Romney's health care plan draws praise from Hillary Clinton

Metro West Daily News ^ | 04/06/2006 | Ron Fournier

[Panerai]

WASHINGTON -- A Massachusetts plan that blends the Democratic goal of universal health care with the Republican philosophy of personal responsibility could be a model for politicians nationwide -- and a presidential launching pad for its chief sponsor, GOP Gov. Mitt Romney.

The proposal, approved Tuesday by Massachusetts' Democratic-led Legislature, won Romney cautious praise from Democrats, including a longtime champion of health care overhaul: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"To come up with a bipartisan plan in this polarized environment is commendable," said the former first lady, who led President Clinton's failed health care campaign.

She embraced the Massachusetts measure's most striking aspect -- requiring people to purchase health insurance -- but questioned Romney's plans to eliminate a fee on companies that do not provide health insurance for employees.

"That would unravel the plan," Clinton said.

Policy squabbles aside, Democratic and Republican strategists agreed that the legislature had handed Romney a timely political victory. The Massachusetts governor announced in December he would not seek a second term, giving him the freedom to explore a likely bid for the GOP nomination in 2008.

Romney, 59, now has a signature achievement on an issue that polls show is a growing concern for U.S. voters. It also adds weight to the argument that his experience as a Republican in a Democratic state would help Romney break the partisan gridlock of Washington.

[Panerai]

That's Mitt Romney, 2008 Republican Presidential hopefull.

[SheLion]

[yer gonna put yer eye out]

I'm hopeful, but to echo the skepticism of Nathanael in the Bible in reference to Jesus, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

[ozoneliar]

I'll take Romney over Johnny boy, or Rudy.

[DB]

Anything you are forced to pay for by force of law even if you don't want it is also known as a tax. It doesn't matter where the money goes, it is still a government tax.

State bankruptcy is what is going to eventually unravel the "plan".

Soon the "plan" will be means tested so that those with higher incomes pay much more to cover the losses. They'll end up paying more than the private insurance they had before all in the name of social justice.

It really irks me that "conservatives" here endorse this stupid socialist plan.

[sgtbono2002]

It would be wise to see how this plan turns out before jumping on the bandwagon. I am sure there are consequences and unforseen problems that will be coming up, Not the least of which is what it will end up costing Jo average and how many small businesses will be put out of business by it.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

....requiring people to purchase health insurance...

No thank you. My freedom of having a choice, even a stupid choice, is much more important.

[Thebaddog]

That would be Presidential Hopeless after that bill.

[Kakaze]

""To come up with a bipartisan plan in this polarized environment is commendable," said the former first lady, who led President Clinton's failed health care campaign."

To garner this type of praise from hillary can only mean one thing.

It wasn't compromise, it was capitulation.

[rhombus]

It really irks me that "conservatives" here endorse this stupid socialist plan.

Are there some on FreeRepublic who endorse this? I've come across a number of people who argued miniscule points with people objecting to the plan but they seem to stop short of endorsing the plan. Did I miss some strong supporters on FreeRepublic?

[EBH]

It is a dangerous precedent and without more information regarding the plan it may very well be nothing more than stuffing $$$ into somebody's pockets!

Right now I am part of the group their think their trying to force into paying for coverage...here's the deal. I can't afford full coverage for myself at close to $700@mth. So I carry catastrophic coverage only at 170@quarter, still have a general practitioner of my own choice who charges me 50% off for paying up front! His normal fee is $70per visit, so I pay $35. That's only $10 more than the old copay I had with Blue Cross! The dr. actually told me he saves money with 'prompt payers' as he doesn't have to file all the paperwork & permissions to treat!

Now according to this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060405/pl_nm/massachusetts_dc_5 Under the legislation, which is expected to be approved by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, insurance agencies would expand health care coverage by offering state-subsidized, low-cost insurance plans with scaled-back benefits.

Just what the heck are the "scaled-back benefits?" You see the insurance companies are being left to call the shots on this. Just what will those 'scaled-back benefits' be and how will the benefit the working poor or the tax-payers? I don't want to be paying $250@mth for coverage that doesn't give me catastrophic ins. or for coverage that is only catastrophic when I already have it for a lot less!

This whole thing is bad for everyone concerned.

[AliVeritas]

That tells you all you need to know. By the way, do illegals have to have insurance?

[JABBERBONK]

Not too surprising since "Hillarycare" also suspended Constitutional rights as well, such as freedom of association. Bu-buy Mitt we hardly knew ye!

[LibLieSlayer]

Was maybe.

LLS

[PGalt]

Great post.

[EBH]

Well, it's the truth for my situation.

As far as those who will be 'subsidizing' this plan in the form of the taxpayer, who will be overseeing that if the state subsidizes say 50% of the cost, that the people who get the insurance are getting what they pay for?

No, something stinks here. I would have much less of a problem if they were requiring min. catastrophic ins. which most people can get for nominal amounts. This whole subsidized plan though and the $$$ they talking about doesn't make sense for me or you.

The only one looking like they're benefiting is the insurance companies.

[anoldafvet]

That $250/mo. instead of $170/qtr is to pay for all the folks who "can't afford to pay"; in other words, a tax disguised as an insurance premium. There are only 3 ways to provide health care for people who can't pay:

1. Force doctors and hospitals to provide free care

2. Continue with the current system which requires you to pay for them through your insurance.

3. Make it a government program and raise taxes on everyone who pays taxes to pay for the ones that don't (at a minimum 100% cost increase).

[Wiseghy]

I am deeply suspicious of a plan passed by an 85% democratic legislature. Also, yesterday the NY Times was positively going ga-ga over the plan, praising it as a fantastic development with no downsides. This makes it even more suspect.

The truth of it is that Mass. and most other Northeastern states have the most fouled up health insurance regulation in the country and it was simply HARD to make things much worse, and relatively easy to make things better.
Because of Guaranteed Issue requirements, insurance companies must, basically, "sell fire insurance to those whose houses have already burned down".(i.e., those with existing health problems). Nowhere else do these requirements on "insurance" exist (in fact, it is not really insurance). Naturally, companies charge prices that are reflective of this risk and individual insurance in NY and Mass. etc. costs $600 per month, minimum.

I'm not certain, but it appears that they have tried to address these issues to some extent. However, odds are that this will become a fiasco unless the government rolls this out in extremely close cooperation with carriers and agents. This can be a painful, awkward process for Government types who are accustomed to using the hammer of regulation to get their way and who are their core, distrust private industry to do ANYTHING.

I know because we went through this process in CA with AB 1672 in 1992. In the end we ended up with pretty good regulation, that stabilized the small business health market, but the government folks had to really change their thinking to make it work in a bipartisan way, sensible, non-punitive way.

Mass. is hardly bipartisan, so deep skepticism is warranted here.

[Tarpon]

As one socialist to another would say, see this is how you can do it. What I fine fascinating is the Romney thinks he is actually onto something with this socialism... Proving living in Massachusetts does something to your brain.