OK, I looked it up... here's what they are saying from Heritage Foundation:
Politics is the art of the possible, and Governor Romney had to temper his ambitions and make compromises to get his plan through the state’s legislature. At the same time, many Democrats in the legislature set aside their misgivings about some of the elements of the Governor’s proposal, such as its steps toward deregulating insurance, out of a desire not to lose a big piece of Massachusetts’s federal Medicaid funding. With time and experience, revisions can and should be made to this initial legislation.
But that should not overshadow the significance of Massachusetts’ achievement in enacting a bipartisan health care reform bill that fundamentally shifts the state’s health care system in the direction of greater patient and consumer empowerment and control. The Governor and legislature have provided their citizens with the tools to achieve what the public really wants: a health system with all the familiar comforts of existing employer group coverage but with the added benefits of portability, choice, and control.
Other governors and legislators would be well advised to consider this basic model as a framework for health care reform in their own states.
Edmund F. Haislmaier is a Research Fellow in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Bottomline, it was an improvement, but revisions need to be made over time and they agree it was an experiment that will require further tweaking. Also, neither Romney or Heritage ever wanted to impose anything like this on the nation as a whole. Heritage points out how they were for states' rights and each state choosing what was best for their citizens. Really, everyone needs to calm down. We are all basically on the same page and agree on most things, but for some reason are choosing to disagree. Time to move forward.
As a conservative, I believe our RIGHTS are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And thank you for posting the Heritage foundation info, I now know I cannot trust them.
And I WILL NEVER, REPEAT NEVER, Vote for Romney. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I appreciate your general civility (sometimes a little thin at FR!) on an explosive political subject.
However, a right is not merely what a government claims it to be (see 2nd Amendment). A good test is whether Robinson Crusoe could exercise it all alone on his island. If the ‘right’ has to be provided by some man Friday, then the ‘right’ is actually some form of servitude for the provider.
Legally, of course, we have to treat it as a right unless a court rejects it (when outer darkness gets heaters?), but no private citizen has to go along with a court’s characterization (see abortion).
Finally, you are posting the Heritage Foundation’s cautious hopefulness from 2006. They are much less sanguine about Massachusetts’ system now. True, they do not reject RomneyCare as a total failure, but do regard it as a cautionary tale of unintended consequences.