As Predicted Democrats Abandoning Obama

A few weeks ago, after West Virginia’s Democrat governor and US Senator both refused to endorse Obama for reelection in 2012, I wrote:

Scores of Democrats running for reelection will defect from Obama before the campaign is done. And scores of Democrat voters will reject him too.

Why? The same reason voters will likely vote to kick Obama out of the White House: self-interest, if not outright self-defense.

Democrat Governor Earl Ray Tomblin of West Virginia has announced that he isn’t sure that he will be supporting Barack Obama for reelection.

“Tomblin said in statement released by his campaign that he was a ‘loyal member of the Democratic Party’ but was concerned by fellow Democrat Obama's ‘misguided policies,” reports the Charleston Daily Mail.

I also observed that West Virginia’s newest Democrat Senator, Joe Manchin has been a little more direct about his distaste for Obama.

“If that means I have to break with my party to do what's best for the country,” wrote Manchin in an op-ed in the Gazette-Mail, “I will. If it means I take on a sitting president to protect West Virginia interests, I have and I will.”

Manchin’s bow-shot on SS Obama was returned by advisor David Axlerod on CNN’s State of the Union: "I think he was very candid there,” reported the National Journal. “His concern is about his own political well being. He's running for the Senate in that state. We didn't win the state the last time. It's going to be a tough state for us again, and he's making a political judgment about himself."

Well according to the official tally released today by the RNC, the number of Democrats slapping down Obama isn’t quite yet a score.

In an email titled “14 and Counting,” the RNC details 14 Democrats who have disavowed Obama’s “attacks on free enterprise in his campaign.”

The list includes some we already know about, but it also includes some names that should worry Obama- like for example Senator Dianne Feinstein (LIB, CA) who has told Obama to get on with more fertile campaign territory.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): "It's Done. … Go On To Other Things Now." "Despite pushback from more than a half-dozen Democrats, the Obama campaign on Tuesday defended how it has scrutinized Romney's business background. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a widely respected member of Congress, stopped short of criticizing the president, but made it clear that the campaign should pivot. 'It's done,' she said. 'Go on to other things now.'" (Cameron Joseph, "Democrats Balk At Obama Campaign's Sustained Attack On Bain Capital," The Hill, 5/22/12)

EARLIER IN THE DAY: Former Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) Said Obama's Attacks On Free Enterprise Are "Very Disappointing." "And Rendell joined the chorus of criticism of Obama's attacks on finance, whose leaders have written checks to many members of both parties. 'I think they're very disappointing,' Rendell said of the ads attacking Bain." (Zeke Miller, "Is This Obama's Party?," BuzzFeed, 5/22/12)

Up To 14 Different Democrat Obama Supporters Voice Their Disagreement With Obama's Attacks On Free Enterprise

OBAMA SUPPORTER (?) #1: SENATOR JOE MANCHIN (D-WV) DEFENDED FREE ENTERPRISE, SAID MARKETS CHOOSE BETTER THAN GOVERNMENT

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) Defended Free Enterprise, Saying That The "Markets Have Always Done A Much Better Job Than What We've Done In Government." SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): "I believe in the free enterprise system. I believe business and labor have to work together. I think if you have a good business, you'll have good workers and if you have good workers then that's a good place to work. … I think with the balance that we have, the markets have always done a much better job than what we've done in government." (Kerry Picket, "Manchin - Private Sector Better At Picking Winners And Losers Than Gov't," The Washington Times ' The Water Cooler , 5/24/12)

OBAMA SUPPORTERS #2 AND #3: NEW YORK SENATORS CHUCK SCHUMER AND KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND DECLINED TO COMMENT ABOUT OBAMA'S ATTACKS

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) And Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) Declined To Comment About Obama's Attacks. "It is one of the most delicate topics within the party these days. Two Democrats with close ties to Wall Street, Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York, declined to comment on Wednesday." (Nicholas Confessore, "Strategy On Rival's Career Holds Pitfalls For President," The New York Times, 5/23/12)

