Much has been said this week about Mitt Romney’s role in the election of Scott Brown. The ironic thing for conservatives who supported Brown, and have supported Romney in the past, is that both of them were instrumental in the passage of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, which is not unlike ObamaCare. While I applaud their opposition to ObamaCare, I’m sorry to say I’ve let them off the hook on RomneyCare.
It’s certainly nice to revel in a win for the good guys, but we also need to keep our eyes on the big picture. Kim Strassel addressed the issue in her latest Wall Street Journal piece.
Mr. Romney has at times put forward selective data suggesting the program’s costs aren’t exploding. At other times he has complained his state hasn’t done enough to control costs. By October of last year he was arguing on CNN that “We . . . didn’t have any pretense we would somehow be able to change health-care costs in Massachusetts.” This, despite promising in 2006 that under his plan “the costs of health care will be reduced.”
Through it all, Mr. Romney has never backed away from his individual mandate, which requires people to buy insurance or pay a fine. Yet Republicans and independents despise the mandate, with many believing it is downright unconstitutional.
Mr. Romney’s subsidized coverage is meanwhile doing what entitlements do: crowding out private insurers, compounding the cost explosion, walking the state toward rationing. So long as the former governor clings to these central points of his health plan, he’s on the wrong side of free-market policy and public opinion.
That might be why in December Mr. Romney shifted again, saying his program differed significantly from ObamaCare in that it “solved” the “problem” at the state level, and featured no public option. But the public option argument has gone poof. And while GOP primary voters care about federalism, most will be hard pressed to parse the difference between a failed state program and a failed federal one.
This ugly fact, take note, nearly swept up the Brown candidacy. A week before the election, Fox News’s Neil Cavuto dared ask Mr. Brown how he could oppose Washington’s plan, given that he voted for RomneyCare as a state legislator. Mr. Brown—perhaps unwilling to upset his political patron—claimed that they were “two different programs.” He argued that the Massachusetts plan, in contrast to ObamaCare, was a “free-market enterprise.” Lucky for Mr. Brown, the liberal blogs didn’t seize on his comments until too late. But he’ll be asked for further explanation in Washington.
This isn’t going away for Mr. Romney either, which is why he’d do better by writing off his own plan as a mistake that Democrats have made worse, and replacing it with a proposal that deregulates and reforms the private market to lower insurance costs (thereby achieving greater coverage). If Mr. Romney hopes to capitalize on this week’s Senate race, he’ll first have to heed its health-care lessons.
What gets me is the whole “controlling costs” thing. In my mind, that means those of us who have worked our entire lives – sometimes in jobs we don’t particularly enjoy – to provide health insurance for our families, will have our health care rationed to compensate for those who didn’t – for whatever reason. It boils down to the whole fairness issue. How is it fair to ration health care for those who did everything right to make up for those who did everything wrong?
Don’t get me wrong, I’d much rather see these “experiments” done at the state level. But once an experiment fails I’d like to see those responsible live up to it. I really hope they do. That’s the kind of leader I’m looking for – one willing to admit mistakes.
Now that I’ve ruined your day, head over to Reaganite Republican for some comic relief. (Via Maggie’s Notebook)
Great post Mrs B-
You make an indisputable argument re. the fairness issue- and it’s simply un-American to punish achievers and responsible people in such a way.
And for cost controls… anybody who thinks bureaucrats can contain HC inflation better than -or in spite of- irrepressible market forces is mistaken. Plus, the Dems have told you that they’re not seriously interested in even trying, really- otherwise they’d implement tort reform and let us shop for insurance across state lines.
Instead, ObamaCare is a POS that rewards chief Dem constituencies like deadbeats, dreamy Leftists, and trail lawyers… while screwing the rest of us completely.
And RomneyCare is little better- time to man-up, Mitt!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nicely said, we don’t mind people making mistakes, but they must own up to them and admit that based on the evidence their theories didn’t work out in practice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Excellent point, LC!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think the the key difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare is the most obvious one: the difference between federal legislation and state legislation.
The beauty of doing something at the state level is that there are 49 other states to compare to, thus providing an easy benchmark to measure the program’s success, or lack thereof. Further, its quite a bit easier to strike down or amend state legislation than it is to do so with federal legislation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve heard him answer Mass-care questions on TV and he always sloughs it off to the Democrat legislature, turning his plan inside out and morphing it into what it is. You’re right LC; I’ve never heard him take any blame, even just for the concept of it. Romney “looks” like the perfect candidate coming from and tutored by a family lineage of politicos. His dad was the head of American Motors in Detroit and went on to be Governor of Michigan for a number of years when I was young, and most all agree, did a fine job. His mom ran for Senator. Yeah, in a Presidential, I wouldn’t vote against him. Mitt is (to borrow a Bidenism) “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”, but in most ways I would personally like to see him as Ambassador.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s the beauty of federalism: Learn from the mistakes that individual states make – not the country as a whole.
While we can thank Romney (and I guess Brown) for showing us what gov’t mandated “Healthcare” actually does, it will doom his chances for a Presidential run. The ONLY way Romney could explain his way out of his signature legislative victory in MA is that its Legislature was so far left that it was intent on passing something even worse with a veto override if he did not “work with them”.
Unfortunately, Romney keeps trying to defend it when criticized.
As for Brown, I sleep well knowing he won’t make the same mistake twice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The actual causes of high cost in HC are never addressed except by a very few. They are:
1. Frivolous lawsuits/Outrageous awards
*What’s that saying about Lawyers?
2. Third party Payee
*Those who don’t pay full cost don’t care what it really is. The free market will drive costs down.
3. Gov’t Regulation
* Buying HC policies across state lines will decrease costs as the risk pool gets larger.
4. Those who feel someone else should pay or that HC is a right.
* Is HC in the Constitution? Really?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m one of millions who need HC that is ‘reasonable’. I pay $560. a month and it covers ‘no’ doctor visits, ‘no’ wellness visits and ‘no’ tests if they are performed outside a hosptial. What about the people that can’t get insurance or have been dropped because of a pre exsisting condition? You don’t want ‘gov’t’ telling you what tests you can have performed, but, you allow an insurance company to make the calls for you. Please, the reason it’s not in the Constitution is because no one ever dreamed that every American wouldn’t have the ‘right’ to healthcare. Obama isn’t doing this for himself; he’s doing it for ‘your’ fellow Americans!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Are you whining or just wanting everyone else to pay for your services? If you’re below a certain income level, you’re covered. If you’re above a certain income level you have to prioritize choices. You can deal with another company if you have disputes that you can’t resolve, it will be impossible to walk away from government, let alone deal with that bureaucracy whose decision is final.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’d like to think if you’re an American you’d be more compassionate toward the millions of other ‘Americans’ that desperately need health insurance and can’t get it because they’ve been either been denied insurance or just can’t afford it. So please instead of asking me if I’m whining (I’m actually crying that healthcare in this country has come to this), just try and walk in their shoes maybe then you’ll finally understand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good Lord, Diane, you have no clue. Sheesh. If you’re from Europe, you’re excused; if you’re an American, shame on you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A few of your commenters already said it correctly. Romneycare is a state bill, not a federal bill. That bill only has to be upheld by the Massachusetts Constitution. I don’t agree with universal healthcare, but at least they are only ruining 2% of the country. Mass. will eventually come around. costs are already skyrocketting. the scary thing about Obamacare is, the only ones concerned over the constitutionality of it are state lawmakers. Our Senators and congressman don’t seem to care.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No they don’t Mickey, they only want control over yourself and your money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0