A great article from a local newspaper in San Diego, CA entitled “Massachusetts program captures attention of states” outlines why so-called “RomneyCare”, the health insurance plan Mitt Romney instituted while Governor of Massachusetts, is such a great program. Some snippets:
A chronic nerve condition in his neck and recurring stomachaches dogged Joe Rothfarb until the 25-year-old left California for Massachusetts, where an ambitious new state law is opening doors once closed to many seeking affordable medical care…
His move to Boston a year ago to do graduate studies in social work at Boston University changed all that. Last March, Rothfarb became one of more than 150,000 previously uninsured state residents to gain affordable coverage under a novel universal health care program now in its first year. The program is attracting intense scrutiny from officials in Sacramento and other state capitols considering ways to cover the growing ranks of the uninsured…
Polls in Massachusetts show that the program enjoys broad support…
The Rev. Huron Hamilton, pastor of the inner-city Roxbury Presbyterian Church and president of the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, described his state’s health plan as “the best public policy program for the poor in the country.”…
Although the program’s goal is universal coverage, its architects included a provision exempting individuals and families from the mandate if they cannot afford any acceptable policy. The program is helping many who had been priced out of the health insurance market…
Now Rothfarb pays $35 a month – with no deductibles but a $10 co-pay – for a policy that covers CT scans, specialists, routine care, drugs and physical therapy.
Yesterday, Romney rolled out his health care proposal which contained 6 key points and is a beautiful triumph of conservatism and innovative thinking. Make sure you read the whole plan at the link above, but here are the six points in summary (the details to each point are in the link):
Steps 4 and 5 are what I am most excited about. Block-granting federal funds to state Medicaid programs is a brilliant move that will allow states to tailor their own health coverage programs based on the needs of their state instead of the administrative requirements of Washington. And federal medical liability reform is one of the things I feel most passionately about, especially after watching nearly half a dozen doctors leave my corner of Wyoming after liability costs rose too high for them to be able to practice here any more. Step 1 is music to my ears as well, as anything with the word “deregulation” is… and step 2 is a tiny piece of what he did in Massachusetts.
And, the most beautiful part of Governor Romney’s plan?
Most importantly, this can be done without the need for new spending or taxes.
Amen to that.
August 25th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
[...] post by MattC and software by Elliott [...]
August 25th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
first post… woohoo!
can I call shenanigans.. better yet. let me plead my case.
Is there any truth to the rumor that David Copperfield, Lance Burton, David Blaine, Criss Angel, Harry Houdini all colaberated in providing the smoke and mirrors necessary for his plan to work.
Romney to the 49 remaining states: Romney-Kennedy healthcare is a trainwreck, so figure out yourselves if you plan to raise taxes and/or enforce mandates (like I did…including throwing people in jail: http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/08/24/romneys-healthcare-plan-the-policies/).. Lucky for Romney his plan is so vague, no on in the nation can determind how expensive his plan is, better yet, no one can determine what tax increase (if any) is necessary.
When John Edwards starts making sense, camp Mitt has problems:
“I think Gov. Romney ought to come up here [to NH] and explain to people why what’s good for Massachusetts universal health care is not good for the whole country,”
before bashing me, READ:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SallyCPipes/2007/08/23/lessons_from_massachusetts
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/third_time_round_for_gop_hopefuls.html
then listen to romney’s lies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4r9dMP21hM
August 25th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
lets hear it for mittcare folks!
This structure will produce a fiscal disaster. Considering the high premiums for those who have to pay, many will opt to remain uninsured. The fine of $216 will be more attractive than the premium.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SallyCPipes/2007/08/23/lessons_from_massachusetts
August 25th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
MattC:
I’d also like to mention that one of my favorite organizations, the Heritage Foundation, endorsed this plan. I’ve been a member of the Heritage Foundation for many years. I’ve greatly admired their strong stands for conservative principles throughout the years and would recommend membership to any readers interested.
The endorsement by the Heritage Foundation should provide a huge boost to this innovation that Romney has helped bring about.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Sampo,
study up. the idea is that by fluxing the market with hundred of thousands of more insurnace customers, they can lower their prices.
also for those who can’t afford the lowered premiums, they take the money you save from having to dole out free care in emregency rooms.
the idea is quite innovative. it preserves competition, lowers premiums, and insures everybody, and even helps some of those who can’t afford even low premiums. You read it, the guy pays 35 bucks a month!