OBAMA SUPPORTER #4: FORMER CLINTON LAWYER LANNY DAVIS DEFENDED FREE ENTERPRISE

Former Clinton Special Counsel Lanny Davis Defended Private Equity. "Private equity firms often invest in distressed companies by putting in cash and cutting expenses in order to save a company that is already close to bankruptcy. Sometimes the investment works and the company and jobs are saved. And sometimes, to save the company, jobs need to be cut or wages and benefits reduced." (Lanny Davis, Op-Ed, "Cory Booker Got It Right," The Hill, 5/23/12)

OBAMA SUPPORTER #5: SENATOR CHRIS COONS (D-DE) SHOOK HIS HEAD "VIGOROUSLY" AS HE REFUSED TO COMMENT ON OBAMA'S ATTACKS

Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) Refused To Comment On Whether Obama's Attacks On Free Enterprise Were Within The Parameters Of What Coons Hoped The Election Would Be About. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told The Hill, 'I think the average American … hopes that this campaign will focus on competing visions for how to strengthen our economy, help create jobs and move the country forward. ' Pressed on whether he thought Obama's campaign had operated within those guidelines, Coons paused. 'I'm not going to comment on President Obama's ad,' he said, shaking his head vigorously." (Cameron Joseph, "Democrats Balk At Obama Campaign's Sustained Attack On Bain Capital," The Hill, 5/22/12)

OBAMA SUPPORTER #6: SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): "IT'S DONE. … GO ON TO OTHER THINGS NOW."

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): "It's Done. … Go On To Other Things Now." "Despite pushback from more than a half-dozen Democrats, the Obama campaign on Tuesday defended how it has scrutinized Romney's business background. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a widely respected member of Congress, stopped short of criticizing the president, but made it clear that the campaign should pivot. 'It's done,' she said. 'Go on to other things now.'" (Cameron Joseph, "Democrats Balk At Obama Campaign's Sustained Attack On Bain Capital," The Hill, 5/22/12)

OBAMA SUPPORTER #7: GOVERNOR DEVAL PATRICK (D-MA) SAID BAIN CAPITAL IS "NOT A BAD COMPANY"

Governor Deval Patrick Said Bain Capital Is "Not A Bad Company." CNN'S JOHN KING: "You're in a very interesting position this year. I want to start with… You're the governor of a state that Bain Capital calls its global home. It's right up the street in Lowell headquarters." GOV. DEVAL PATRICK (D-MA): "Indeed." KING: "Are they a bad company?" (CNN's "John King USA," 5/22/12)

OBAMA SUPPORTER #8: FORMER CONGRESSMAN ARTUR DAVIS (D-AL) SAID OBAMA IS DOUBLING DOWN ON "EUROPEAN LEFTIST" IDEAS ON FREE ENTERPRISE

Former Representative Artur Davis (D-AL) Said The Obama Campaign's Attacks Follow "The European Leftist Notion That Business Is Fair Only When It Operates In A Sanitized, Risk Free Manner." DAVIS: "It's hard to imagine a more instructive couple of days for those who want to know where the Democratic Party's head is at: its only high-profile African American moderate just got a brushback pitch for leaning in too close to the Independent thought zone; the Obama camp looks ominously like a cult of personality that tolerates no dissent; and the reelection campaign just doubled down on the European leftist notion that business is fair only when it operates in a sanitized, risk free manner." (Artur Davis, "Should Democrats Stop Bain Capital Attacks?" Politico's The Arena , 5/22/12)

OBAMA SUPPORTER #9: SENATOR MARK WARNER (D-VA) CALLED BAIN CAPITAL A "VERY SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS"

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA): "I think Bain Capital was a very successful business." (MSNBC's "Daily Rundown," 5/22/12)

OBAMA SUPPORTER #10: FORMER DNC CHAIR AND FORMER GOV. ED RENDELL CALLED OBAMA'S ATTACKS "VERY DISAPPOINTNG" …UPDATE: RENDELL SAYS HE'S EITHER/OR ON AGREEING WITH HOW OBAMA RUNS HIS CAMPAIGN

Former DNC Chair/Former Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) Said He Was "Either/Or" On Whether Or He Was With Obama Campaign On Its Attack Tactics. MSNBC's CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Governor Rendell, big question. Are you with the Obama campaign as it's being run right now, or are you against it?" FORMER DNC CHAIRMAN ED RENDELL: "Well … either/or." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 5/22/12)

