Mitt Romney on the national debate over Obamacare

Hugh Hewitt talks health care with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

AUDIO

HH: Joined now by former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney. Governor Romney, welcome back to the program, always a pleasure.

HH: Tell me what your thoughts are as we watch the debate over President Obama’s proposed radical revisions to American health care are.

MR: Well, I think he’s going way beyond what the American people think is right, and way beyond what’s necessary. I think we all recognize that we have a problem, that people are worried that if they lose their job, they would lose their insurance. That’s a real problem, and having a lot of people without insurance is a problem. But we can get people insured, and we can take away the worry of people losing their coverage without having to have the government get into the insurance business, and ultimately move to a single-payer system. That is the wrong way to go, and I think America’s responding the way you’d expect, which is hey, we value our independence. We do not want government taking over health care.

HH: Now Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you oversaw a massive health care revision to the state law. Has that worked? And what does it have in common or not in common with President Obama’s proposals?

MR: Well, there are a number of features about it that I think are working quite well. One, we have been able to get virtually all of our citizens insured, and no one in Massachusetts has to worry that if they were to lose their job, that they would lose their insurance. That’s a very comforting thing. They can hold onto their insurance, or buy a private plan that they can keep with them all their life at a reasonable price. Those are very good things. The cost of our system has been about 1-1/2% of the state budget, about $350 million dollars. So it doesn’t have to break the bank. My plan actually would have been a zero cost proposal, but my friends in the legislature decided to add a few more benefits than I thought were necessary. That’s the nature of the democratic process. But getting people insured does not have to break the bank, and it does not require government insurance. The thing I like about our plan in Massachusetts is you people who want insurance get private, free market insurance. There is no government option, there is no government insurance plan. And that’s where Barack Obama has gone wrong. His plan costs way too much, it’s a trillion dollar mistake, and he gets the government in the insurance business, and they should not be there.

HH: Our mutual friend, Tim Pawlenty, has taken some shots. Some people think it’s early maneuvering for 2012, Governor Romney, about the Massachusetts plan. I’m sure you noted those. Are they fair criticisms?

MR: You know, I’m sure a number of the criticisms that are spoken about our plan are fair. There are a number of adjustments that certainly need to be made from time to time, and we said that at the time we put the bill in place. There’s some things about it I don’t like that actually I vetoed at the time that the bill was coming through. My veto was overridden. That’s the way things work in the world of politics. So I don’t mind people pointing out places where they think we could make improvements. But I’m pretty proud of the fact that we got our citizens insured, and that we did it without breaking the bank, and that we proved that you don’t have to get the government in the insurance business to get our citizens insured. And now the big task, which is the other 90% of the job, is figuring out how to get health care costs from rising through the roof. And that’s, I think, a problem that everybody recognizes. We just can’t have costs going up and up and up. And I think it’s one of the criticisms most people have of the Obama plan, which is it does virtually nothing to stop the growth in health care costs. Nor did ours, by the way. We got everybody insured, but getting health costs reined in is the big challenged, and there are a number of ideas out there now that I think have a lot of merit. But Barack Obama’s plan is certainly not going to help.

HH: Now before I move to the specifics of the Obama proposals, the federal system allows states like Massachusetts to innovate. We take what’s good, and we spread, and that which doesn’t work doesn’t spread. That’s what we did with welfare reform in the 90s. Does Obamacare preempt a process that really needs to replicate across the other states as it happened in Massachusetts?

MR: Yeah, that’s the sad thing, and I know when I was running for president, I was criticized because I said look, in solving the issue of our health care problems, I’d like to let states have more flexibility, and use money we’re sending them in Medicaid, and then payments to care for the poor called dish payments. I’d like them to be able to use those funds as they see fit. Let’s learn from their experiments before we put in place a federal one size fits all plan. And you know, I continue to believe that as we deal with something as important as health care, that having a few Congressmen draft a bill that no one has a chance to read, including the Obama administration, and then saying this is now going to be the future for health care for all Americans, that’s just crazy. So I’m a big believer that experimentation should occur at the state level, that states like ours that have had some experience should be examined thoroughly. The good, you know, kept, the bad thrown out. There’s no question there’s some aspects in the Massachusetts plan I’d like to see changed. I said it at the time. So yeah, I’m afraid that the Obama plan basically says hey everybody, all the states, you all step aside. We’re going to get rid of federalism when it comes to health care, and that would be a huge mistake.

HH: Today, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer penned a column in USA Today that includes these two paragraphs. “However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland, and protestors holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another Congressman in Texas where protestors also shouted just say no, drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion. These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views, but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task before.” The headline, Un-American Attacks Can’t Derail Health Care Debate, is causing enormous controversy. What do you make of the merits of the Speaker and the majority leader’s comments today, Governor Romney?

