Romney’s federalist defense of RomneyCare not a big hit thus far
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.”









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
Everything that Mitt has said about Romneycare and federalism is true. It’s also a HUGE straw man not befitting a self-professed conservative. Assuming that everything he says is true, it does nothing to change the fact that Romney was and is a socialized medicine advocate.
gryphon202 on April 12, 2011 at 8:34 PM
That’s because it glosses over the fact that Romneycare is fail on multiple levels.
It doesn’t matter if he’s right about the federalism stuff. This “leadership” was against everything I was led to believe the GOP stood for, even in Liberaltown, USA.
I’ve seen so many gushing about how much of a “leader” Romney was, so he’s all good. I got news for that bunch, Pelosi was a leader also, but her policies suck, just like Romney and his cap and trade, healthcare, and whatever else.
He’s a liberal in every basic sense.
uknowmorethanme on April 12, 2011 at 8:35 PM
I love this story, because it serves as a continuous reminder that the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea.
Of course, now that the Dems have adopted it and signed into law it’s FASCIZM.
crr6 on April 12, 2011 at 8:51 PM
Whatever. Whoever gets the Republican nomination gets my vote, Romney or not.
entropent on April 12, 2011 at 8:53 PM
But, it was never a CONSERVATIVE idea. I lived in Massachusetts at the time, and I can attest to the fact that most conservatives there hated the idea at the time.
steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 8:56 PM
Socialism and Federalism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The federalism argument is just and effort to muddy the water. Romneycare is socialism plain and simple.
DeathB4Tyranny on April 12, 2011 at 8:56 PM
From each (Bay Stater) according to his ability to each (Bay Stater) according to his need…
steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 9:02 PM
It was, though. It was framed as reinforcing your guys’ “personal responsibility” ethos, in that it forces “free riders” to pay for their own insurance rather than imposing the costs of their care on the rest of society.
crr6 on April 12, 2011 at 9:12 PM
Romney sucks…. if he is nominated we are guaranteed a loss. My guess is the MSM will start to promote him ASAP.
roux on April 12, 2011 at 9:15 PM
Troll. Who can’t spell. Troll.
chimney sweep on April 12, 2011 at 9:16 PM
They sold it with the language of conservatism, but that does mean it was ever a conservative program. That was a con, just as Romney is a con.
flyfisher on April 12, 2011 at 9:24 PM
So “personal responsibility” isn’t conservative anymore?
crr6 on April 12, 2011 at 9:28 PM
Of course personal responsibility is conservative, but that entire approach to health care is not.
flyfisher on April 12, 2011 at 9:29 PM
Mitt is like a stepford husband instead of a wife.
unseen on April 12, 2011 at 9:35 PM
How so? The current system allows millions to “free ride” by neglecting to purchase insurance, and then obtaining free emergency care under the EMTALA.
crr6 on April 12, 2011 at 9:36 PM
The EMTALA is a law. An act of government. Government is once again the problem. And Romney seems to think that government should be trusted to fix what government itself screws up.
/facepalm
gryphon202 on April 12, 2011 at 9:40 PM
How’s that RomneyCare workin’ out? It is a failure. No, no, no to Mittens, no, nope, nada, uh-uh!!
kringeesmom on April 12, 2011 at 9:41 PM
Medicare – passed under LBJ
Hillarycare – failed under Bill Clinton
Romneycare – Passed with Ted Kennedy proudly standing over Romeny’s shoulder in a bluer-than-blue state with a Democratic congress.
But I guess I’m okay with it since it was all a Republican idea to begin with.
/
gryphon202 on April 12, 2011 at 9:44 PM
He also thinks Zimbabwe Ben Bernanke’s doing a good job.
Rae on April 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM
There are so many reasons, but mandates and regulations are at the top of the list. By forcing insurers to accept those with pre-existing conditions, they are no longer insuring risk; they are merely the party who pays. The individual mandate is too weak to be effective. Many people will chose not to pay, then enroll when they need expensive care. That’s human nature. As long as politcians are writing the laws, they will never make the mandates strong enough to be adhered to (see car insurance mandates for comparison), so certain parties will shoulder more than their share of the burden. That’s not an insurance system. Guaranteed issue is guaranteed bankruptcy. It will inevitably lead to shortages, rising premiums, and rationed care, just as it has in Massachusetts. This type system is not financially viable.
flyfisher on April 12, 2011 at 10:05 PM
Better to stretch it out by destroying the nation one state at a time.
–Liberal Republicans
Feedie on April 12, 2011 at 11:11 PM