Posted on 07/09/2009 6:05:03 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Former GOP Governor Helped Make 2006 Reform Reality.
BOSTON -- Three years after the inception of Massachusetts’ landmark health reform legislation, which required every citizen to buy insurance, NewsCenter 5’s Ed Harding wondered what former Gov. Mitt Romney, a key political architect of the plan, thought of its progress. Call it protecting his legacy, well-earned pride, or seeing the glass as half-full, but Romney says Massachusetts deserves an ‘A.’
“It’s working like we had hoped it would work,” the one-time republic presidential candidate said. “We got nearly everybody in Massachusetts health insurance, which really, something people didn't think was possible.”
Romney said the same can be done nationwide, though he concedes what many in the Bay State are grappling with now, that the hardest part of the reform debate is controlling costs. It is projected that within a decade health care will account for 20 percent of all money spent in the United States.
Currently, health care accounts for between 17 and 18 percent of the United States’ gross domestic product.
“It’s huge,” said Romney. “We’ve got two challenges. One is to get everybody insured. Believe it or not that's the relatively easy job. The other job is to reign in the inflation associated with health care. We can do that too but it's a lot of work.”
Romney points to a recent analysis by the pro-reform Massachusetts Taxpayers’ Association, showing that since near-universal coverage was implemented in 2006, state taxpayers have had to shell out an additional $88 million per year to insure an additional 430,000 citizens.
“Some people say. ‘Oh, it's expensive,’ but actually, it cost less than two percent of the state budget.”
Romney is closely following the reform debate in Washington, DC, and pointed to President Barack Obama’s proposal for a government-run so-called public plan option as a “big mistake.”
“The current system with over 1,000 insurers in this country, is perfectly capable adequate to provide choice to people in America,” Romney said.
The former governor declined to answer when Harding asked if health care is a right of a privilege in the United States. He did insist, however, that on a national level politicians ought to be able to create a system where every citizen has health insurance.
Before Romney care if you didn't have health insurance I believe you could get free care depending on what hospital you went to, I don't think regular doctors with a private practice extended free care, as a result the illegals used the ER as their personal physician, they still do but because they don't file taxes and probably give a false name in the ER they don't pay. The "poor" would get free care probably based on their income and number of family members maybe? Don't quote me but I think before Romney care 5 percent of the population here was without health insurance, now after all is said and done and it's costing millions to insure everyone, there are still I believe 2 percent of the population without healthcare. A lot of doctors are not part of the government network so those who have the gov plan have to travel miles to see a doctor or go to the ER like they were used to doing, it's local, they're covered why travel....as a result the ER's are still clogged even more so. I was there with a family member back in May, it was 11pm when we were there and there were people there that had been there since 2pm, elderly, a couple of school kids among others, a lot of the people either barely spoke english or didn't speak english at all and of course the hospital had a translator on hand.
MA won't go back because we are a one party state, libs/dems in power with a republican minority.
Things were fine for most of us before Romney care, the young healthy people didn't have health insurance or had the minimum. Now under Romney care we are paying more and getting less. Wait til they introduce FREE dental for all the "poor", dental insurance will sky rocket and the wait time to see a dentist will be ridiculous.
Maybe you misunderstand what I said. Of course, the courts cannot directly stop anything. The question is whether the executive branch has any obligation whatsoever to enforce the rulings of a court.
You seem to be saying that the executive branch can ignore the courts as it pleases. Which would mean that they don’t have to put people in jail that are convicted, that they don’t have to honor the results of lawsuits against the government if they don’t feel like it, that they can ignore the court ruling in favor of the people.
While certainly the executive has the ABILITY to do so, in that the executive has the power of the military and the civil police force at it’s command, I certainly don’t think the executive would be right to do so, nor do I think very many conservatives think Obama has the “right” to ignore the ruling of the court.
Obviously, in the end if the executive ignores the court, it’s up to the legislature to impeach him — but the question is, SHOULD the legislature impeach a President? You seem to think the President has the absolute right to ignore the courts, and that no punishment should then ensue.
I think it is a dangerous road to give a single executive the power to decide for themselves what laws say, or how they should be interpreted. I don’t particularly like how the courts do so either when they do it wrong, but the courts do provide recourse for citizens.
I take it that you strongly oppose all the efforts by various groups to sue over Obama’s being born in America. Because by what you are saying, Obama can ignore a court ruling, the house and senate can ignore the ruling, and that’s just fine with you.
So why even have a court, if the court’s rulings are null and void, and the legislature and executive can do whatever they want?
Maybe I misunderstand YOUR argument? Are you simply saying that if the court itself clearly mis-interprets a law, that the Governor has the right to ignore it, since the legislature could stop him?
If we suppose that is the correct thing to do (and it is what Sanford tried to do in South Carolina, although he was trying to ignore the legislature and in the end he obeyed the court), do you have any reason to believe that a legislature that voted 3 to 1 for gay marriage in the referendum vote would have had any trouble getting the 2/3rd vote they would need to impeach Romney if he refused to enact the court’s ruling?