MR: Well, I must admit, that with all the years that I’ve watched politics in this country, there’s always been a very healthy debate. And sometimes, there is good information and bad information, but that’s the nature of a debate. People are going back and forth with their various viewpoints, and ultimately, we settle on what we think is the right thing. I think it’s in some respects a little amusing to watch the folks on the left so critical of demonstrations of political discussion. Demonstrations and energy and anger has always been sent from the left, and has been lauded by the media. The mainstream media, when I was a young man, put a young person on the cover and said the America’s youth, that’s the man of the year because they’ve been so disruptive and stood up to the power of the nation. And funny thing that when people from the right and the conservative world stand up and finally express some anger at this extraordinary health care takeover, the liberals are having a hard time and crying foul. But gosh, they’ve been playing this game for many, many years. Actually, as I think about this kind of debate and the rigor of this debate, it goes back to the time of Adams and Jefferson. You know, these guys were hammer and tong back there, and that’s just part of the political process. Get used to it, don’t cry about it.

HH: Big Pharma has entered the list on the side of Obamacare, and has committed $150-$200 million, surprising a lot of people, that they are doing so. I got an e-mail today from a neurologist in San Diego saying as a consequence, he will no longer meet with any pharmaceutical representative until they stop this, and is urging me to urge other doctors not to meet with pharmaceutical reps until they get out of this game, because it’s going to kill his practice. Are you surprised by big pharma is going hard left on this, Governor Romney?

MR: You know, I don’t know company by company how they line up, but I do believe that they have counted the noses, and they say look, there are 60 Democrats in the Senate, they have a supermajority in both houses, and they are going to put through a health care bill, and there’s nothing Republicans can do to stop it. Democrats, I think they’re saying, pharma’s saying Democrats are going to get behind Obama. He made this his signature campaign pledge. He has to have a bill, and therefore, they’re going to get something through, and we better cozy up to him, hold our nose, and hold out for as good a deal as we can possibly get. I think they’re calculating what’s in their best financial interest. What is unfortunately missing, I think, from their calculation is that what’s in the best interest of the American people and the American economy and the American homeowner. And I’m saddened by the fact that I think they’re counting dollars rather than counting their patients and their doctors.

HH: Seniors seem to have mobilized against this. Have you ever seen a bill pass over even lukewarm opposition of seniors, much less the kind of aggressive opposition that we’ve seen in the last two weeks, Mitt Romney?

MR: Well, I must admit if the seniors really say wait a second, we do not want to see this kind of wholesale change in the health care system in this country, we are not comfortable with it, I think if Congressmen and Senators hear a strong plea from the seniors, and they get e-mails and letters, and they see an outcry from seniors, I think they’re going to say whoa, wait a second, particularly the blue dog Democrats are going to say hey, you know, I just got sent here to Washington because I said I was a conservative Democrat. And if it turns out that this is going to kill me, well, I’m going to be out of office. That I think is the only real strong prospect for stopping this huge power grab that the Obama administration has in store for health care, and that is getting conservative Democrats to say wait a second, my constituents are speaking loud and clear, I’m not going to go against them.

HH: Last question, you’re on the road a lot, Mitt Romney, for Republicans who are bracing for 2009 in Virginia and in New Jersey, and the 2010 elections. Are they united on health care? Are they united in their opposition to a government plan?

MR: I haven’t heard a single Republican say that they’re in favor of the Barack Obama government insurance plan. I haven’t heard anybody say they want to do that. Republicans have different views. Republicans have put out different health care plans. Senator Bob Bennett, together with Senator Wyden of Oregon, a Democrat, put together a health care bill, has a very interesting aspect to it I think is interesting. Then there others, Paul Ryan has come out with a bill. So there are a number of plans, but no one I know of is in favor of this Barack Obama government insurance option.

You are required by law to purchase insurance when you drive a car; the same rationale for requiring people to purchase medical insurance for themselves and their children applies here: it is to protect the rest of us responsible people from the 'soft tyranny' over our bank accounts by people who buy big screen TV's & take ski vacations instead of purchasing plans for themselves & their kids. They end up taking their kids to the emergency room for colds, or undergoing emergency surgery after a car wreck - and the rest of us get stuck with the tab in higher premiums!

Sorry, but the example you gave is bogus. I am sure there are a few people out there doing this, but I am sure the numbers are low.

The big fat pink elephant in the room, though, is the Illegal Aliens, they're the ones you should be angry at!

They're the majority of the problem.

So deal with the real problem, illegal immigration and the government subsidies to this population, instead of papering over the problem with a solution that is more statist in nature vs. respectful of individual rights.

