Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
I am absolutely stunned by the content of this video of Mitt Romney, the latest from Andrew Kaczynski. It is not from 2006, not from 2002, not from 1994, not from some campaign of yore when he was appealing to a different audience. It is from just last year, in reaction to President Obama's health care law. Romney says: "I hope we're ultimately able to eliminate some of the differences, and repeal the bad and keep the good."
A couple of notes:
Romney applauds the "incentives" to purchase insurance in Obamacare, which he says "works." This, of course, refers to the individual mandate. The "incentive" is a fine.
Romney also inaccurately describes why his exchange functions - again leaving out the taxpayer funded subsidies which are inevitably redistributed from other taxpayers. Of the 412,000 people added to the insurance rolls in Massachusetts since 2006, only 7,000 of them have coverage not subsidized in whole or in part by the taxpayers.
Romney says that the "rates are lower than they otherwise would be" according to this. That's an item for further debate, but premium rates in Massachusetts are the highest in the nation and double the national average. They have increased dramatically since his plan passed - he really believes they would be even higher without it?
Romney claims that he opposes the aspect of Obamacare that will determine pricing of premiums - this is a bit of an inaccurate description, but even so, how does this not conflict with exactly the same policy approach in Massachusetts today, an inevitable result of his law?
In all, this is a very disturbing video given how recent it is. Considering that this follows on Philip Klein's discovery that Romney plans to use a waiver method for the states which does not kick in until 2017, and leaves much of Obamacare intact, my concerns about Romney's intentions have never been higher.
At the very least, Romney must explain to us what he means by "repeal the bad and keep the good."
UPDATE: Philip Klein points out to me that this was consistent with what Romney was reportedly saying elsewhere at the time in 2010 - that he would repeal "the worst aspects" of Obamacare.
So what's the good?
- Comment (89)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
The King Prawn
I do very much believe in federalism. My issue is that the mandate has been tried at the state level and found wanting. See Ben's comment a page back about how bad it is. Federalism worked in this instance. We know exactly what not to do in other states thanks to Romney and Mass. We must quit pretending that a bad idea is ok so long as it's not federal. ·
Finally, it reduces the urge to impose Obamacare on us all if the people who want it most can have it without messing with Texas. In addition, the longer Masscare is in place, the harder it will be to claim that the mandate dramatically lowers prices, or that there will no longer be anyone without coverage, or many of the other overstated or simply false claims made for both systems (I think that Mitt was pretty good about not getting overexcited on the subject, but pundits and legislators were a little giddier, as some politicians were with Obamacare). The more people live with a system, the less it seems like paradise.
To borrow an analogy, Masscare is a belch in the face, Obamacare a punch.
Dec '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
James Of England:
With regard to its failure; Massachusetts residents pay a little more for their insurance than they would have otherwise, and suffer other problems, but more people are covered. Mass. is pretty aware of the trade-off and overwhelmingly wishes to make it. The program remains highly popular. I agree that there are ideological problems, but do not believe the program to be a huge practical problem for a state of Massachusetts' wealth and culture (there is no other state like that).
That is the clearest defense of it I've read yet. Maybe it's just the Texan in me, but I recoil at the idea of the state telling me to go spend my money with any commercial enterprise except as a prerequisite to a privileged (like having auto insurance to drive.) Heck, I almost got in a lot of trouble when I reminded the Humane Society officers that I was the only one armed during our conversation about paying the annual license fee for my dogs. They reminded me that the sheriff's office was more than willing to stand with them during our next chat.
Edited on December 18, 2011 at 5:23amMay '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Duane, is it not correct that Romney's healthcare plan for Massachusetts has increased costs and regulations, and will continue to do so? Romney might have balanced his state's budgets while in office (and with a Democrat-majority Congress, which is certainly impressive), but he increased the state's fiscal burdens in future years. Am I wrong?
Apr '11
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
The link suggests a $0.15 billion increase overbudget (and that after Deval Patrick added to the plan), plus a potential $0.1 billion in potential cuts in federal support from changes in federal rules. Romney cut spending by $1.6 billion. It's a dent, but it doesn't swallow the whole thing.
