Posted on 05/13/2011 8:53:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I was not surprised to read yet another editorial in the Journal yesterday criticizing the health-care reforms we enacted in Massachusetts ("Obama's Running Mate," May 12). I was, however, not expecting the distortions of what we accomplished. Let me deal with some of them.
One, the editorial asserts that people in Massachusetts who wouldn't buy coverage, even though they could afford it, was not a major fiscal problem. But as a state we were spending almost $1 billion on free care for the uninsured. What we did was convert that money into premium support for those who needed help buying a policy, and require those uninsured who could afford to buy coverage to take personal responsibility for their own health care. Two, while it's true that insurance premiums in Massachusetts are among the highest in the nation, that was also the case before reform. A truer statement would be that getting everyone insured is not by itself enough to bring down the costs of health care. And finally, it is simply wrong to say that state spending on health care in Massachusetts has skyrocketed. The cost of the health-care plan to the state budget is "relatively modest" and well within projections, according to the independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. They conclude that the new state spending on reform has amounted to less than 1% of the state budget each year.
While I have had my disagreements with the Journal's editorial board, where we find common ground is on the need to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with reforms that empower states to craft their own solutions. A one-size-fits-all plan that raises taxes and ignores the very real differences between states is the wrong course for our nation.
Mitt Romney
Belmont, Mass.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I wonder if the State is spending less on covering health care have state taxes gone down?
When we have to hold our nose to vote for a candidate that's a guarantee that many have stayed home and didn't vote at all.
When a nominee is one you have to hold your nose to vote for there is little if no incentive to become an activist for that candidate and go out and “rock the vote” for him.
I would like RomneyCare repealed, too!!!
Very disappointed that he still thinks RomneyCare is ok, it is NOT!!!
“While I have had my disagreements with the Journal’s editorial board, where we find common ground is on the need to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with reforms that empower states to craft their own solutions. A one-size-fits-all plan that raises taxes and ignores the very real differences between states is the wrong course for our nation.”
Any form on universal care, wether state run or fed govt run is evil.
Let’s see, start out on the wrong side of the Wall Street Journal editorial board and watch your credibility among conservatives soar. Now that’s a plan.
The letter was sent by his astral projection.
Talk about a “shovel ready job!?!?!” Trying to dig your way out from under RomneyCare to espouse the evils of ObamaCare!
Come on....With a liberal state, the legislators had even a worse bill then the one Mitt signed. Mitt could have done nothing and Mass would even have a WORSE HEALTH CARE law the RomneyCare. He was painted into a corner, so he thought he did a good thing.
I'm not a Romney supporter, but he isn't a LIBERAL. Maybe not a 100% conservative, but better then a 100% Marxist we have now!!
Romney was the one who introduced the legislation in the first place. Yes, the legislature made it worse, but simply being the proponent of a system where the government compels individuals to buy a specific product is reprehensible.
Romney also fails “conservative” credibility tests on most other issues: he’s pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-illegal, pro-big government. He’s better than the current resident on taxes — that’s about it.
You would think a guy that smart would know the First Rule of Holes. But noooooo . . . .
The guy starts right off by disingenuously quoting nearly a billion spent on the uninsured, whereas the WSJ had already made the case why most of that was for those who couldn’t afford health insurance, not those just not wanting to pay for it.
At least the good news about the establishment ganging up behind Mitch is that Mitt might not nail down the nomination, starting with NH, almost right out of the gate. (Here’s hoping the process is slowed down sufficiently for voters to coalesce around a true conservative this time.)
If you do get the nomination, I'll support you.
Mitt, you did what you thought would best enhance your career, punching your ticket for higher office. I am not supporting you, and you still are no better than 0 — and worse, because as a “Republican” in office, you would prevent any real opposition to big government control over people’s lives.
If you do get the nomination, I’ll work against you and vote 3rd party.
Romney had a chance to repent but blew it.
I watched his 45 minute pitch on replacing ObamaCare. He said often there were things he didn't want in RomneyCare, things he would change now if he were still governor, things he vetoed but was overridden on. He wasn't specific because it was an aside however he made it clear he didn't feel it was perfect and was clear he didn't think the MA model was appropriate to other states.
I'm not sold on him even a little but I think some good points were made in his presentation particularly about federalism, consumers rather than companies deciding health plans and spurring competition.
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.