"Mass. Pushes Rationing to Control Universal Healthcare Costs (RomneyCare)
A 10-member Massachusetts state healthcare advisory board unanimously recommended
that the state begin rationing healthcare to keep the state’s marquee universal health care program afloat financially.
The July 16 recommendations, the Boston Globe explained, would result in a situation where “patients could find it harder to get procedures they want but are of questionable benefit if doctors are operating within a budget.
And they might find it more difficult to get care wherever they want, if primary doctors push to keep patients within their accountable care organization.”
The Globe stressed that the recommendations would “dramatically change how doctors and hospitals are paid, essentially putting providers on a budget as a way to control exploding healthcare costs and improve the quality of care.”
"Budget" is a more politically acceptable word for rationing.
The Globe also noted that “consumer advocates said patients are going to have to be educated about the new system.” Yes, apparently they will have to get used to having their healthcare rationed.

"Massachusetts Universal Healthcare System Breaking Down Already
When Governor Mitt Romney instituted a universal healthcare plan for Massachusetts in 2006 he proclaimed it a conservative idea.
But has it worked? Has it been successful?
For a time, many thought it might but cracks in the system are already being seen.
These cracks are instructive as a lesson on how Obamacare will crash and burn just like Romneycare is now in the process of doing.

One of the early claims that helped push Romneycare through to law was the insistence by its supporters that Emergency Room visits would fall as more and more citizens became covered under healthcare insurance.
Since ER care is far more expensive than a doctor's care, it was thought that more people with insurance would ease the overcrowding of ERs as well as lower the overall costs of healthcare.
However, a flaw in this logic has been seen throughout the state. As more people became insured, more people demanded the care of doctors. These doctors became overloaded with patients and waiting lists for doctors got longer and longer.
As a result, ERs in Massachusetts have not seen a downturn in visits. On the contrary, it seems that ER visits are actually on the upswing in the Bay State. In fact, in 2007 they were higher than the national average by 20 percent...

"Hospital patients 'left in agony'"
"Patients were allegedly left screaming in pain and drinking from flower vases on a nightmare hospital ward.
Between 400 and 1,200 more people died than would have been expected at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust over three years, a damning Healthcare Commission report said.
The watchdog's investigation found inadequately trained staff who were too few in number, junior doctors left alone in charge at night and patients left without food, drink or medication as their operations were repeatedly cancelled.
Patients were left in pain or forced to sit in soiled bedding for hours at a time and were not given their regular medication, the Commission heard.
Receptionists with no medical training were expected to assess patients coming in to A&E, some of whom needed urgent care.
Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS, said there had been a "gross and terrible breach" of patients' trust and a "complete failure of leadership".
The Healthcare Commission's chairman Sir Ian Kennedy said the investigation followed concerns about a higher than normal death rate at the Trust, which senior managers could not explain.
He said: "The resulting report is a shocking story. Our report tells a story of appalling standards of care and chaotic systems for looking after patients. These are words I have not previously used in any report.
"There were inadequacies in almost every stage of caring for patients. There was no doubt that patients will have suffered and some of them will have died as a result."
Julie Bailey, 47, was so concerned about the care being given to her 86-year-old mother Bella at Stafford Hospital that she and her relatives slept in a chair at her bedside for eight weeks.
She said: "We saw patients drinking out of..."

"Paramedics told: 'Let accident victims die if they want to' in new row over patient rights (UK)"
Health Service paramedics have been told not to resuscitate terminally-ill patients who register on a controversial new database to say they want to die.
It has been set up by the ambulance service in London for hundreds of people who have only a few months to live so that they may register their 'death wishes' in advance.
It is believed to be the first in the country, but other trusts around the country are expected to follow suit to comply with Government guidelines which state that patients' wishes should be taken into account, even at the point of death.
Patients' groups and doctors have welcomed the scheme, but it has met opposition from pro-life groups who say it violates the sanctity of life.
The system would come into play if a cancer patient, for example, was in serious pain and rang 999 for help to alleviate the suffering.
But if the paramedics arrived and the patient was close to death, he or she would not be resuscitated if such a request was registered on the database.
This would also be the case if a patient on the database was being transferred between hospitals, and had a heart attack.
Dominica Roberts from the Pro-Life Alliance said: 'This is very sad and very dangerous. It's another step along the slippery slope, at the bottom of which is euthanasia as we see in Holland. 'Paramedics should be there to save lives. They should not be there to let patients die. The medical profession should not agree with someone's belief that their life is worthless.'"

"National Health Preview - The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood."
"Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country.
It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.
In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.
As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget.
The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic.
The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less expensive if everyone were covered.
But reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues.
Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional.
Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers."