OBAMA SUPPORTER #11: FORMER CONGRESSMAN HAROLD FORD JR. (D-TN) DISAGREES WITH OBAMA'S ATTACKS

Former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. Said He Would Not Have Backed Off Mayor Booker's Comments About Private Equity And Called Private Equity A "Good Thing In Many, Many Instances." FORMER REP. HAROLD FORD JR. (D-TN): "I would not have backed off the comments if I were Mayor Booker. I understand him wanting to make the point that legitimate questions can be raised about whether or not at Bain they made bad decisions about certain -overall, I agree with the substance - the substance of his comments on Meet The Press, I agree with, the core of it, I would not have backed them out. Having said that, I understand as a surrogate for the campaign, you have to have one of your key and most eloquent and most effective surrogates at least clarify or bring some context to his statements. But I agree with him, private equity is not a bad thing. Matter of fact, private equity is a good thing in many, many instances." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 5/21/12)

OBAMA SUPPORTER #12: OBAMA SURROGATE MAYOR CORY BOOKER SAYS HE'S "VERY UNCOMFORTABLE" WITH OBAMA'S LINE OF ATTACK

Mayor Cory Booker (D-Newark, NJ): "I have to say from a very personal level I'm not about to sit here and indict private equity. To me, it's just, we're getting to a ridiculous point in America. Especially, I know, I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital's record, they've done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses, and this to me, I'm very uncomfortable with." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/20/12)

OBAMA SUPPORTER #13: FORMER OBAMA ECON ADVISER STEVEN RATTNER CALLED OBAMA'S AD "UNFAIR"

Former Obama Economic Adviser Steven Rattner: "I Think The Ad Is Unfair… I Don't Think There's Anything Bain Capital Did That They Need To Be Embarrassed About.""Former Obama administration auto czar Steven Rattner said Monday that the Obama campaign's renewed attack on Mitt Romney's time in private equity was 'unfair.' 'I think the ad is unfair.' Rattner said. 'Mitt Romney made a mistake ever talking about the fact that he created 100,000 jobs.'…'Bain Capital's responsibility was not to create 100,000 jobs or some other number. It was to create profits for its investors,' Rattner said. 'It did it superbly well, acting within the rules, acting very responsibly,' Rattner said. 'This is part of capitalism, this is part of life. I don't think there's anything Bain Capital did that they need to be embarrassed about.'" (Byron Tau, "Ex-Obama Adviser: Latest Anti-Romney Ad Is 'Unfair'," Politico, 5/14/12)

OBAMA SUPPORTER #14: MAJOR OBAMA FUNDRAISER EXPRESSES A DIFFERENT SENTIMENT FROM OBAMA'S ATTACK ADS

Obama Bundler Don Peebles Questioned Obama's Attack On Bain: "I Think It's Difficult To Attack Or Demonize An Industry And Then Take Money From It." "A top fundraiser for President Barack Obama's presidential campaign expressed disappointment that he is taking money from the private equity industry while simultaneously attacking them to tarnish Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital. Don Peebles, a Miami real estate executive who has raised more than $100,000 for the president's campaign this cycle, told BuzzFeed 'I think it's difficult to attack or demonize an industry and then take money from it.'" (Zeke Miller, "Obama Bundler Decries 'Vilification' Of Private Equity," BuzzFeed, 5/15/12)

RomneyCARE is hated. You cite one fake poll.

Emergency room visits grow in Mass. New insurance law did not reduce number of users
The number of people visiting hospital emergency rooms has climbed in Massachusetts,
despite the enactment of nearly universal health insurance that some hoped would reduce expensive emergency department use."

Back to the ObamaCare Future (price controls in Massachusetts)
Natural experiments are rare in politics, but few are as instructive as the prototype for
ObamaCare that Massachusetts set in motion in 2006.
Last month, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick landed a neutron bomb, proposing hard
price controls across almost all Massachusetts health care. State regulators already have
the power to cap insurance premiums, which Mr. Patrick is activating. He also filed a bill
that would give state regulators the power to review the rates of hospitals, physician
groups and some specialty providers.