I am sure its not perfect, but the way things are going it is either something like this or hillarycare which, after living in europe, i can tell does NOT work.
i agree freeing up the medicaid money as a block grant is genious. that will allow states to do what ma did.
i hate to say it, but this is the issue that i think will decide the election next year. i think romney’s federalism like approach is right. i also think he is the only one that can say, i did it, you haven’t. nobody else has this on him.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
fat chance jon,
by romney’s OWN admission, the only difference between his healthcare and hillary clinton’s healthcare is that he promises he’ll get his passed.
read the facts. mittcare is a trainwreck. period.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
got carried away. the *biggest* difference.
All those in favor or Ted Kennedy’s work on healthcare raise your hands. Join JON and MattC.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?081407/081407_hc_mitt2&Big%20Winner%2C%20Pt.%202&Hannity_Colmes&Will%20Iowa%20Straw%20Poll%20victory%20propel%20Mitt%20Romney%20to%20front%20of%20GOP%20pack%3F&Hannity%20&%20Colmes&Big%20Winner%2C%20Pt.%202&Video%20Launch%20Page&-1
August 25th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Romney’s Healthcare plan is revolutionary. Even if he doesn’t get elected, it is safe to say that states and other candidates will be copying his plan for years to come. The truth is, Romney is the only candidate with a proven record of a successful healthcare initiative.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Sampo,
You are totally out to lunch. If you are incapable of understanding the difference between Romneycare & Hillarycare, then you are incapable of understanding the differences between a Republican & a Democrat.
Your distortions and promotions of liberal talking points are a bore. They’ve all be thoroughly debunked here time & time again.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Romney’s Healthcare plan is revolutionary. Even if he doesn’t get elected, it is safe to say that states and other candidates will be copying his plan for years to come. The truth is, Romney is the only candidate with a proven record of a successful healthcare initiative.
http://familiesforromney.blogspot.com
August 25th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
As much as I hate stepping on a Romney thread, why isn’t anyone talking about the DNC’s decision to slap down Florida?
I look at this as a direct confrontation with Michigan. And it might well get Democrats there to back off of the 1/15 dates. If they do that, the entire calander changes again, hurting Gov. Romney the most.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
“Ted Kennedy’s work” ??!!??
Are you serious!! You give that man way too much credit to suggest that he is capable of innovation to this extent.
The fact of the matter is Ted Kennedy did not oppose this, he just went along a showed up for the bill signing. Romney himself worked out the details of this health care plan in corroboration with some Democrats in the state Senate along with trusted conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation.
Ted Kennedy’s work!?? Too funny..
August 25th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
cwpete,
i’ve thrown out link after link.
Where has the heritage Foundation “endorsed” this plan?
August 25th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
click the youtube link cwpete. I’ll be standing by waiting for your apology…
August 25th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
critical to cosing [?] the bold healthcare initiative
Romney cozying up to Ted Kennedy:
together we pitched the secretaries on our vision to insure all or citizens
and on the need for federal support to make the vision real
his work in washington and behind the scenes on beacon hill was absolutely essential *romney claps*
it’s now my pleasure to introduce my collaborator and friend senator edward kennedy…
August 25th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
[...] Aug 24, 2007 in Massachusetts, 2008, mitt romney, Giuliani, romney, policy, debate, republicans, GOP, taxes, election 2008, analysis, healthcare Update: race42008.com has released its take on RomneyCare titled: “‘RomneyCare’ Finds Broad Support, Nationwide Attention.” [...]
August 25th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Sampo:
“Where has the heritage Foundation “endorsed†this plan?”
From Edmund F. Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation:
In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney’s plan as one of the most promising strategies out there. I know, because I’ve been part of the Heritage Foundation team advising the governor and his staff on the design, which builds on some of my work with officials in other state.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/haislmaier200601271110.asp
..and also for your reading pleasure:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1035.cfm
Furthermore, members of the Heritage Foundation would probably have their 2007 calendar. The August month of their 2007 calendar has a picture of none other than Romney himself as he is addressing the Heritage Foundation regarding his health care plan.
I don’t trust Ted Kennedy. Truth is he had very little to do with this. I do trust groups like the Heritage Foundation. Don’t you?
August 25th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
I’m not sure why Kennedy’s involvement means it’s a bad thing? A red flag perhaps, but not a deal killer.
