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?

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 89 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Inactive
    @AaronMiller
    wmartin

    My understanding is that Romney has said that he will seek full repeal of Obamacare through the reconciliation process, since it is unlikely that the Republicans will have 60 votes.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/12/mitt-romney-commits-to-repealing-obamacare-via-reconciliation/

    Romney said in one of the early debates (the first debate?) that he would grant waivers while repeal is pending. Does he still stand behind that?

    I dislike waivers in general, because they involve a president unilaterally suspending enforcement of law — a dangerous power. But Obama is already granting waivers, and I’m sure there’s a long tradition of presidents doing so.

    • #31
  2. Profile Photo Member
    @DuaneOyen
    Ben Domenech:

    This doesn’t accurately reflect what was said. The exact quote clearly reflects opposition to the current law:

    ….. I will certainly pursue repeal, and that’s something which will occur if we have a Republican House and a Republican Senate, my guess is it could be done pretty close to day one. If that’s not the case, and I have to go through the waiver process, we will do our best. Our lawyers think that providing a state a waiver that we will be able to conform with the law and that the state would be able to opt out of the system, but if a lawsuit ensues, and it takes months to sort it out, well during that time hopefully we will have the bill repealed. I think people recognize that if I’m elected President of the United States, that we are not going to have Obamacare with its full panoply of benefits and costs. The American people don’t want it. I don’t want it. And we’ll repeal it. ……

    • #32
  3. Profile Photo Member
    @
    Xennady

    I think Romney will shatter the Republlican party, leaving the left a weak, divided opposition to the left in 2014 and 2016. At least if Obama is re-elected the GOP will stay intact, leaving the voters a place to turn when and if Obama attempts to be a new Chavez or Allende, as Obama often fantasizes about.

    With Romney we’ve got a guy with bad political skills who really doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with the leftist agenda.

    That’s not a recipe for political success for conservatives, no matter which way the wind is blowing. · Dec 17 at 1:45pm

    And we have another guy who has also publicly supported the federal health insurance mandate, and was a huge booster of the mortgage bubble that blew up the economy. And, if that were not enough, is also repulsive to swing voters. It’s not like Newt is going to take us to the sunlit uplands of true conservatism (even in the extremely unlikely event that he gets elected at all).

    Either way, we’re screwed.

    • #33
  4. Profile Photo Member
    @
    Xennady

    wmartin

    My understanding is that Romney has said that he will seek full repeal of Obamacare through the reconciliation process, since it is unlikely that the Republicans will have 60 votes.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/12/mitt-romney-commits-to-repealing-obamacare-via-reconciliation/

    Excellent.

    So what happens when Harry Reid objects?

    I sincerely hope I’m wrong. But I just don’t have enough trust in Mitt “Oily Sheen” Romney to think he will actually be willing to fight through Democratic opposition to actually repeal Obamacare via reconciliation.

    Especially after this video. · Dec 17 at 1:32pm

    Reid will object when Newt tries to repeal Obamacare too. Newt has a long history of squishiness. As Mark Steyn puts it, “Gingrich is a pushover for progressivism who’s succeeded in passing himself off as a hard-line right-wing bastard.”

    • #34
  5. Profile Photo Inactive
    @TheKingPrawn
    James Of England

    a: The three he spells out in the video, of which the big one is Federalism and the 10th Amendment.

    Are you arguing that a state can be as stupid as it wants so long as it does not infect others? If not, are you arguing that the mandate is a dandy idea? If it is, why is it only fabulous at the state level and not at the federal level? Why not load up the bandwagon for a constitutional amendment to explicitly give the federal government the power to force citizens into commerce?

    If the mandate is a bad idea it remains so at any level of government. The only time it appeared like a good deal was when it stood against a single payer, government monopoly healthcare system. As we’ve seen with Obamacare it is part and parcel of the planned destruction of the market system so that progressives can move us to a government system.

    • #35
  6. Profile Photo Member
    @

    Ok, Newt fans – Here, Newt says that he would repeal Obamacare, but would reinstate “over 300 pages “of it. He wants to retain a little over 10% of Ocare, he says.

    To put it another way, Newt wants to “repeal the bad and keep the good.”

    This is from september, more recent than the video of Romney that occasioned this post.

    http://thehill.com/video/campaign/184747-gingrich-on-obamas-healthcare-law-about-300-pages-are-pretty-good

    • #36
  7. Profile Photo Inactive
    @TheKingPrawn
    wmartin: Ok, Newt fans – Here, Newt says that he would repeal Obamacare, but would reinstate “over 300 pages ” of it.