It doesn't even count as an irony that former Governor Mitt Romney (like President Obama) sold this plan as a way to control spending"

"The Huge Middle Class Tax Increase Coming Our Way With ObamaCare
The former CBO director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, warns today on the effect ObamaCare
will have on our economy and health care. These facts should be painfully obvious to
those with even one iota of common sense. This bill will lead to a huge middle class tax increase:
Remember when health-care reform was supposed to make life better for the middle
class? That dream began to unravel this past summer when Congress proposed a bill that
failed to include any competition-based reforms that would actually bend the curve of
health-care costs. It fell apart completely when Democrats began papering over the
gaping holes their plan would rip in the federal budget.

As it now stands, the plan proposed by Democrats and the Obama administration would
not only fail to reduce the cost burden on middle-class families, it would make that burden significantly worse.

The bill creates a new health entitlement program that the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) estimates will grow over the longer term at a rate of 8% annually, which is much
faster than the growth rate of the economy or tax revenues. This is the same growth rate
as the House bill that Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) deep-sixed by asking the CBO to tell
the truth about its impact on health-care costs.

To avoid the fate of the House bill and achieve a veneer of fiscal sensibility, the Senate
did three things: It omitted inconvenient truths, it promised that future Congresses will
make tough choices to slow entitlement spending, and it dropped the hammer on the middle class.

One inconvenient truth is the fact that Congress will not allow doctors to suffer a 24% cut in their Medicare reimbursements. "

"DEATH PANELS OPEN FOR BUSINESS IN MASSACHUSETTS
In August Sarah Palin wrote extensively about the incredible danger that ObamaCare
would lead to what amounts to "death panels." This of course caused great controversy
with many claiming Palin was either "crazy" or talking about the "end of life"
discussions that were provided for within House Resolution 3200, the prototype
ObamaCare bill.
As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan
that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is
dropping, and we're saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of
health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care
will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the
most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The
America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down
Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can
decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether
they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil. .
Now we have news from Massachusetts, the home of RomneyCare, which should be
looked at as a shining example of why ObamaCare will be an epic failure. Soaring costs
both to the taxpayers and patients was inevitable, and now the effects of these are coming home to roost.
You can't reap these savings without limiting patients' choices in some way,"

"You can't reap these savings without limiting patients' choices in some way," said Paul Levy, CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess.

The state's ambitious plan to shake up how providers are paid could have a hidden price
for patients: Controlling Massachusetts' soaring medical costs, many health care leaders
believe, may require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any
hospital and specialist they want.

Efforts to keep patients in a defined provider network, or direct them to lower-cost
hospitals could be unpopular, especially in a state where more than 40 percent of hospital
care is provided in expensive academic medical centers and where many insurance
policies allow patients access to large numbers of providers. ."

"State plan may place limits on patients' hospital options( Mass. RomneyCare )"

"Paying the Health Tax in Massachusetts [Romneycare]
My husband retired from IBM about a decade ago, and as we aren't old enough for
Medicare we still buy our health insurance through the company. But IBM, with its
typical courtesy, informed us recently that we will be fined by the state.
Why? Because Massachusetts requires every resident to have health insurance, and this
year, without informing us directly, the state had changed the rules in a way that made
our bare-bones policy no longer acceptable. Unless we ponied up for a pricier policy we
neither need nor want-or enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan-we
would have to pay $1,000 each year to the state.
My husband's response was muted; I was shaking mad. We hadn't imposed our health-
care costs on anyone else, yet we were being fined ("taxed" was the word the letter used).

We've spent much of our lives putting away what money we could for retirement. We
always intended to be self-sufficient. We've paid off the mortgage on our home, don't
carry credit-card debt, and have savings in case of an emergency. We also have a regular
monthly income of about $3,000, which includes an IBM pension. My husband, 61, earns
a little money on the side, sometimes working as an electronics consultant on renewable
energy projects. I'm 58 and make some money writing science books. We are not
wealthy, but we aren't a risk of becoming a burden on society either. How did we become outlaws? "

"National Health Preview - The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood."
"Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country.
It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.
In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.
As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget.
The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic.
The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less expensive if everyone were covered.
But reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues.
Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional.
Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers."