Sen. Kennedy’s always been a politician who moves the ball forward. He’ll support a program that insures more people even if the details aren’t everything he’d want.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Hmnn,
Question, why has my answer to Sampo showing Heritage Foundation been flagged for moderation? Was it the links?
August 25th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
thomas alan,
why do i find it impossible to believe you had the same neutral sentiment on mccain-kennedy immigration bill?
August 25th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
cwpete, if you use http at the beginning, it is almost always flagged for moderation. I’d fix it but only Kavon and Daveg have access to that.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Thanks Tommy,
I’ll be aware of that for next time.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
why do i find it impossible to believe you had the same neutral sentiment on mccain-kennedy immigration bill?
Actually, I said the same thing about Kennedy several times in conjunction with the immigration debate. There are eliments in the Democrat party that have tried to kill McCain-Kennedy either because they like the issue (Schumer most notably) or because they think it’s not generous enough. Kennedy also allowed Republicans to put in a lot of “get tough” measures so that the bill could get through.
The reason I opposed that bill wasn’t because Kennedy was involved (though, like I said…red flag), but because the bill itself was awful.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
thomas,
the two reasons people usually give is because the bill was amnesty/shamnesty or because kennedy was involved. you’re a rare breed.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I forgot the third reason for opposing the bill. lying:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gingrich_distorts_immigration_bill.html
August 26th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Oh, so I guess RomneyCare wasn’t just a last resort against a Democratic legislature intent on pushing socialized medicine on the state after all?
Romneybots — they sure know how to lie, just like their leader.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:42 am
” 1. Establish Federal Incentives To Deregulate And Reform State Health Insurance Markets So Market Forces Can Work.
2. Redirect Federal Spending On “Free Care†To Help The Low-Income Uninsured Purchase Private Insurance.
3. Institute Health Savings Account (HSA) Enhancements And The Full Deductibility Of Qualified Medical Expenses
4. Promote Innovation In Medicaid
5. Implement Medical Liability Reform
6. Bring Market Dynamics And Modern Technology To Health Care
”
Wow! That’s JUST VAGUE ENOUGH TO WORK.
I see he dropped the “FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY HEALTH CARE” bit.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:56 am
libertarianguy,
You forgot the subset to your last point: throw people in jail who dont comply.
steps 8-10 also missing:
8. Manditory kumbaya singing sessions
9. Heal the world Make it a better place For you and for me and the entire human race
10. Think of your fellow man lend him a helping hand put a little love in your heart
August 26th, 2007 at 12:58 am
and 11:
It takes a villiage, er, mandates and/or tax increases to raise/insure a child.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:08 am
Wow, we sure do have some irrational people here who go around sprewing hatred against a candidate because… well, they don’t like him. Sampo, come on, grow up. Try to have some intelligence in your arguments without bad mouthing. LTG, it has been pointed out to you like zillion times on this site – ROMNEY VETOED THE MANDATORY MEASURES, ONLY TO SEE HIS VETOS OVERRIDED!!! How can we be more clear than that? And I did a quick comparison between the wording here and Rudy. They both are pretty the same, which is, they cover only general ideas, or like you said, vague enough. I dare you to tell us why Rudy’s plans is better or how it is different than Romney!
August 26th, 2007 at 1:10 am
ThatLibertarianGuy also forgot
“if your employer doesn’t buy you healthcare they will be slapped with a huge fine and lose tax breaks”
…because that is what “Romneycare” was in MA. I guess now since he is seeking the GOP nomination he doesn’t want that little detail to put at the forefront….
August 26th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Well let me be clear with the last part of the last question, “how is it different than Romney’s”. I do not mean the plans themselves. I mean, what is it that excited you, that appear to your libertian side? The specifications that attract you.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:15 am
ah yes, the old romney-vetoed-it-argument.
pop quiz. what governor had 70% -that’s seven hundred- of all his vetoes overridden?
This governor still claims to have had a successful administration. Who was it?
If you guess Mitt Romney you guessed right. No word if he wrote an op-ed in the Boston globe this time around, but no one really cares.
August 26th, 2007 at 2:14 am
It’s overrode, people, not overriden or overrided.
If he tried to override the veto, then he wasn’t pushing for “universal health care,” which is what it’s being touted as now. If it’s not mandatory, there’s no way to make it universal. So either he’s lying or he’s a statist.
