The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Romney Makes Case For Government-Run Health Care

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Romney Makes Case For Government-Run Health Care

By Philip Klein on 9.21.09 @ 4:25PM

There he goes again. Newsmax has published an interview with Mitt Romney in which he once again touts his big government Massachusetts health care plan as a monumental success:

"What we were able to accomplish was to get almost all of our citizens insured without breaking the bank and without having a so-called public option," Romney says. "I think the program is a real success and that it can teach lessons to other states, and to the nation."

To start with, Romney is wrong on the merits. Michael Cannon has done an excellent job documenting what a colossal failure Romneycare has been, bringing higher costs and longer wait times to citizens of Massachustetts. The Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation numbers Romney cites in his interview understated the cost of the legislation by, among other things, ignoring the program's cost to the federal government. Even the state's Democratic State Treasurer, Timothy P. Cahill, has told the Boston Globe that the promised savings from the universal health care legislation never materialized, and he cautioned that, "It's a warning for the federal government as it looks to do something similar.''

It's bad enough that Romney would be so dishonest about conditions in Massachusetts, but its worse that at a crucial time in the national health care debate, Romney is publicly defending liberal policies, giving ammunition for Democrats to argue that their proposals are moderate when in reality they would amount to a government takeover of health care. While Romneycare did not include a "public option," neither does the Baucus bill, which is nearly identical to Romneycare in every meaningful way. Like the Massachusetts plan, Baucus would mandate that individuals purchase health insurance or pay a tax, expand Medicaid, and provide government subsidies to individuals to purchase government-designed insurance policies from a government-run exchange. While free market conservatives have been trying to push back against Obama's insistence that mandates are not a middle-class tax hike, Romney is out there defending the idea of a mandate, by making the same arguments as Obama.

If Romney wants to advocate government-run health care policies, that's his business -- but he should not be viewed in any way as an economic conservative, and should not be seen as a credible conservative standard bearer in 2012. He's gone from being dishonest about his record to advance his own political career, to being dishonest about his record in a way that helps expand government and advance liberal policy goals.

View all comments (26) | Leave a comment

skip MacLure| 9.21.09 @ 6:14PM

Well that does it for Romney in my book and should also for anyone with over a single digit IQ.
It's a little more encouraging than Meg Whitman gushingly endorsing Van Jones....and then in the same breath telling us that she's confident she can run the state of California even farther into the ground than Arnold and the nutcases in the assembly have..But NOT MUCH ....Romney sounds like a big gov't RINO to me.
Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

Ran| 9.21.09 @ 6:15PM

If the Republican elite anoint Romney as the '12 candidate... the Republicans will be done. Complete with fork and saltshaker. We are not looking for a talented liberal who can do the Big Gov gig smarter. We are looking for the opposite: Small Gov and a less powerful President. (But man, what an awesome haircut.)

S.L. Toddard| 9.21.09 @ 6:31PM

"and should not be seen as a credible conservative standard bearer in 2012."

I would never call Mitt Romney a "conservative", but his argument is very - even nobly - conservative in one fundamental respect: The healthcare reforms he proposed and eventually passed *were pursued in the proper venue*, at the state level, as per the U.S. Constitution and its 10th Amendment. The federal government is not empowered to create a healthcare system - period. If the GOP had stuck to their guns and never sacrificed fealty to the Constitution for expediency then a Constitutional, 10th Amendment argument *now* might result in more than a nationwide laughing fit. If Romneycare recieved no federal assistance - and it shouldn't - then whether Romneycare works or not should be of no concern to anyone here who doesn't live in Massachusetts (as I do). And if Romneycare works, that is a *boon* to Conservative aims, as conservatives can argue that there is no need for a federal healthcare program, since Massachusetts has demonstrated that state governments are fully qualified to perform that function, should their citizenry, through their elected representatives, choose to do so. It is not anyone in the North East's right to say what sort of healthcare a citizen of North Carolina should - or *will* - have. And the reverse is true. Conservatives should fight this from a principled states-rights perspective - what do you red-staters care about whether Massachusetts has state-run healthcare? That's my business - not yours. And no one from my state should have the right to dictate to anyone from *your* states what sort of healthcare *they* have. The people from each state should have - and *do* have, according to the 10th Amendment - the right to choose for themselves, in their own state legislatures, how they wish this issue handled for them, until the Constitution is amended. And wouldn't you rather a country where Massachusetts is free to have state-run health-care while Montana and Georgia and every other state decide for themselves? Then why not make that argument? Just because it's good for Massachusetts does *not* mean it's good for Alabama. Bay Staters are *not* the same as Alabamans - ask any Alabaman. And if the good people of Alabama decide, in part, that they want "universal healthcare" in their state then they can hash it out amongst their local and state representatives, as the Constitution delegates.

