|
|||||
     Founders
Managing Directors
Blogger Pool
|
 Thursday, November 15, 2007
Today, the Thompson campaign comes out swinging. In an email from Comms director Todd Harris, Fred's campaign knocks Romney for his Healthcare plan citing a fine for non-enrollment and the low cost abortion option.
(Note, I believe this is the first official Fred offensive.) The Romney Camp, prepared for just such an occasion, lets loose an arsenal of serious rebuttals to the charges: The Thompson campaign tries to link Romney with the $295 charge for non-insurance. Romney vetoed the item but the Democratic legislature put it back in: "Many of the law's core elements, including the requirement that all people in the state get insurance, were in Romney's original proposal in 2005. The Democratic legislature added many of its own ideas to the final law, including a $295 fee per employee for businesses who do not offer health insurance to their workers. Romney vetoed that provision but was overridden by the legislature." (Perry Bacon Jr., "Romney Plays Down Role In Health Law," The Washington Post, 4/13/07) The other big charge, that Romney happily included a low-cost abortion option in the plan. False. The law of Massachusetts REQUIRES that medical care fund abortions. If you want to blame someone, blame the Supreme Court of Mass.: According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On "The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right" Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981) Next onto the plan itself. First, goals are being met across the board: "The law appears to be working. As of Nov. 1, the date for the most recent statistics, more than 200,000 formerly uninsured people had gotten insurance, roughly half of the state's target." (Glen Johnson, "Rivals Chide Romney On Health Care Plan," The Associated Press, 11/15/07) Second, the costs are both affordable and consistent with the plan: "The average uninsured Massachusetts residents could obtain health care coverage for as little as $175 a month under the state's insurance law, Gov. Deval Patrick announced Saturday as he released the results of negotiations with the state's health insurers." (Steve LeBlanc, "Patrick: Residents Can Get Health Insurance For $175 A Month," The Associated Press, 3/3/07) Note also, that numerous conservatives have praised the plan giving Romney credit for tackling the issue when no one else would: The Heritage Foundation: "In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney's plan as one of the most promising strategies out there." (Edmund F. Haislmaier, "Mitt's Fit," The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org, 1/28/07) One charge out there is that the plan brought more taxes. False. "The big question we faced, however, was where the money for the subsidy would come from. We didn't want higher taxes; but we did have about $1 billion already in the system through a long-established uninsured-care fund that partially reimburses hospitals for free care. The fund is raised through an annual assessment on insurance providers and hospitals, plus contributions from the state and federal governments." (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Health Care For Everyone?" The Wall Street Journal, 4/11/06) Labels: healthcare Tuesday, October 9, 2007
In advance of the debate tonight, I wanted to talk a little about a headline that has popped up again of late: That Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare plan is similar to the one that Hillary Clinton has put out. As always, I am not an expert myself, but there seem to be even basic differences between the two.