August 26th, 2007 at 2:16 am
That also defeats the whole “it was a last resort because the Democrats were trying to impose socialized medicine,” which makes it sound like Romney crafted the whole so-called ‘universal market based approach’ which exists today in Massachusetts … which he was clearly not promoting.
Lying or statism. Neither option looks soo savory.
August 26th, 2007 at 2:16 am
too savory*
August 26th, 2007 at 3:44 am
ah yes, the old romney-vetoed-it-argument.
pop quiz. what governor had 70% -that’s seven hundred- of all his vetoes overridden?
This governor still claims to have had a successful administration. Who was it?
You’re reaching.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:05 am
BTW, we’re cutting too fine a distinction on this. Gov. Romney’s original plan was to either have people buy the medical insurance or the penalty would be the costs of any medical bills would be taken out of tax returns or even garnished directly from the paycheck. Essentially, if you go without insurance, your butt isn’t going to get out of paying medical bills.
The legislature preferred differently and imposed fines. That was a compromise Gov. Romney was willing to make (I don’t believe that section was even vetoed). Now that he’s shopping this to other states, he’s (shocker of shockers) making it closer to his original plan.
If the states adopt his plan as given, great. If they add fines for non-compliance, “eh”.
August 26th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Sampo, you are saying the vetos being overrode is bad. You have not explained why it is bad. This is what I meant by having some intelligence in your discussion. You have been saying things that are subjective. In fact, you sound like you are always in favor of revolt. Wait a minute, that is the chant of Ron Paul’s supporters. Ahh yes, that is who you are.
August 26th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Romney’s plan is widely popular in MA. That’s a great indication of the successfulness of the program. The fact of the matter is, Romney has helped to ameliorate a problem that has bedeviled politicians on both sides of the aisle as well as think tanks for decades. Romney deserves great credit for that. Innovative thinking has helped Romney overcome the 2002 Olympics Bribery scandal, overturn a huge MA budget deficit, and create an extremely successful business career. The MA Healthcare initiative is just one more example of Romney’s creative acumen when it comes to problem solving. As I have said before, the MA healthcare plan will be used as a role model for other states and candidates for years to come.
http://FamiliesForRomney.blogspot.com
August 26th, 2007 at 11:26 am
The Mass plan will be popular for now. It’s still early on and the consequences haven’t presented themselves. It may turn out to be a smashing success or a dismal failure. There’s no way to know yet. But, if we’ve learned anything, it’s that all intentional acts have unintended consequences. I’m waiting to see what those unintended consequences of MittCare are…They may be good or bad.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:28 am
I’m amused when I read folks accusing Romney of “backing away from” his MA plan. Of course, to do that they must conveniently forget that he has consistently held that his plan is not a one-size-fits-all plan. But that would force them to look at the proposal and actually weigh the merits, rather than to dismiss it out of hand.
I’m also amazed that none of you MittSlammers(TM) have caught on to his flip flopping on breathing. After all, he inhales oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide; a clear flip flop. Not to mention that he contributes to Global Warming with his carbon dioxide exhalation.
Really, get a grip.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:39 am
what do you get when you cross an Ad hominem attack with a straw man argument?
post #38 by SGS
now, since i already realized bashings by romneybots would border on uncivil i said this:
before bashing me, READ:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SallyCPipes/2007/08/23/lessons_from_massachusetts
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/third_time_round_for_gop_hopefuls.html
Both lay out FACTS showing that universal healthcare has not worked as MA libs had planned. No one has offered a coutering argument or evidence contradicting these articles.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:41 am
what do you get when you cross an Ad hominem attack with a straw man argument?
post #38 by SGS
now, since i already realized bashings by romneybots would border on uncivil i said this:
before bashing me, READ:
the townhall and factcheck articles i posted earlier.
Both lay out FACTS showing that universal healthcare has not worked as MA libs had planned. No one has offered a coutering argument or evidence contradicting these articles.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:52 am
romneyblogger,
maybe rocky anderson should run for president or be mitt’s VP. since mitt loved teaming up with him for the olympics, lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9eRKT2ZhB8
August 26th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Sampo, concerning your townhall link (#2), the hint is the author, Sally C. Pipes who “serves as a health care advisor to The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee”. So, she is somewhat biased. Let us look at some other links from the same site which should be MUCH more unbiased:
- Tim Murphy, a former Massachusetts Health And Human Services Secretary:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TimMurphy/2007/08/24/leadership_that_empowered_individuals
- Former Senator Jim Talent (a Mitt supporter, hence this being biased, but note the sources he quote from, Heritage Foundation, for instance):
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JimTalent/2007/08/21/mitt_romney_putting_conservative_principles_to_work_in_health_care
- Doug Wilson, the chairman of Townhall.com: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DougWilson/2007/02/04/market-driven_health_care_is_best
You also forgot that Massachusetts is one of the most regulated states. So, yes, Mitt managed to deregulate some, but even then, it hardly made a dent in its regulations. If you have read Mitt’s proposed health care program from last Friday, you will see that he proposed the federal incentives for states to deregulate more and more over the years, hence freeing up the market.