It's the principle of self government, and of United, sovereign, free and independent states. The main reason the GOP cannot make this argument is: credibility. They have none on the issue. That's why new - truly conservative - blood is needed. If those on the Right truly want Conservative government then when candidates like Rand Paul run for election they should come out in droves and support him with zeal. New truly conservative voices, untainted by the party machine and brand, need to come in, correct course and resurrect that brand - and they need support from truly Conservative voters, who need to forgive Rand Paul and others on the right who were right about Iraq.

Roy| 9.21.09 @ 7:42PM

"..who were right about Iraq."

1) No they weren't.
2) It is self-defeating to argue that only people who agree on some unrelated issue have "credibility" on this one.

I don't live in whatever state Rand Paul is running in, but if the thrust of his campaign was "I'll let each state go their own way on health care" he'd get my vote. If it is "I'll surrender in any difficult war the moment Code Pink starts to get traction" he wouldn't.

kc Hochderffer| 9.21.09 @ 8:38PM

Another reason to vote for Sarah Palin 2012.

kathy| 9.21.09 @ 9:30PM

Romney is the only governor in history to get health insurance to all his citizens. Of course, there will be critics of such a bold action. But the fact remains, it didn't break the bank (as documented by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation), and the people of Massachusetts seem to like it. I think it's remarkable that a Republican got the job done. This is the type of issue that will connect Romney to independents and swing voters, exactly what we need if we're going to recapture the White House in 2012. Go Mitt!!

Si Vis Pacem| 9.22.09 @ 12:13AM

... Yes, he did at that, even "for" those who either preferred not to purchase insurance or felt they simply didn't need it. In other words, Romney is the first Governor in history to ram Big Med down a State's throat. That was not only illiberal, it is hardly a résumé enhancement. Trust me, it's the heavy hand that will also scare-off one H3ll of a lot of those "independents and swing voters." Recall that there are a lot of "middlers" who have left both Parties because neither Party represents the rights and choices of the individual.

We should not make the fatal mistake assuming that all "independents" are liberals looking for an oh-so-cleverly run nanny state. Many have their own self-interest in mind, and time and again we betray them at the pols with Left vs Hard Left candidates.

CopyKatnj| 9.21.09 @ 9:59PM

Of all the articles I've read, Romneycare failed. If he had come out and said that he tried it and it did not work so let it go, he would have had a chance at being a president. Now, I doubt it, he lost my vote.

B. Johnson| 9.21.09 @ 10:15PM

The failure of Romneycare isn't good. However, people seem to be overlooking a major difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. More specifically, given the federal Constitution's silence about public healthcare, the 10th Amendment automatically reserves government power to regulate and lay taxes for healthcare to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress. So unlike Romneycare, Obamacare is illegal under the Constitution.

In fact, Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored, which appropriately limits the power of the federal government to lay taxes.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN (1824) http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html

So not only is Obamacare illegal under the Constitution, but corrupt Congress never had the power to lay taxes to fund it in the first place.

Also, the good part about having up to 50 state-run healthcare programs, basically what the Founders would have wanted, is this. While some states are going to prove that they are expert at managing healthcare, other states will undoubtedly find healthcare a challenge. But hopefully the expert states will be willing to share advice on running a healthcare program to the challenged states.

