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:
May '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
James Of England
.................
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. · Dec 18 at 3:11pm
Sadly, that may be the toughest challenge of all. This is one of the two or three most important reforms you could effect, and in my study of the matter, appears to be perhaps the most difficult. You are fighting the state-chartered Blues who want to avoid any competition, and the NAIC (National Assoc. of Insurance Commissioners)- an extraordinarily powerful group that does not want its current monopoly power diluted, plus all the local hospitals who want to avoid further price pressure.
This needs to be done, and to get there, the public has to be so firmly in favor that the usual back-channel influence peddling is preempted by popular will. Difficult, maybe not impossible. But under-appreciated by most conservatives who talk about it. Possibly even tougher than tort reform and licensing reform.
Dec '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Duane Oyen
This needs to be done, and to get there, the public has to be so firmly in favor that the usual back-channel influence peddling is preempted by popular will. Difficult, maybe not impossible. But under-appreciated by most conservatives who talk about it. Possibly even tougher than tort reform and licensing reform. · Dec 18 at 3:28pm
I haven't studied this option much, but it seems both difficult and somewhat problematic. Will states still have the regulator authority they currently have? If not, who sets policy requirements? One reason a policy in one state costs so much less than a policy in another is that the latter state might require less coverage for things like mental health/substance abuse counseling, etc. This appears to be yet another method by which costs might be contained except for the fact that Washington bureaucracy has to become involved. It puts us right back to the head of HHS saying what is and is not an acceptable level of insurance. Am I wrong on this?
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Duane Oyen
James Of England
.................
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. · Dec 18 at 3:11pm
Sadly, that may be the toughest challenge of all. This is one of the two or three most important reforms you could effect, and in my study of the matter, appears to be perhaps the most difficult. You are fighting the state-chartered Blues who want to avoid any competition, and the NAIC (National Assoc. of Insurance Commissioners)- an extraordinarily powerful group that does not want its current monopoly power diluted, plus all the local hospitals who want to avoid further price pressure.
This needs to be done, and to get there, the public has to be so firmly in favor that the usual back-channel influence peddling is preempted by popular will. Difficult, maybe not impossible. But under-appreciated by most conservatives who talk about it. Possibly even tougher than tort reform and licensing reform. · Dec 18 at 3:28pm
A slight correction: cross-state-lines purchasing is done on the state level, not the federal.
Dec '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Ben Domenech
Duane Oyen
Sadly, that may be the toughest challenge of all. This is one of the two or three most important reforms you could effect, and in my study of the matter, appears to be perhaps the most difficult. You are fighting the state-chartered Blues who want to avoid any competition, and the NAIC (National Assoc. of Insurance Commissioners)- an extraordinarily powerful group that does not want its current monopoly power diluted, plus all the local hospitals who want to avoid further price pressure.
This needs to be done, and to get there, the public has to be so firmly in favor that the usual back-channel influence peddling is preempted by popular will. Difficult, maybe not impossible. But under-appreciated by most conservatives who talk about it. Possibly even tougher than tort reform and licensing reform. · Dec 18 at 3:28pm
A slight correction: cross-state-lines purchasing is done on the state level, not the federal. · Dec 19 at 5:48am
But doesn't it immediately become interstate commerce? I can't imagine the federal government leaving it alone.
Apr '11
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Ben Domenech
Duane Oyen
James Of England
.................
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. ·
A slight correction: cross-state-lines purchasing is done on the state level, not the federal.
Well, it is now. Hence "if it passes". Although his plan at the moment is a little more limited than in 2008, (you can take your insurance with you when you change residence, but you have to spend time in Kansas to bring your Kansas insurance to Maine), it's my impression that he still views it as a step in the direction of interstate purchase. It was mentioned (not by Mitt, but by people on his campaign) in 2008 as a tactic for that. Health Insurance is one of the very few areas that states still erect the serious barriers to interstate commerce that Article 1, section 8 was designed to break down.
I feel reasonably hopeful that in 2019, King Prawn will be able to enjoy his Texan health insurance without leaving the cool Washington breezes (and his family) behind.
May '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
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.
This is extremely troubling to me. Perhaps offering the promise of a job by the time you're 26 is the coutner-carrot to offer? Alas, at some point socialism insures it's and our destruction--hope it's not too late.
Edited on December 19, 2011 at 6:32pmMay '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Ben Domenech
A slight correction: cross-state-lines purchasing is done on the state level, not the federal. · Dec 19 at 5:48am
Not necessarily, and that is the point. Insurance is presently regulated by the states, with only ERISA as a significant relevant exception to this discussion. The proposal of the Jeffrey Anderson (and others) "Small Bill" is that the feds pre-empt under the commerce clause and permit interstate sales to compete with state-regulated sales.
Micheal Greve of AEI has done a loot of work on the need for the Feds to get involved in some of the excessive, abusive, and predatory state regulatory schemes under the justification of the dormant (i.e.,. "negative") commerce clause. For example, if a state A/G operates to restrict competition for the benefit of commercial interests in his state, a federal role makes sense as a competitive measure.
May '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
The King Prawn
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. · Dec 18 at 12:21pm
The first statement wasn't related, and the second is not linked up either; it is an asserted effect, not shown. Correlation, not causation. More specifics, please, King.
Aug '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
The King Prawn
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? · Dec 18 at 7:52am
Absurd! Only those who refuse to consider other points of view are unreasonable. I'll let you discern which is which.
Stated another way, many of the comments posted early in this stream seemed to me to be emotional and not particularly rational. The extraction of 3 seconds of a 110 second statement to intentionally distort and deride a candidate's position, followed by an emotional piling-on in support of that distortion illustrates my point.
On the other hand, not all reasoning is sound.