Now, as is always with any government program, the KEY which is missing from so-called “RomneyCare” is that the first try never work completely as expected. It needs adjustments to make it more market-based. But, this program has started in the right direction. The question is, will it continue to move in the right direction. With this new joker of a governor, I do not think so. I admit that RomneyCare may see a pre-mature death before the impact is truly felt.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Sampo, and what FactCheck link? The one you provided is for illegal immigration. Nothing on Mass’ healthcare.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
TLG (#25),
I see that you have not read Mitt’s healthcare proposal. What you are seeing is the main points of his plan, nothing more. You will be surprised to see how much details he has provided in his proposal. I would urge you to read the whole thing, including his powerpoint presentation. I can only say that he has gone much further than Rudy with just Rudy’s outlined plan.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Since many of us trust Heritage Foundation, I will provide some more links on their researches related to Massachusetts Healthcare program:
April 4, 2007, The Massachusetts Health Plan: An Update and Lessons for Other States: http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1414.cfm
This article pointed out that the premiums turned out to be lower than expected for this year from last January. However, it pointed out that the regulations continue to be a problem, like I mentioned in #43.
July 30, 2007, State Health Reform: How to Fund a Statewide Health Insurance Exchange: http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1573.cfm
This research look into depth how an exchange should be funded. I am pointing this article out because it used Massachusetts as an example of what works and what does not work. An exchange is like Wall Street, but instead of buying and selling stocks, you buy and sell health care policies.
Those two articles are most recent researches on how well Massachusetts program is working.
August 26th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Tim Murphy and Doug Wilson are Romney staffers. Frankly I find Sally’s take on MittCare to hold a lot more water becuase he uses FACTS to support her stance. Besides, why would a Mitt chearleader say anything bad about MittCare?
When a “Republican” like Mitt is to the LEFT of Giuliani, watch out!
Jim Talent has obviously been completely hoodwinked by romney on health care. Nothing in Talent’s past would suggest he’d support MittCare.
from ontheissues.org
1st Health Security Initiative: Rx benefit & accountability. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted NO on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Collect data on birth defects and present to the public. (Apr 1998)
August 26th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Sampo,
The Heritage Foundational is certainly not bought & paid for by Giuliani or by Romney. Yet they both advised and supported this plan. Who do you trust on this? Sally “I’ve been bought & paid for by team Giuliani” or the Heritage Foundation?
FYI, “FactCheck” is not an honest or objectionable source. They’d never give Romney a fair handshake – never..
August 26th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
cwpete,
I still have yet to read where the Heritage Foundation “endorsed” MittCare.
August 26th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
This issue will propel romney to winning the presidency. he will make health care, the number two issue to terrorism which we already have, a republican issue.
once he succeeds with that, the dems don’t stand a chance. makes me think that a romney guliani ticket would kick butt.
August 26th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Sampo,
I replied with the links, but the reply got flagged for moderation. Should be post #16 when it gets unflagged.
Google it yourself if you don’t believe me. Perhaps by Monday the site admins will unflag that post.
Just take my word for it. The Heritage foundation did consult & support Romney both during and after the signing.
Also, Heritage Foundation members would see Romney on their 2007 calendar for the month of August as he is presenting to them the details of this plan.
August 26th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
The Heritage Foundation did help Romney draft the original plan, and implement it. On the other side, similar groups (like CATO) have given negative reviews. To each his own.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Tommy, it has been said frequently on this site that CATO is more a libertarian organization than a conservative one. It has been pointed out that CATO is all for shrinking government – period. I understand their prespective from the federal level — after all, the federal government is severely limited in what it can do by the US Constitution, while leave the rest of the power to states. States are within their right to provide the services its population so desired. As such, CATO, even though their argument is valid if we are talking about Federal Universal Healthcare, missed the target.