A Very Sick Health Plan; Bay State's 'Grand Experiment' Fails [RomneyCare]
"The Daily News Record, Harrisonburg, Va. - 2009-03-31 "
"For folks increasingly leery of President Obama's plan to radically overhaul America's health-care system,
or 17 percent of the nation's economy, all this could hardly have come at a better time -
that is, fiscal troubles aplenty within Repubican Mitt Romney's brainchild, Massachusetts' "grand experiment" in "universal" health care."

"Initiated on Mr. Romney's gubernatorial watch in 2006, this "experiment" has fallen on hard times, and predictably so.
Even though the Bay State commenced its program with a far smaller percentage of uninsured residents than exists nationwide,
"RomneyCare" is threatening to bankrupt the state. Budgeted for Fiscal Year 2010 at $880 million,
or 7.3 percent more than a year ago, this plan, aimed at providing low- or no-cost health coverage to roughly 165,000 residents,
has caused Massachusetts' overall expenditures on all health-related programs to jump an astounding 42 percent since 2006.

So what does Mr. Romney's successor, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, propose as a remedy for these skyrocketing costs?
Well, whaddya think? The standard litany of prescriptions (no pun intended) - price controls and spending caps, for a start, and then, again predictably, waiting periods and limitations on coverage.
As in Europe and Canada, so too in Massachusetts. And, we feel certain, everyone from Mr. Romney to Mr. Patrick said, "It would never happen here."
But then, such things are inevitable when best-laid plans, with all their monstrous costs, run smack-dab into fiscal reality.

Health care in Massachusetts: a warning for America [Romney brings Mass. to its knees]
The Bay State's mandatory insurance law is raising costs, limiting access, and lowering care.
Sedalia, Colo. - In his recent speech to Congress, President Obama could have promoted
healthcare reforms that tapped the power of a truly free market to lower costs and
improve access. Instead, he chose to offer a national version of the failing
"Massachusetts plan" based on mandatory health insurance. This is a recipe for disaster.

Three years ago, Massachusetts adopted a plan requiring all residents to purchase health
insurance, with state subsidies for lower-income residents. But rather than creating a
utopia of high-quality affordable healthcare, the result has been the exact opposite -
skyrocketing costs, worsened access, and lower quality care.

Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily define what
constitutes acceptable insurance. In Massachusetts, this has created a giant magnet for
special interest groups seeking to have their own pet benefits included in the required
package. Massachusetts residents are thus forced to purchase benefits they may neither
need nor want, such as in vitro fertilization, chiropractor services, and autism treatment -
raising insurance costs for everyone to reward a few with sufficient political "pull."

Although similar problems exist in other states, Massachusetts' system of mandatory
insurance delivers the entire state population to the special interests. ."

"'Severe' doc shortage seen hiking wait time The Boston Herald ^ | 9/15/09 | Christine McConville As the state's shortage of primary care doctors grows, people are waiting longer for medical care, according to a new survey by the Massachusetts Medical Society. "The shortage is getting more severe," said Dr. Mario Motta, the medical society's president. The state's health care dilemma can serve as a valuable lesson for a nation whose residents are locked in a frenzied debate about health care reform, he added."

"Health costs to rise again.( RomneyCare )
The state's major health insurers plan to raise premiums by about 10 percent next year,
prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers.
The higher insurance costs undermine a key tenet of the state's landmark health care law
passed two years ago, as well as President Obama's effort to overhaul health care. In
addition to mandating insurance for most residents, the Massachusetts bill sought to rein
in health care costs. With Washington looking to the Massachusetts experience, fears
about higher costs have become a stumbling block to passing a national health care bill."

"Nation's ill-advised to follow Mass. plan [Health plan a failure]
September 17, 2009 The canary is dead.
Massachusetts, the model for the ObamaCare universal insurance plan, is the canary in
the health care coal mine. Yesterday, its obit appeared on the front page of both The Wall
Street Journal and The Boston Globe-Democrat.

Both papers reported that our Commonwealth Care reform isn't working as planned. A
new law that was supposed to control costs and drive prices down (sound familiar?) has
instead sent costs soaring. "

"Bay State Insurance Premiums Highest in Country - Boston Globe August 22, 2009
Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country,
according to a new analysis that highlights the state's challenge in trying to rein in medical costs
after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone...
The report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care foundation,
showed that the average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008,
40 percent higher than in 2003. Over the same period, premiums nationwide rose an average of 33 percent..."