Also, given state healthcare programs that are similar, it should be easy to spot corruption in one state's healthcare program if the books for the states are compared with the books of a similar state.

Finally, the following link should help give people an idea as to how state sovereignty-ignorant voters have shot themselves in the foot with big, corrupt federal government as a consequence of the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 16th and 17th Amendments.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/s.....p?t=199792

Gene| 9.21.09 @ 10:41PM

HHHMMM>,I suppose that might be why he isn't president

patrick| 9.21.09 @ 11:11PM

Beware of Mitt Romney!!
He also gave the state of Mass Gay marriage
when he could have refused to stand up to
the state court.
The guy has no leadership ability and is swayed
by polls and idiotic republican consultants who
have their hands in his deep pockets.
Romney is not a conservative but a technocratic
automaton.

Jim O'Brien| 9.22.09 @ 6:57AM

Put Romney and McCain together and you have the Republican Party, aka the Fake Capitalist Party, or the Fake Constitutionalist Party. They offer only a slightly better choice versus the Democrat, or Socialist Party. So when voting we have a choice between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. That's why more people are registering as Independents, or Libertarians.

2Anglico| 9.22.09 @ 8:35AM

One size fits all dictates from government at any level are wrong. Romneycare is close to breaking the bank in MA. Not that any lessons will be learned. All states are already mainlining federal pork in the form of SCHIP and Medicaid.
The ONLY reason the government is involved in the first place is due to the FAILED experiment in SOCIALISM.
You gotta laugh at Obama complaining to Steffie that Americans without health insurance are being carried by others! His ENTIRE agenda is about making MORE Americans live at the expense of OTHERS.

D. Fischer| 9.22.09 @ 9:18AM

Romney can't decided what side of the fence he is on. No one can trust a man who has no moral compass, except for blind ambition. The sooner this man retires from politics and takes his place on the beach, be better for America.

Tim| 9.22.09 @ 9:47AM

"He has management hair"

Scott Adams, AKA Dilbert

Edward| 9.22.09 @ 9:56AM

Mr. Klein:

Where have you been for the last 50 years? We already have socialized medicine in the United States - it's called medicare and medicaid.

You also wrote:
"If Romney wants to advocate government-run health care policies, that's his business -- but he should not be viewed in any way as an economic conservative, and should not be seen as a credible conservative standard bearer in 2012."

Conservative Republicans defend "government-run health care" such as medicare and medicaid all the time. This is standard practice.

I find it is interesting that you claim Romney is dishonest when you hid behind the word "government?"

Why not make the CLEAR and HONEST distinction between STATE managed care and FEDERAL managed care? Romney is not for federal care. The title for your article could be easily mistaken for federal government rather than state government.

Is this poor journalism or did you intentionally intend to mislead readers?

Over half the county is concerned about uninsured voters and to ignore this concern and the problems associated with it, is again a political mistake.

Romney is the ONLY candidate who is willing to discuss these problems and issues that are important to Americans. I don't have to be for universal health care to see that.

Republicans must persuade Obama voters away from him to vote for the next Republican nominee and Huckabee, Paul, Pawlenty or Palin will all fail to appeal to voters because they are not informed as Romney is.

Mark Smith| 9.22.09 @ 4:30PM

Best physical description of Romney (might have been Lew Rockwell who wrote it): yacht salesman.

Danny O| 9.22.09 @ 5:32PM

You republicans knocking Romney are all full of it. The second he gets the nod for the nomination you will be all over him like he's the second coming of Reagan...you all talk like libertarians but we live in a regulatory environment...hence the Republican party. Obama put forward a plan way right of left and you act like it's a communist revolution. Either way, there's a lot of less uninsured showing up to emergency rooms and sending costs up for the rest of us. If more people were pushing for a single-payer system and you would be all about the ideas proposed.