A Very Sick Health Plan; Bay State’s ‘Grand Experiment’ Fails [RomneyCare]
"The Daily News Record, Harrisonburg, Va. - 2009-03-31 "
"For folks increasingly leery of President Obama’s plan to radically overhaul America’s health-care system,
or 17 percent of the nation’s economy, all this could hardly have come at a better time —
that is, fiscal troubles aplenty within Repubican Mitt Romney’s brainchild, Massachusetts’ “grand experiment” in “universal” health care."

"Initiated on Mr. Romney’s gubernatorial watch in 2006, this “experiment” has fallen on hard times, and predictably so.
Even though the Bay State commenced its program with a far smaller percentage of uninsured residents than exists nationwide,
“RomneyCare” is threatening to bankrupt the state. Budgeted for Fiscal Year 2010 at $880 million,
or 7.3 percent more than a year ago, this plan, aimed at providing low- or no-cost health coverage to roughly 165,000 residents,
has caused Massachusetts’ overall expenditures on all health-related programs to jump an astounding 42 percent since 2006.

So what does Mr. Romney’s successor, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, propose as a remedy for these skyrocketing costs?
Well, whaddya think? The standard litany of prescriptions (no pun intended) — price controls and spending caps, for a start, and then, again predictably, waiting periods and limitations on coverage.
As in Europe and Canada, so too in Massachusetts. And, we feel certain, everyone from Mr. Romney to Mr. Patrick said, “It would never happen here.”
But then, such things are inevitable when best-laid plans, with all their monstrous costs, run smack-dab into fiscal reality.

"Dem Congresswoman Admits Obama Health Care Plan Will Destroy Private Health Insurance Industry"

"Romney’s mistreatments a sick man, as Gov. Mitt Romney meets a medical marijuana patient"

Thousands of patients with terminal cancer were dealt a blow last night after a decision was made to deny them life prolonging drugs.
The Government's rationing body said two drugs for advanced breast cancer and a rare form of stomach cancer were too expensive for the NHS.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is expected to confirm guidance in the next few weeks that will effectively ban their use.
The move comes despite a pledge by Nice to be more flexible in giving life-extending drugs
to terminally-ill cancer patients after a public outcry last year over 'death sentence' decisions."

"Patients Forced To Wait Hours In Ambulances Parked Outside A&E Departments
"An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has found that thousands of 999 patients are being left to wait in ambulances in car parks and holding bays, or in hospital corridors – in some cases for more than five hours – before they can even join the queue for urgent treatment.

Experts warn that hospitals are deliberately delaying when they accept patients – or are diverting them to different sites –
in order to meet Government targets to treat people within fours hours of admitting them."

"Cancer survivor confronts the health secretary on 62-day wait (UK Socialized Medicine)
WAITING times for cancer treatment need to be cut, the Scottish Government was told yesterday.
..Cancer experts later said that patients elsewhere in Europe would be "outraged" by having to wait two months to start treatment, with most being seen within two weeks.

The current target of 62 days from urgent referral by a doctor to starting treatment has still not been met in Scotland, despite that originally being the target figure for 2005."

"Hospital patient so shocked at dirty ward she climbed out of bed to clean it herself
After 12 years cleaning care homes and private houses, no one is better qualified than Tereza Tosbell to say whether a room is spotless.
So hospital bosses should take heed of her opinion after she spent four days on a 'filthy' ward.
The mother-of-one said during her stay there was a single, brief visit from a cleaner who left dusty curtains, dirty bedframes and a messy floor.
Disgusted at the conditions, she grabbed the antibacterial fluid dispenser at the end of her bed and some hand towels from the bathroom.
She then set about cleaning her four-bed ward, at one point dropping to her hands and knees to sanitise the floor as she dragged her drip trolley behind her.
'It was shameful to see how sloppy the cleaners were while I was there. I was not prepared to put up with such conditions,'
said Miss Tosbell, a 48-year-old divorcee who was admitted to Colchester General Hospital in Essex with an abscess in her neck.."

"Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE (UK Socialized Medicine)
Thousands of kidney cancer patients are likely to lose out on life-prolonging drugs.
The NHS rationing body, NICE, has confirmed a ban on three out of four new treatments.
.. 'Families will be denied time together and doctors will be unable to give patients the best treatment.'."

"Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage (UK Socialized Medicine)
A three-year-old girl awaiting heart surgery has had her operation cancelled three times this month because of a shortage of beds.

... A hospital spokesman said that procedures would be reviewed, but the case highlights a growing problem of cancelled operations in the NHS.
More than 57,000 surgeries were postponed for non-clinical reasons, including a lack of beds, last year – 10 per cent more than the previous year."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.