"Massachusetts: the laboratory for ObamaCare
Cato Institute looks a little farther down the coast to Massachusetts, where the state began its own health-care reform complete
with individual mandates and a government plan.
Cato calls it an "almost perfect" mirror of ObamaCare, complete with promises of reducing cost and extending care - that failed in both respects:
Massachusetts shows that such a mandate would oust millions from their low-cost health plans and force them to pay higher premiums. …

"Massachusetts' Obama-like reforms increase health costs, wait times [RomneyCare]
"If you are curious about how President Barack Obama's health plan would affect your health care, look no farther than Massachusetts.
In 2006, the Bay State enacted a slate of reforms that almost perfectly mirror the plan of Obama and congressional Democrats.
.... Premiums are growing 21 to 46 percent faster than the national average
in part because Massachusetts' individual mandate has effectively outlawed affordable health plans."

"Mass. Pushes Rationing to Control Universal Healthcare Costs (RomneyCare)
A 10-member Massachusetts state healthcare advisory board unanimously recommended
that the state begin rationing healthcare to keep the state's marquee universal health care program afloat financially.
The July 16 recommendations, the Boston Globe explained, would result in a situation where "patients could find it harder to get procedures they want but are of questionable benefit if doctors are operating within a budget.
And they might find it more difficult to get care wherever they want, if primary doctors push to keep patients within their accountable care organization."
The Globe stressed that the recommendations would "dramatically change how doctors and hospitals are paid, essentially putting providers on a budget as a way to control exploding healthcare costs and improve the quality of care."
"Budget" is a more politically acceptable word for rationing.
The Globe also noted that "consumer advocates said patients are going to have to be educated about the new system." Yes, apparently they will have to get used to having their healthcare rationed.

"Massachusetts Universal Healthcare System Breaking Down Already
When Governor Mitt Romney instituted a universal healthcare plan for Massachusetts in 2006 he proclaimed it a conservative idea.
But has it worked? Has it been successful?
For a time, many thought it might but cracks in the system are already being seen.
These cracks are instructive as a lesson on how Obamacare will crash and burn just like Romneycare is now in the process of doing.

One of the early claims that helped push Romneycare through to law was the insistence by its supporters that Emergency Room visits would fall as more and more citizens became covered under healthcare insurance.
Since ER care is far more expensive than a doctor's care, it was thought that more people with insurance would ease the overcrowding of ERs as well as lower the overall costs of healthcare.
However, a flaw in this logic has been seen throughout the state. As more people became insured, more people demanded the care of doctors. These doctors became overloaded with patients and waiting lists for doctors got longer and longer.
As a result, ERs in Massachusetts have not seen a downturn in visits. On the contrary, it seems that ER visits are actually on the upswing in the Bay State. In fact, in 2007 they were higher than the national average by 20 percent...

"National Health Preview - The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood."
"Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country.
It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.
In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.
As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget.
The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic.
The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

0What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less expensive if everyone were covered.
But reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues.
Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional.
Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers."

Always concise, your take is factual.

To that take could be added the initial pressure in MA on all Catholic institutions from the Romneycare cram down concerning abortion services and impacting conscience clauses—demands which went national under Obama and in the Supreme Court today.

Another thing, take a look at the excuses Romney hid behind in order to blow smoke out of both sides of his mouth to the people in MA who objected to the impact of his Romneycare on the Church run institutions there.

Under pressure, and probably wanting to play deaf, dumb and helpless, while buying time, he depended on MA state law to express his duty bound obligations to sign off on Romneycare, whatever the impact on religious liberty, with his sympathy for the concerns of the Church, don’t you know.

Notable was the absence of any effort on his part to use the Constitutional arguments to be made for religious liberty and presumably advantaged the Church position.

I’m afraid Romney and Obama have seeded a religious battle and I intend to participate, primarily and exactly, on those grounds by objecting to both.

REBELLION IS HARD, and it’s scary, and it’s costly, but this is the year that a rebellion counts.

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.