Let’s start with what the story says are the similarities: Like Clinton's plan, the law Romney signed in April 2006 is underpinned by an "individual mandate" compelling people to buy health insurance. Both plans entail subsidies and government regulations.Of course, if you get out to the abstraction that this article does any healthcare plan would look similar to the Massachusetts plan. That both plans “entail subsidies and government regulations” essentially tells us nothing. The Giuliani plan contains both subsidies and government regulations as does the Edwards plan. No one would argue that all of these plans are essentially the same. Yet somehow our journalists are unable to see the differences. That leaves us with the individual mandate. Yet are all individual mandates the same? Let’s take and compare the different healthcare plans with a much more familiar topic of universal coverage: education. Hillary Clinton’s plan very much resembles the current state of our educational system. While allowing individuals to elect private coverage, it provides coverage for anyone who doesn’t opt out, much like our current education system allows for students to elect private schools while still providing public schools. The Massachusetts plan is much more like Milton Friedman’s proposals for school choice. While not rebuking the mandate for children to be educated, Friedman reasoned that shifting the tax support from producers (the schools) to consumers (the students) would result in marked improvement in the educational system. Similarly, the Massachusetts plan shifted tax dollars from producers of healthcare (hospitals and doctors) to consumers of healthcare. The redirection of tax dollars from producers to consumers aligns the correct incentives and interests to induce a better product. Yes it is true that both the current education system and Friedman’s school choice proposals would both entail and individual mandate, subsidies, and government regulation. Yet, that level of abstraction hides the significant differences between two different views of how to accomplish a goal, one reliant on government top-down commands, the other using a bottom-up market approach. Labels: healthcare Tuesday, September 18, 2007
There's some Mitt-bashing over at the AmSpec blog (Philip Klein, Jennifer Rubin, Philip Klein again, Jennifer Rubin again, and Shawn Macomber). Nothing unusual about that, but I did want to address the point being made: that Mitt's Massachusetts healthcare plan is the source of all healthcare evils these days. Certainly the Massachusetts plan is not perfect. Beyond the portions that the Massachusetts legislature passed over Mitt's veto, two basic provisions, the individual mandate and the "connector", have riled the ire of many conservative think-tanks and commentators. I think Mitt himself would agree that his plan is not perfect. Klein and Rubin especially seem to blame Mitt for even trying and thus encouraging less enlightened Democrats on the feasibility of passing such a plan.
Klein and Rubin seem to believe that Mitt's plan has done nothing to the national healthcare debate except cede ground to liberals. They forget that Mitt's plan has moved the debate on healthcare to the right of where it was. It has discredited the idea that only a single-payer system can work. It also made insurance more consumer oriented and less tied to employer choices. Mostly, I think that all the negativity directed at Mitt is misguided to say the least because of a single word, which has been at the forefront of Mitt's approach to healthcare: federalism. By federalism, I refer to the principle of states as labs of experimentation. All the debate has provided ample argument for other states to learn from and correct the flaws that are in the Massachusetts plan. Mitt's plan as a presidential candidate encourages such disagreement and experimentation. Mitt has embraced the seemingly novel, at least to AmSpec, principle of federalism whereby different ideas can be tested in the states. Labels: healthcare Friday, August 24, 2007
Romney: Mass. Health Plan Can Be Copied, Glen Johnson, AP
Romney Won't Adapt Mass. Plan, Perry Bacon Jr., Washington Post Romney's Federal Prescription, Mary Jacoby and Sarah Lueck, Wall Street Journal Romney to Pitch a State-by-State Health Insurance Plan, Michael Luo, NY Times Romney to detail his healthcare Rx, Lisa Wangsness, Boston Globe H/T Marc Ambinder. Labels: healthcare, press Friday, August 3, 2007
Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present to you Ms. Michelle Griffin. As reported by the Washington Post’s Michael Shear, Ms. Griffin got her 3.5 minutes of fame today as she heckled Mitt into a conversation about healthcare as he visited Manchester’s Red Arrow diner.
There is much debate in this country about the state of the nation’s healthcare system. Ms. Griffin brought up several points that most Americans have to deal with every day. Health Insurance premiums, doctor visit and prescription co-pay amounts, and the various other minutia all add up. Some health plans are better than others. Some aren’t worth the amount of ink it takes to print their forms. Everybody thinks the health care system can be made better. Most politicians, including every single one of the presidential candidates (both Democratic and Republican) have some plan or grandiose idea on how to effect change in the health care system. Its not a small system. It only makes up 1/7th of the US economy. Some of these politicians – especially Hillary Clinton – have been on the heath care warpath for many years. That said, only one politician has actually done something to improve the health