Robby| 9.22.09 @ 6:01PM

To the Romney Bashers, I would ask, "what is more conservative? Allowing the uninsured to visit ER's everytime they get sick and having everyone else pay for it through higher health costs, or requiring everyone to pay for themselves?" I don't personally support the mandate, but I also don't appreciate paying for freeloaders either. Further, Romney has been more than willing to admit to the downsides of "Romneycare," such as its inability to totally reign in actual healthcare costs. However, that's a problem everywhere, not just Mass. I'm not saying Romney should be President, but it's ridiculous to talk about him like he's a socialist.

Derek D| 9.22.09 @ 8:53PM

Fact: Romney has every right to push for state run healthcare, its a state issue, not a federal issue. If you think it stinks then leave the state. Its unconstitutional to run a federal program, there is no authority in the constitution to provide this nor should there be since you have no way to opt out. If all you liberal/progressives love single payer, there is nothing stopping you from implementing it in the state you live, except a balanced budget. So quit whinning and implement it in your states and then all move to those states so the rest of us can secede and recreate a free country.
Fact: If you go to a hospital for care and you are uninsured, you still get a bill sent to you. You are only a freeloader if you don't pay that bill, but if you can't pay that bill then you could not pay for single payer healthcare either, only proving a freeloader in one system is still a freeloader in the other. Further, single payer will only increase the number freeloaders because now they won't even get the bill, instead their bill will be sent direct to me, no thank you.

Gregg| 9.23.09 @ 12:56AM

One MAJOR thing this article omitted:

Romney's healthcare plan he signed into law 2 years AFTER his phony "pro-life conversion" that was endorsed by Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood, subsidized abortions at $50 each!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Romney wants that to be the model for the rest of the country?

Scary that so many so-called "conservatives" (Coulter, Ingraham, Perkins, Minnery, Land, Bauer, Hewitt, Hannity, Sekulow, continue to support this guy...

When will people realize the powers that be in teh GOP hates evengelical pro-life, pro-family conservatives?

Don| 9.23.09 @ 7:40AM

The only reason Romney is not a Democrat is he can't run to the edge of the cliff fast enough. But don't worry. He's catching up fast.
He didn't propose same-sex marriage in MA but once the Supreme Court usurped the right to write the necessary law (illegally), he couldn't wait to ORDER his JPs to perform the illegal marriages.

Dan| 9.23.09 @ 8:45AM

Posts like this against Romney are getting a little rediculous. The liberals know Mitt is a demographics nightmare for them and the biggest threat to The One so they want to hurt his reputation with the base on health care. Plus, if they can convince people that Mitt did the same thing, they think that will help warm some people to Obama's plan. Mitt has written Op-ed after op-ed and done interview after interview being extremely critical of the proposed health care bills in Washington. Anyone who wants to know the truth simply has to look them up on any search engine. DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES. LEARN THE TRUTH FOR YOURSELF!

Gregg| 9.23.09 @ 10:11AM

Dan, lay off the kool-aid my friend. Romney polls worse than just about any GOP nominee against the Democrats becauase the GOP base despises Romney because he is a LIBERAL disguised as a conservative whichh is why, despite outspending all of his competitors during the primaries 50-1, he only won ONE uncontested primary.

Lay off the Kool Aid. Christian conservatives don't like pro-abort, pro-homosexual, socialists like Romney who believe that when they die they become gods of their own planet.

Enough already from the Romneybots. Go away. Romney will never get the nominatio and NEVER become president because you can't win without your base on election day. DUH....

Gregg| 9.23.09 @ 10:28AM

And Dan, the last time I checked neither the American Spectator, the Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute nor the Wall St. Journal were members of the "liberal media."

They have all reported truthfully about the massive fiscal and social failure of Romney's socialist healthcare plan that subsidizes abortions for $50 each that was endorsed by Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood.

Get a grip Romneybot Dan. Learn the facts. Lay off the Kool Aid!

Bob Enyart| 9.24.09 @ 11:52AM

Thanks American Spectator for exposing Romney's liberal government Health Care plan. This article belongs with the fabulous YouTube video on this, Ann Coulter Hang-Ups which has stunning video clips of Romney. Video is also at Coulter Apology . com.