Apr '11
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
The King Prawn
Maybe it's just the Texan in me, but I recoil at the idea of the state telling me to go spend my money with any commercial enterprise except as a prerequisite to a privileged (like having auto insurance to drive.) [cut awesome anecdote for words]
I'm with you. It's emphatically not how I want to live. My sense, though, is that the feeling is similarly strong looking the other way. We're much more likely to get the Ryan plan passed (or Ryan-Wyden) if Massachusetts is only worried about what will happen to other people than if they think that they'll be forced to be self-reliant, Texan style.
They're kind of passionate about helping others, but can be distracted by other outrages, or by reality TV shows. If they didn't think that Masscare might partially shield them from some of the blast, they'd be much easier to scare into being seriously and lucratively passionate.
May '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
How about because we aren't France, and have a federation of states. Yes, individual states can do stupid things if a state's voters want to. Do you see MA seeking to repeal Romneycare? It's still overwhelmingly popular. If it ceases to be, the legislators of MA will repeal it, or be voted out of office. Why is that so hard for you to accept? As a New Yorker, I probably don't like every law or obligation or tax in your state, but I don't really care because I don't live there.
Shorter version: the irrational hatred for a mild-mannered, center-right guy, and our next President, goes on, and on.
Edited on December 18, 2011 at 6:50amMay '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
That is the clearest defense of it I've read yet. Maybe it's just the Texan in me, but I recoil at the idea of the state telling me to go spend my money with any commercial enterprise except as a prerequisite to a privileged (like having auto insurance to drive.)
How about a state telling you to spend your money on state income tax? How is that substantively different than being forced to pay for health insurance? In both cases, you are being coerced to pay money.
May '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
James Of England
The link suggests a $0.15 billion increase overbudget (and that after Deval Patrick added to the plan), plus a potential $0.1 billion in potential cuts in federal support from changes in federal rules. Romney cut spending by $1.6 billion. It's a dent, but it doesn't swallow the whole thing.
The costs will increase every year as government distorts the market and seduces more citizens to depend on taxpayer money, right? To be honest, most of what I know of Romney and Romneycare is from critical editorials, so I have some reading to do. But my impression now is that Romney introduced yet another money sink and entitlement system which is sure to grow.
Even so, I'm not arguing that Romney is worse than Newt or any other candidate.
Dec '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
ParisParamus
That is the clearest defense of it I've read yet. Maybe it's just the Texan in me, but I recoil at the idea of the state telling me to go spend my money with any commercial enterprise except as a prerequisite to a privileged (like having auto insurance to drive.)
How about a state telling you to spend your money on state income tax? How is that substantively different than being forced to pay for health insurance? In both cases, you are being coerced to pay money. · Dec 17 at 9:56pm
Taxation is a power inherent to the state and made explicit by constitutions generally, and the money goes to the state not to private enterprise (not yet at least...the state has to have its cut first.)
Dec '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
ParisParamus
How about because we aren't France, and have a federation of states. Yes, individual states can do stupid things if a state's voters want to. Do you see MA seeking to repeal Romneycare? It's still overwhelmingly popular. If it ceases to be, the legislators of MA will repeal it, or be voted out of office. Why is that so hard for you to accept? As a New Yorker, I probably don't like every law or obligation or tax in your state, but I don't really care because I don't live there.
Shorter version: the irrational hatred for a mild-mannered, center-right guy, and our next President, goes on, and on. · Dec 17 at 9:48pm
I have no problem accepting that the people of MA are unique in their approach to things. Masscare may be fine and dandy for them, but the idea is still inherently bad and tyrannical. If there was anything good about it other states would have looked to that example and built their own health care laws on that model. I've never said MA can't haven't, only that they're stupid to have it.
Dec '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
ParisParamus
Shorter version: the irrational hatred for a mild-mannered, center-right guy, and our next President, goes on, and on. · Dec 17 at 9:48pm
Ad hominem is even shorter, actually.
May '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
So, are you saying a single-payer plan, where all the money "goes to the state" would be better and more legitimate? How about if MA just raised their state income tax on everyone to pay for the free-riders Romneycare was designed to address; would that be preferable? How about if MA raised the income tax by some amount on everyone, but then offered a tax credit if you obtained private insurance--isn't that, in effect what they did? Unless there's some unseen flaw or in these arguments, I'm wondering why Romney has not made them. Perhaps he's saving them for the general election? ;-)
Aug '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
James Of England
Paul A. Rahe
Doc, if you really think there are "significant and important ideological differences between Obamacare and Romneycare," you should spell them out in a post. If we are wrong, instruct us. · Dec 17 at 1:49pm
a: The three he spells out in the video, of which the big one is Federalism and the 10th Amendment.
b: A fourth he doesn't mention. You don't have to buy insurance, but can get by with HSAs. Not sure why he doesn't talk about this more.