    In other words, Newt wants to “repeal the bad and keep the good.”

    http://thehill.com/video/campaign/184747-gingrich-on-obamas-healthcare-law-about-300-pages-are-pretty-good · Dec 17 at 4:10pm

    See Paul Rahe’s post.

    Perry 2012. He can’t say it, but he means it.

    • #37
  8. Profile Photo Member
    @
    The King Prawn

    wmartin: Ok, Newt fans – Here, Newt says that he would repeal Obamacare, but would reinstate “over 300 pages ” of it.

    In other words, Newt wants to “repeal the bad and keep the good.”

    http://thehill.com/video/campaign/184747-gingrich-on-obamas-healthcare-law-about-300-pages-are-pretty-good · Dec 17 at 4:10pm

    See Paul Rahe’s post.

    Perry 2012. He can’t say it, but he means it. · Dec 17 at 4:11pm

    I would give Perry another look if I thought we weren’t running a risk of him suffering intellectual vaporlock at any moment.

    I wasn’t surprised to find that link of Newt basically saying the same thing as Romney about Obamacare repeal. The Mitt-Newt race is like a neverending tit-for-tat of awfulness.

    • #38
  9. Profile Photo Inactive
    @TheKingPrawn
    wmartin

    I wasn’t surprised to find that link of Newt basically saying the same thing as Romney about Obamacare repeal. The Mitt-Newt race is like a neverending tit-for-tat of awfulness. · Dec 17 at 4:22pm

    Indeed, my friend, indeed.

    • #39
  10. Profile Photo Podcaster
    @DaveCarter

    “Perry 2012. He can’t say it, but he means it.”

    My vote for Ricochet Quote Of The Week.

    • #40
  11. Profile Photo Inactive
    @AaronMiller
    The King Prawn

    ….

    If the mandate is a bad idea it remains so at any level of government. ….

    That’s the key consideration. If Romneycare doesn’t help the people of Masschusetts, then it demonstrates poor judgement.

    If Romney intends to address national healthcare and other entitlements in any way, then the quality of his judgement should be considered by all.

    One can’t dismiss Romneycare by simply citing the 10th Amendment. If, as governor, Romney promoted bad ideas, then why should we not expect similarly bad ideas (on a variety of issues) from Romney as President?

    • #41
  12. Profile Photo Member
    @DuaneOyen
    The King Prawn

    Are you arguing that a state can be as stupid as it wants so long as it does not infect others? If not, are you arguing that the mandate is a dandy idea? If it is, why is it only fabulous at the state level and not at the federal level? Why not load up the bandwagon for a constitutional amendment to explicitly give the federal government the power to force citizens into commerce?

    Well, isn’t that true? A state can be as stupid as it wants, as long as 1) the Constitution is not violated, and 2) the voters are stupid enough to keep voting in officials who do stupid things. If we don’t like it, we can vote with our feet and try one of the other 49. Or don’ty you believe in federalism?

    A mandate, or strong incentive may or may not be a sensible idea- at the state level. It depends on the issue. A mandate is unconstitutional at the federal level, and it is also a bad idea because at the national level you can’t vote with your feet and remain in the country.

    • #42
  13. Profile Photo Member
    @DuaneOyen
    Aaron Miller

    ……………

    One can’t dismiss Romneycare by simply citing the 10th Amendment. If, as governor, Romney promoted bad ideas, then why should we not expect similarly bad ideas (on a variety of issues) from Romney as President? · Dec 17 at 6:15pm

    Because whether or not the idea is “bad” depends on the issue and the context.

    I can’t wait till January is over and we get past all of this nonsense. Good grief. Newt, the inside-the-beltway neart-lifer, is the conservative outsider, Romney, the business guy who had to balance his budgets or go broke is the RINO Washington insider. Perry, the crony capitalist, is the great hope for ending crony capitalism and Washington influence-peddling.

    • #43
  14. Profile Photo Inactive
    @TheKingPrawn
    Duane Oyen

    Well, isn’t that true? A state can be as stupid as it wants, as long as 1) the Constitution is not violated, and 2) the voters are stupid enough to keep voting in officials who do stupid things. If we don’t like it, we can vote with our feet and try one of the other 49. Or don’ty you believe in federalism?

    A mandate, or strong incentive may or may not be a sensible idea- at the state level. It depends on the issue. A mandate is unconstitutional at the federal level, and it is also a bad idea because at the national level you can’t vote with your feet and remain in the country. · Dec 17 at 6:21pm

    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.

    • #44
  15. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Palaeologus
    The King Prawn

    Are you arguing that a state can be as stupid as it wants so long as it does not infect others? If not, are you arguing that the mandate is a dandy idea? If it is, why is it only fabulous at the state level and not at the federal level? Why not load up the bandwagon for a constitutional amendment to explicitly give the federal government the power to force citizens into commerce?