care system of the people he was elected to serve. That politician is Mitt Romney – former Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. If you’ve clicked on the video above you know that Mitt tried to explain this system to Ms. Griffin – several times. Ms. Griffin wasn’t interested in the health care plan Mitt put in place in the Bay State. What she wanted was someone to come in and tell her all her medical bills would be taken care of by the government – and she wouldn’t have to pay a cent. Well, as one of the tax-payers who would have to foot the bill to make Ms. Griffin happy, this kinda irks me. So I have a memo for Ms. Griffin: Stop Whining. Now would be a good time. I feel for the pain caused by your family’s medical situation. Really. I do. How can I say this? Because I have a family of my own with our own medical bills to pay. I work hard for my money and, with all due respect, I’m not sure I can afford to pay for your health care in addition to my own. That is, after all, what you are asking. Government money doesn’t come from some magical printing press in Washington, DC. It comes from guys like me who think we send far too much of our hard earned cash to that city. You don’t like your health care plan? Do something about it. Yes, I know that might involve doing something other than waiting tables at the Red Arrow. Stop expecting government to solve your problems. Do you really want an organization that pays $700 for a toilet seat deciding what health care benefits you qualify for? Every politician coming through that door is trying to sell you something. You just might want to put more stock in the guy who’s already done something about the issue rather than putting your faith in the nebulous idea of socialized medicine. Socialized Medicine is just Canadian for “Colossal Failure”. So, Michelle, you’ve got a lot to think about. You can either stop your whining and do something for yourself (and your family), or you can wait for someone like Hillary Clinton to do something to you. Either way, please stop whining. End Memo. As for Mr. Shear, I don’t think his reporting could have been more slanted if he had actually tried – which I’m sure he did. Memo to Michael Shear: Its August. I’m sure you don’t get out of your air-conditioned DC office very much, but I’m pretty sure you know that August in New Hampshire is anything but cool. I’ve watched the video you put up, and forgive me for being so blunt (its what I do), but the one thing I didn’t see Mitt do was sweat. At all. This is a guy who has put together billion-dollar deals using only his wits, intelligence, and guts. He knows his stuff. No diner waitress is going to find a chink in his armor – despite all your wishes to the contrary. End Memo. The MSM silliness factor is increasing exponentially. This is a race for the Oval Office. When are they going to get serious? Are they capable of being serious? Methinks not. Labels: bias, healthcare, New Hampshire, washingont post Friday, June 29, 2007
Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute has an absolutely wrong piece over at NRO about healthcare. I don't disagree with the principle that he's writing about. He urges a return to conservative and free market principles on healthcare. Certainly he's right. The prescription drug plan has been an exposition in government expansion. He also argues that we should reject a government take-over of healthcare. Again, he's right on point.
However, Tanner takes an egregious wrong turn by equating Romney's healthcare plan with Hillary Care: Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has embraced the big-government approach. He has joined Democrats in calling for universal health coverage. The plan he supported in Massachusetts is a variation of HillaryCare.Apparently, Tanner didn't see this at the debate: Or maybe he missed this from the MSNBC debate: Or maybe even this: Tanner goes on to praise Rudy Giuliani's plan that expands healthcare savings accounts and reforms various tax provisions. Certainly there is much to be admired of Giuliani's plan, especially when compared to any Democratic plan. However, it will result in only changes at the margins. Romney's plan is a much bolder plan that would do more for more people. That does not make Romney's plan a liberal idea in disguise. Bold does not translate to liberal. Tanner mistakenly equates small government with small ideas. Romney sees that even small government can accomplish large things. The small government, conservative principles that Romney advocates are powerful tools that can accomplish something as audacious as insuring a nation. Labels: Cato Institute, healthcare, Michael Tanner, national review Wednesday, May 9, 2007
David Frum does some party soul searching and some hand wringing over the candidates. Yet in his brief post he manages to continue to peddle a falsity about Mitt Romney: that Mitt has somehow abandoned his healthcare program from Massachusetts. Apparently Frum did not see the debate:
Labels: David Frum, healthcare Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Many thanks to MMM reader Michael T. for pointing this out!
That's what several reports are saying! We noted in January that the AEI had some great things to say about it. Now we have this report. Labels: healthcare, massachusetts, romneycare Monday, February 19, 2007
Labels: ann romney, healthcare, video Tuesday, February 6, 2007
... like Ronald Reagan."
Senator DeMint on Romney, Healthcare and his decision to support "The Man" Labels: demit, endoresements, Endorsement, healthcare Friday, February 2, 2007
Labels: healthcare, video | ||||
Show/Hide 1 Comments | Post a Comment