percentages of scarce expensive “green” energy for resale to the public. In effect an ever increasing tax on Minnesota.

RJL on April 13, 2011 at 12:26 AM