This video isn't any different from what he's said in debates and throughout the year, although he is a little more ambiguous in the video. It was clear at the time, and has been even clearer since, that he would repeal the federal mandate. It's my guess that he might keep something of an exchange concept and apply it to his interstate insurance purchase plan, but that's just a guess. · Dec 17 at 2:40pm
James, Thanks for helping me out. Obviously, the active cohort of Ricochet readers and writers has decided that Romney is not their guy, and reason does not persuade them.
Dec '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
ParisParamus
So, are you saying a single-payer plan, where all the money "goes to the state" would be better and more legitimate? How about if MA just raised their state income tax on everyone to pay for the free-riders Romneycare was designed to address; would that be preferable? How about if MA raised the income tax by some amount on everyone, but then offered a tax credit if you obtained private insurance--isn't that, in effect what they did? Unless there's some unseen flaw or in these arguments, I'm wondering why Romney has not made them. Perhaps he's saving them for the general election? ;-) · Dec 18 at 7:34am
It would be more in line with the way government normally works. It's startling they didn't insert government as the middle man.
There is no good solution to the free rider problem. Either we suck it up collectively through various taxation/coercion mechanisms or we simply deny treatment to those with no means to pay. All the choices are bad, but we have never really had the discussion on which is least bad.
Dec '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Doc Stephens
James, Thanks for helping me out. Obviously, the active cohort of Ricochet readers and writers has decided that Romney is not their guy, and reason does not persuade them. · Dec 18 at 7:39am
So anyone who disagrees with you is being unreasonable?
May '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
The King Prawn
I do very much believe in federalism. My issue is that the mandate has been tried at the state level and found wanting. See Ben's comment a page back about how bad it is. Federalism worked in this instance. We know exactly what not to do in other states thanks to Romney and Mass. We must quit pretending that a bad idea is ok so long as it's not federal. · Dec 17 at 6:30pm
I didn't see anything about mandates or incentives in the comment you linked. It was about premium increases, which have nothing to do with mandates.
Dec '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Duane Oyen
The King Prawn
I do very much believe in federalism. My issue is that the mandate has been tried at the state level and found wanting. See Ben's comment a page back about how bad it is. Federalism worked in this instance. We know exactly what not to do in other states thanks to Romney and Mass. We must quit pretending that a bad idea is ok so long as it's not federal. · Dec 17 at 6:30pm
I didn't see anything about mandates or incentives in the comment you linked. It was about premium increases, which have nothing to do with mandates. · Dec 18 at 12:11pm
The mandates are part and parcel with forcing companies to insure the uninsurable.
Apr '11
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
The King Prawn
The mandates are part and parcel with forcing companies to insure the uninsurable. · Dec 18 at 12:21pm
A problem we run into is that forcing companies to insure the uninsurable is very popular, alas.
If Mitt or Newt explicitly said that he was repealing the part of Obamacare that allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until they're 26, the election could be lost just on that alone.
Apr '11
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Looking back at the original post, I do wonder if Ben Domenech is "absolutely stunned" that Newt wants to keep parts of Obamacare (over 300 pages, 10%, whatever). Does he have "concerns about Newt's intentions?"
At the very least, Newt should explain to us what he means by these very recent comments.
Apr '11
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Aaron Miller
James Of England
The costs will increase every year as government distorts the market and seduces more citizens to depend on taxpayer money, right? To be honest, most of what I know of Romney and Romneycare is from critical editorials, so I have some reading to do. But my impression now is that Romney introduced yet another money sink and entitlement system which is sure to grow.
Even so, I'm not arguing that Romney is worse than Newt or any other candidate. ·
If Romneycare were a more radical plan, perhaps, or if it were federal. If it makes little direct difference to any but the 8% or so previously without and under with the mandate, it's unlikely that the Mass. healthcare market will be so different from its neighbors that it will not be able to rely parasitically on their price mechanism. There isn't much of a seduction to government money; the subsidy isn't worth poverty.
If Mitt wins and interstate health insurance purchasing passes, Mass. insurance costs should fall considerably, although since healthcare prices will remain higher than in red states, (wages/ land), insurance may become more complicated.