Appearing on CNN last night, Mitt Romney conceded that the
Massachusetts health care plan he signed into law did nothing to
control costs. But, he now says, it was never intended to.
"We were unable to deal with -- and didn't have any pretense we
would somehow be able to change -- health care costs in
Massachusetts," Romney
said. "That's a whole different topic, which is how do we get
the cost of health care down in America."
The problem with Romney's account is that at the time he signed
the bill, he was saying it would bring down health care
costs. Specifically, in a triumphant April 2006 Wall Street
Journal
op-ed titled "Health Care for Everyone? We Found a Way,"
Romney boasted: "Every uninsured
citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health
insurance and the costs of health care will be
reduced." (Emphasis mine.)
Romney, for the most part, was able to avoid criticism for his
Massachusetts health care plan in the 2008 Republican primaries.
At the time, it was still too soon to evaluate the program with
hard data and Republican primary voters weren't really paying
attention to the issue of health care. But now both things have
changed -- the legislation has proved disastrous for state
finances, the cost of premiums, and doctors' wait times. In
addition, Republican voters have become more aware of health care
policy issues. And Romney's plan is basically the Baucus bill at
the state level: a government mandate forcing individuals to
purchase health insurance or pay a tax, and government subsidies
to help individuals purchase government-designed insurance
policies on a government-run exchange.
It's not surprising to see that as he lays the groundwork for a
likely presidential run, Tim
Pawlenty has made health care a major focus. One of the
biggest obstacles Pawlenty will face in seeking the Republican
nomination is the sense that he's a big government "Sam's Club"
Republican. Clearly, he sees health care as one issue on which he
can credibly position himself to the right of Romney.