I still am getting hung up on this seeming belief we can simply ignore courts. Suppose Kelo had been ruled correctly — could the state simply have ignored Kelo and done what it wanted anyway, and if so why bother spending millions of dollars on a lawsuit that can’t possibly win you anything?
OK, how about this. Maybe you actually are literally correct, that in the framework our country was intended to operate in, the courts were powerless. Practically speaking though, is there any real evidence that over the past 200 years, that’s how things really operate? Do governor’s regularly defy the courts? We know a governor did that years ago, his name was Wallace, but it didn’t work out for him and history says he was wrong.
If it was a common and accepted practice that Romney could ignore the court, why did NONE of the contemporary articles downplay the court ruling by noting that Romney could ignore it? Why did every conservative group scream about the courts mandating Gay Marriage, if as you say the courts didn’t mandate anything and there was no problem ignoring them?
I’m not sure I would want to live in a country where executives could ignore court orders, even if it would mean that for a brief period of time in Mass., we would have stopped gay marriage. In California, we’d still have gay marriage if we applied your rules, because Arnold was opposed to the court ruling that ended it.
Because of DOMA, no state has to recognize another state’s gay marriage. Mass. is about to challenge DOMA in federal court, so we’ll see if it holds up.
That system would be ideal; but that isn't Romneycare. Under the Romney model, you can either "voluntarily" choose to buy insurance, or be forced to pay a fine roughly equivalent to the insurance premium when you do your state taxes. The option of "going without" in exchange for not getting care isn't available.
The bigger issue with Romney's assertion that the Mass. system would be valid nationwide is that a state (depending upon the laws and Constitution of the state) might legally be able to do something like this. The Federal government, however, does not legally have this power under the Constitution.
Romney is advocating an illegal scheme. He is not qualified to be President.
And this is who many Republicans support? Even those who proudly profess they are Conservatives support Romney. God Help Us... (shaking head)
Your bill:
$25 to take out the splinter
$50 for the office overhead and staff
$150 for the doctors malpractice insurance.
We could solve this healthcare problem with
1. tort reform
2. insurance being bought accross state lines and competitive
3. Medicare copays
Yet welfare receipients and illegals continue to get coverage while we all pay for the “ER “ outpatient clinic.
Once you let the Dems enact any kind of “welfare/healthcare’ program there will never be reform, the tort lawyers will keep the prices out of line and the 50% of citizens that don’t pay taxes won’t sweat any changes.
Its only working cause, like all federal programs, it is subsidized by the 40% or less of citizens who pay taxes.
the rest could care less about the system, they will “get the right to get free healthcare” while everyone left working will pay.
The best ways to lower insurance costs is:
1.) Never get the government involved.
2.) Tort reform to curb all of these frivolous lawsuits.
3.) Make illegals pay for their own health care or at the very least bill their governments.
4.) Crack down on double billing, as well as those people who abuse the system
5.) Use the ER for actual emergencies instead of minor ailments that can and should be treated at a regular doctor's office.
“I think it is a dangerous road to give a single executive the power to decide for themselves what laws say, or how they should be interpreted. I don’t particularly like how the courts do so either when they do it wrong, but the courts do provide recourse for citizens.”
What recourse to citizens have against judicial error? Do you think that judges are more responsive to the electorate than executives and legislators? If it is dangerous to let an executive decide what the law demands of him why is it not equally dangerous to let courts decide the scope of their own power?
The beauty of separated powers is that no one branch has the final word regarding what the law requires. Our constitutional order establishes something like a game of paper, scissors rock. No player is the master of the others. In the end, the key player is always the sovereign people.
As you concede, the executive is free to ignore courts as long as it is politically possible to do so. Unless the court can persuade enough people that it is right about a disputed point and the executive is wrong, the executive prevails. That doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants. It means he can do whatever he can persuade the legislature and the electorate it represents is proper.
You fear a system in which executives ignore courts and do as they please. Oddly you have no fear of a system in which
courts are unrestrained. Given that the judiciary is currently claiming the right to micromanage our military affairs, your priorities seem badly askew.
You muddle matters by referencing Kelo and Governor Wallace. In both of those cases the issue wasn't separation of powers within a jurisdiction. It was, or would have been, federal supremacy. The US constitution is the supreme law of the land and the US Army stands ready to ensure that state governments respect it, or at least it does as long as the Commander in Chief stands with the Supreme Court and not against it.
I don't seem to be saying that executives can ignore courts, I am saying that. Whether or not they should depends on who is right about the substance of a particular dispute. Of course executives don't have to jail convicts or enforce judgments. If the convictions and judgments are corrupt, they shouldn't.
Public opinion can and should restrict executive freedom and courts can play an important role in shaping public opinion. Nixon couldn't ignore the Supreme Court's ruling about the tapes — not because the Court was authoritative but because the public wouldn't have accepted defiance and Congress would have impeached and convicted him if he had defied the Court.
