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.
We currently have the best medical care in the world. The Socialist Obama and his Socialist Congress are determined to destroy it.
Where in the Constitution are the president and congress allowed to dictate to us which doctors we will see, how long we have to wait to get treatment, which hospitals we will use, and how much they are allowed to charge? Obama would create a statist, socialist medical care system which denies us the right to hire a non-government doctor or hospital. Canadians already “enjoy” this situation, so they come to the United States for treatment.
We have too much government involvement in medical care already. What we need is more free enterprise, which always results in more choices, better quality, easy access, and lower prices. Obama thinks the government can do it better. So did the other Socialists and the communists in history, and they all failed.
The National Socialists (Nazis) rose to power in Germany largely because of hyperinflation, and that’s exactly what we will have here in the U.S. as the value of the dollar declines due to trillions upon trillions in new national debt. We are already in serious trouble, and cannot afford still more debt to pay for socialized medicine.
The best thing Congress could do right now is absolutely nothing, except insofar as the federal government’s role in medical care can be reduced and the role of private enterprise increased.
You are right.
Unfortunately, our legislators no longer allow the Constitution to stand in their way. And why should they, if their support for unconstitutional programs gets them reelected?
There are things I like about Romney, but this is shaping up to be a real negative for me. Are there any Romney supporters out there who can put this in a more positive (or less negative) light?
don’t forget Tort Reform!
That’s really a state issue; it’s also not as big as people think.
No matter what anyone feels about Romney, the problem with his ObamaCare Lite is that it takes that issue off the table for conservatives. Just like McCain took a lot of liberal crap off the campaign table because - frankly - McCain agreed with it. We won’t be able to attack Obama on ObamaCare if Romney’s going to cheerlead for RomneyCare.
There's nothing positive about forced healthcare, nothing positive about having to wait for an appointment with your doctor whom you've had for years and could just call on a whim - now you've got to wait, the quality isn't what it used to be because everyone is rushed to see more patients, nothing positive about your premiums going up, your benefits and quality of care going down.
Romney may be good for the economy, he's a pretty savvy businessman, but I'm not crazy about what he did here for healthcare.
Uh, you have HOT to be kidding!
Ask any doc and they will tell you about their malpractice insurance! It is through the rooof..plus , that is what all that ‘defensive medicine “ is about!
That was a key component of the Romney plan. It was really just a very clever stealth tax. The whole system did nothing to improve health care or lower health care costs (in fact, the exact opposite in both cases), it just created more bureaucracy.
Romney also switched to being an independent when Reagan was in office because he did not support Reagan. This guy is not to be trusted.
Have you been banned for such heretical views yet?
A lawless judiciary can't be constrained by writing clearer laws. The same acid that ate through one glass bottle will eat through another. The problem on display in MA was precisely that the judiciary doesn't feel constrained by the law, and no law can solve that problem. That problem has also been on display recently in the US Supreme Court cases having to do with detainees. When judges disconnect their reasoning from the law the only suitable response is for the executive to go its own way.
“If we can ignore the judges, why haven’t the pro-life states simply banned abortion? . . . Is it because, as you say, the federal government can send troops into the state?” Precisely. And because their own courts wouldn't assist them in prosecuting violators of any anti-abortion law because they would be loyal to federal precedent rather than to the executive authorities of the state. It would be interesting if some state would test federal resolve in this area and determine if the President would really send in the Marines to keep the abortion mills turning.
“If Romney did ignore “the law as interpreted by the courts”, would not the litigants file in federal court?” Of course, but they would have to present a federal question which means that they would have to argue that there is a federal constitutional right to enter into same sex marriages. That wouldn't fly just yet and I'm guessing it never will since I think that tide has already turned. But if the federal courts did find a right in the US constitution to same sex marriage and the President was willing to enforce that right, then all fifty governors would be in no position to resist. The Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement pretty much put that question to rest. I'm not propounding a theory here. I'm just describing how our constitutional order has to work if it is to work at all.
Newbie, I think we need less RINOs, or better yet, none at all.
Wow...
Just...
WOW...
First, it was the McCainiacs. Now, it is the Mittbots.
The sick puppies never learn.
Huckster & Slick Willard ? They go together like strychnine and cyanide.
Let me guess. McCain's the pièce de résistance, right?
Romney is an Obama liar...........the hopeless kind!
well romney is not an option at all in 2012...now he’s going to be the chosen candidate from the mainstream media he’s 2012’s mccain...
Palin needs to start getting heavy on policy but i guess she’ll start with that around 2010
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.