I haven't seen where Romney was criticizing the mandate. The article gave no reference. I heard him defending the Mass plan, although he says he was obligated to agree to aspects he didn't like. I do hear much negative about it, including major criticism from the Lt governor at the time, who is now running for governor. He was a Dem and has switched to Ind. All agree that coverage met expectations, but cost has increased, not decreased and the Mass budget is accordingly in big trouble. Furthermore payments have decreased and several hospitals are sueing the state because of it and may go out of business. I talked to one internist I know who is retired. He was not a supporter but says he hasn't heard much complaint from his doctor friends.
I do not think it inconsistant at all to have an overall positive attitude about this plan applied in Massachusetts but to be against a national plan with a mandate, although I'm sure all the libs will spin it that way. Mass did not have a true mandate ala Obamacare. The Mass plan says that you must have insurance or proof of available funds to cover yourself in case of emergency. I'm not sure the mechanism or the amount required to assure this. That's much more American. Obamacare says you must buy insurance and you must buy insurance with a particular type of coverage. This is not in keeping with American political ideas of personal freedom and that is one big reason why it's so unpopular.
Whether it is working in Mass or not, the medical environment there is drastically different there than in other parts of the country and this universal plan is foolishness. The program in Indiana for the state employees that is based on HSA's is supposed to be popular and working well, and saving money. If one has a business or residence in a state with regulations you consider oppressive, you can always move your business or residence. Obamacare is inescapable and is the stuff of Socialism. Another major, major difference is that Romney had real transparency and worked with input from all political segments to craft the plan. He obviously had to include the liberal Dem politicians but the Heritage Foundation was a major advisor. Obamacare is polarizing and unpopular. It is ignoring the will of at least 1/2 of the citizens. It is also experimental. Neither Obama, or Pelosi or anyone else knows how it is going to come out and it may contribute to major economic problems for the US. Obama and his friends theorize that it will not but they are taking a major risk with the welfare of this country and shame on them for doing it.
Romney has major executive experience, both inside government and in the private sector. He is smart and thoughtful and has his personal act together. Read his book. It is excellent and not just a political screed like all the other spate of political books from left and right. It is real political philosophy and not a navel-gazing autobiography like Obama's books. Objection to him because of his religion is ignorant and no different than opposing Kennedy because of his Catholicism.
Marrch 24, 2010
Flashback of the Day
"Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian."-- Mitt Romney, defending the individual mandate to buy health care in the Wall Street Journal back in 2006. Romney now criticizes the same mandate in the recently passed national legislation.
No comments:
Post a Comment