As to precedents for executives ignoring courts in American history, there are many. Abraham Lincoln came to office promising to defy Dred Scott. No doubt you remember Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears — “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
The issue usually doesn't come up because, until recently, courts steered well clear of pushing executives into defiance with outrageous rulings. But the issue is coming up more often now and the political class badly needs to put the judiciary in its place.
Romney had a golden opportunity, and he blew it. I very much doubt that, even in MA the legislature would have dared side with the SJC against a defiant Governor. If it had, Romney could have left office with honor as a hero to everyone who understands anything about constitutional law. Instead he chose the role of goat.
ok
quite right
I feel like Romney gets a bad wrap from most of the media because he is seen as the top threat to Emperor Obama by many on the left.
That said, I’ve heard Romney talk about the problems with the health care plan in Massechusetts before and complain about the extreme democratic majority he had to deal with. As far as I know, he only wants some parts of the plan to be applied nationwide.
The idea that everyone in this country already gets “free” health care in some forms because anyone can go to the emergency room is important to know. I think we need a mix of Romney and Huckabee’s ideas where we can lower the costs of health care, reform Medicare and Medicaid, and focus on preventative methods which are the cheapest and most effective way to improve the health of our citizens.
“The best ways to lower insurance costs is”
1. Permit interstate competition for policies.
2. Permit individuals who desire it to buy extreme high deductible policies for catostrophic events.
While your idea sounds reasonable in theory, in practice it seems flawed.
The Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The tyranny of the majority is represented in the elected executive and legislative branches. Only the judiciary, using the constitution, can protect the minority from the majority.
Now, in the end, the majority must be constrained by their HONOR of the judiciary, because the judiciary has no way of enforcing their own rules. They have no police, no army. They can only protect the minority by ruling for the minority, and hoping the executive will enforce those rulings.
Now, how can we control the judiciary? Well, you say only by ignoring them if they are wrong. The problem is that, once you advocate ignoring the judiciary, it becomes easier and easier to do so. You open a Pandora’s box where eventually the Judiciary is a superfluous voice, ignored at the whim of the majority.
We see how the democrats in the Senate have taken rules that worked for years because the Senate was populated by men of character, and ignored them when it suited their fancy, and how that made a mockery of our system.
The same could happen if we advocate ignoring the judiciary on a whim.
However, there are more circumspect ways the judiciary can be handled. For example, if the legislature doesn’t think the judiciary has interpreted a law correctly, the majorty can simply re-write the law making it more clear. In Mass., the courts even gave them 6 months to do so.
If the courts order an executive to jail someone he thinks shouldn’t be, he doesn’t have to ignore them, he can pardon the person. If a judge continually screw up, the legislature can impeach the judge.
If we can ignore the judges, why haven’t the pro-life states simply banned abortion? Why haven’t they simply refused to fund abortion? Is it because, as you say, the federal government can send troops into the state?
Which leads to the most interesting question. If Romney did ignore “the law as interpreted by the courts”, would not the litigants file in federal court? Would not the feds then rule for the courts, as they are want to do? If so, would he then have to listen, since the feds seemingly have absolute power over the states?
I’m actually more inclined to support the idea of a state ignoring the federal government when the feds violate the constitution, than having a governor ignore the courts simply because we think the courts ruled incorrectly.
The problem with governments these days, be it city, county, region, state, or federal, is they bite off outlandish amounts of political real estate (new ideas all the time), that they have no business trying to take on.
These levels of government need to be thinking divestiture, not more involvement.
A lot of issues would resolve themselves if only the government would pull it’s snoot out of the posterior of these issues.
The biggest boondoggle in U.S. history, bailing out G.M. instead of just letting it declare bankruptcy and move along, could have been handled so much better for everyone, if only the government had kept out of it.
There are so many issues these days, that the government has screwed up, by agreeing to be involved. We (they) just never learn.
Nice hair, women like him, magic underwear...
....to bad he is a RINO buttwipe.
McCain, honest? You’re kidding, aren’t you?
The Socialist Obama and the Socialist Congress want to dictate our medical care. If we allow them to do this, then toss all other rights we have into the trash can. Control over medical care is control over your life. Government interference in the free market (think Medicare and Medicaid) is the reason most of us pay huge premiums for medical insurance and care. The Socialists want to expand government control until we have no choice about our own bodies. Government is not the solution, as the more “advanced” socialist countries have discovered, Government is the problem.
Romney’s Massachusetts plan is just a smaller version of Obama’s socialism. MA will have to be bailed out by federal taxpayers. It’s just a matter of time. The only real solution is to turn medical care back over to private enterprise. Competition always results in high quality, lower prices, innovation, and freedom of choice. Socialized medicine guarantees low quality, a shortage of doctors and hospitals, long waits for treatment, no freedom of choice, and about zero innovation. All the new drugs and procedures developed over the past century have been invented by private companies and individuals, not government bureaucrats who have no incentive to improve medicine.
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.