    If the mandate is a bad idea it remains so at any level of government. The only time it appeared like a good deal was when it stood against a single payer, government monopoly healthcare system. As we’ve seen with Obamacare it is part and parcel of the planned destruction of the market system so that progressives can move us to a government system.

    Like massive, subsidized, pinwheels for electricity generation, right?

    Gimme a break.

    If the 10th is good for Ricky (and his completely phony, pandering, secession & alt-energy nonsense) then it’s fine for Mitt.

    We are conservatives. Adults. Let’s hold candidates to the same standards.

    • #45
  16. Profile Photo Inactive
    @TheKingPrawn

    I never claimed giant bird slicers were a good idea.

    • #46
  17. Profile Photo Inactive
    @TheKingPrawn
    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.)

    • #47
  18. Profile Photo Inactive
    @TheKingPrawn
    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.

    • #48
  19. Profile Photo Inactive
    @TheKingPrawn
    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.

    • #49
  20. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Palaeologus
    The King Prawn: I never claimed giant bird slicers were a good idea. · Dec 17 at 7:20pm

    That is true. I never claimed insurance mandates were.

    However… there are drastically different standards being applied to Newt, Mitt and Rick.

    If we must choose one, it seems sensible to hold the competition on a level playing field.

    No passes for Mitt. No passes for Newt. No passes for Rick.

    Run, chumps, run.

    • #50
  21. Profile Photo Inactive
    @ParisParamus
    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 18 at 7:21am

    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? ;-)

    • #51
  22. Profile Photo Inactive
    @DocStephens
    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.

    • #52
  23. Profile Photo Inactive
    @TheKingPrawn
    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.

    • #53
  24. Profile Photo Inactive
    @TheKingPrawn
    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?

    • #54
  25. Profile Photo Inactive
    @JamesOfEngland
    The King Prawn

    James Of England

    a: 10th Amendment.

    Are you arguing that a state can be as stupid as it wants so long as it does not infect others? If not, are you arguing that the mandate is a dandy idea? If it is, why is it only fabulous at the state level and not at the federal level? Why not load up the bandwagon for a constitutional amendment to explicitly give the federal government the power to force citizens into commerce?

    If I was Governor, I would not have pursued it. Federalism is not an argument for the local policies being a positive good. It does make them dramatically less offensive.

    One of my favorite rants is about Liz Dole’s assault on the Constitution when she used federal highway funding to raise the drinking age to 21. I don’t believe that the drinking age should be that high, but that’s a secondary issue. What Dole did was unacceptable and unforgivable. What governors who earlier chose that drinking age did was a shame, but it’s not one I’ve ever heard someone get angry over. Not the same.

    • #55
  26. Profile Photo Inactive
    @SnowBird

    For what it’s worth, the Des Moines Register has endorsed Romney on the basis of his “Sobriety, wisdom and judgment.” RomneyCare’s good intentions were also sited, among other things. In the judgment of the Register’s editors:

    “This ability to see the merits of tough issues from something other than a knee-jerk, ideological perspective suggests that Mitt Romney would be willing to bridge the political divide in Washington. Americans are desperate for the Republicans and Democrats to work together. His record of ignoring partisan labels to pass important legislation when he was governor of Massachusetts suggests he is capable to making that happen.”

    Bridging the political divide. Republicans and Democrats working together. Haven’t we seen enough of that over the last fifty or sixty years to know what the result will be?

    I tend to regard an endorsement by the Register as only infinitesimally better, if that, than an endorsement by the New York Times, in other words worthy of deep suspicion of their motives and a good indicator of how not to vote. It will be interesting to see what the situation looks like in late April when the PA primaries finally roll around.

    • #56
  27. Profile Photo Inactive
    @JamesOfEngland

    Cont.

    In the case of the mandate, I think that there are powerful advantages to having some states go ahead with different attempts to alter their form of government dominance of healthcare (since LBJ and Reagan, all states have government dominated healthcare). Vermont and Massachusetts are the clearest current examples. Through doing that, they show us what works and what doesn’t work in an American context. The laboratories of democracy really do improve our understanding, and can help us to avoid mistakes.

    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). Having frequently defended capital punishment on similar grounds, I feel somewhat bound to this argument.

    • #57
  28. Profile Photo Inactive
    @JamesOfEngland
    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.

    • #58
  29. Profile Photo Inactive
    @TheKingPrawn
    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.

    • #59
  30. Profile Photo Inactive
    @AaronMiller

    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?

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.