Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Primary Event

Tracking the 2012 election.


Print   |  Text
 

Romney Defends Romneycare, Distinguishes It From Obamacare

In his speech today, Mitt Romney doubled down on his defense of Romneycare, arguing that an individual mandate at the state level was fundamentally different from one imposed at the federal level.

“Our plan was a state solution to a state problem,” Romney said, going on to describe Obamacare as “a power grab by the federal government.”

On the economic level, Romney emphasized that his program did not hike taxes, unlike Obamacare. He talked about how it allowed Massachusetts residents to transfer jobs, without fearing they would be unable to buy insurance in the interim between employers.

Romney also vigorously defended the individual mandate in Massachusetts, saying “the state decision we took was to insist upon personal responsibility.”  He illustrated the need for a mandate by talking about how “many citizens who could afford insurance … were saying ‘I’m not going to buy insurance. If something really bad happens to me, I can go to the hospital and I can get treated for free.’” Romney called the previous status quo in Massachusetts — where government and taxpayers paid for the uninsured’s health care treatment — an example of “big government.”

Talking about the health care policies he would push for if elected to the presidency, Romney was careful to distance himself from Obamacare, rattling off a list of differences between the two plans. He pointed out that his plan wouldn’t cut Medicare, would have fewer regulations, and would not include any mandates.  “If I get a chance to debate President Obama, this is what we’re going to be talking about,” he said.

Romney stressed that his plan would allow states to make crucial decisions about how to provide health care, would help individuals be able to purchase their own insurance (Romney favors extending the tax credit businesses get for health care to those who purchase health care on the individual market), would “focus” regulation, reduce costs associated with medical liability, and help make the health-care arena more driven by market forces.

He also spoke about how to bend the cost curve in health care, promoting ideas such as co-insurance (consumers pay a set percentage of all their medical costs rather than co-pays), selling insurance across state lines, and changing the health-care payment culture such that consumer started being able to compare health-care plans more easily.  In the Q & A afterwards, he talked about how countries like France and Switzerland spent significantly less on their health care than the U.S., and attributed that to their use of co-insurance.

And he refused to apologize or back down on his health-care program in Massachusetts, telling the audience he was “proud” of the program.

“We did our best for our people, and we got people insured,” Romney said.

Tags: Mitt Romney

New on The Primary Event. . .


COMMENTS   3

EXPAND  

   05/12/11 17:11

It's over for Mitt, so I assume NRO will move on to Pawlenty as favored son?

He tried, but failed to admit his mistake. Obama would eat him alive. Mitt should save his money and our time. He is not going to be President.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   05/12/11 18:19

John nails it - no way no how. RomneyCare is no different than ObamaCare. Every state has a significant population of people who could afford insurance but choose not to buy it. And every state pays for care for the uninsured at ERs and the like. Hilarious that Romney said that that system (free care for uninsured at taxpayer expense) was an example of big government - since his solution was to correct a government-caused problem by creating an even bigger government program.

All the problems that existed in Massachusetts that made RomneyCare the "right thing for Massachusetts", are equally present nationwide. If RomneyCare helped alleviate those problems (I don't think it did really) and why wouldn't it help every state if done on a national level? If it was a good idea for Massachusetts to "insist on personal responsibility" why isn't it a good idea for the federal government to insist on it nationwide? There are no principled distinctions that will work - the only one out there (that regulating the provision of health care is not a power given to the federal government but is a power reserved to the states and so the federal government can't and shouldn't do it even if the plan would work) is not going to prove much of a winner in a party that is populated by people who are looking for smaller government at all levels.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 JEM
   05/12/11 22:09

And the scary thing is the condition it was enacted to combat, just got worse, as did almost ever other measure of health care availability and affordability.

Its a joke, it didn't work. Romney should just go take Imelt's place at GE - they appear to be of the same mind.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact