Today, Romney tries to remove his RomneyCare weakness
Yesterday it was Newt Gingrich; today, the political spotlight turns to another Republican vying for the party’s 2012 presidential nomination, Mitt Romney. And the spotlight is particularly bright because Romney today is making a two-pronged effort to attack the central weakness in his candidacy: health care.
It’s a weakness because, as just about everyone knows by now, Romney as governor of Massachusetts pushed for and signed into law a health reform that’s similar in many ways to the one President Obama pushed for and signed into law. ObamaCare has been such an animating concern on the right that RomneyCare is a huge, maybe insurmountable, obstacle for Romney.
Unless, of course, Romney can explain satisfactorily why his plan for Massachusetts was not only substantively but philosophically different from Obama’s plan for the whole country (or, I suppose, unless the rest of the GOP field is so weak as to not be able to take advantage of this weakness in Romney’s candidacy). Which brings us to that two-pronged effort.
First is an op-ed in USA Today in which Romney pledges, if elected, to “issue on my first day in office an executive order paving the way for waivers from ObamaCare for all 50 states. Subsequently, I will call on Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare.”
In its place, Romney offers five steps which he describes as “based on the same philosophical tenets as the reforms I offered during my last presidential campaign in 2008, [namely to] return power to the states, improve access by slowing health care cost increases, and make health insurance portable and flexible for today’s economy.”
Read the whole thing for a fuller explanation of those five steps. But — spoiler alert! — the closest he comes to drawing a distinction between RomneyCare and ObamaCare comes under Step 1, which relates to empowering states to find their own ways to take care of “citizens who are poor, uninsured or chronically ill”:
This reform speaks to the central advantage of our federalist system — that different states will experiment with and settle on the solutions that suit their residents best. Some states might pass a plan like the one we did in Massachusetts, while others will choose an altogether different route.
The federalism argument is a potentially powerful one, although it does leave open questions about why Gov. Romney favored an Obama-like approach for Massachusetts; the early returns, as represented by today’s hard-hitting, critical editorial in The Wall Street Journal, suggest he hasn’t answered those questions very well to date. And even if Romney had answered those questions, his federalism argument, at least as it’s made in Romney’s op-ed, is not made very powerfully.
For that, look to Romney’s 2 p.m. speech at the University of Michigan. But this preview of the speech, by a Romney aide quoted at National Review Online, doesn’t inspire much confidence in me that the speech will differ appreciably from the op-ed as far as making RomneyCare more palatable to GOP voters.
An old political saw holds that if you’re explaining, you’re losing. A corollary might be that if you’re doing your best to avoid explaining, you’re losing even worse.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
142 comments Add your comment
Linda
May 12th, 2011
4:03 pm
John@3:11, Someone had asked if there was an “even-handed analysis of RomneyCare,” which was a great question. I was just trying to be helpful & add to the conversation. I made one personal comment. Otherwise, I simply summarized the article as written. If I meant to misquote the article, I would have never referenced it. I do not appreciate your accusing me of being misleading.
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of articles on the internet about Mass. health care. The MMA survey is annual & statistics are compared each year. Why don’t you do your own research & decide for yourself? If you don’t like the article I highlighted, come up with one you like.
In Georgia, we don’t have to wait an average of 7 wks. for a non-emergency internal medicine appt. or 24 days for a pediatrician. Massachusetts evidently has major problems with its new health care program.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
4:18 pm
The health care bill had nothing to do with health, care or insurance. It had nothing to do with bringing down the costs. I said this before it was passed & am even more convinced of it now.
Even some of the Democrats were against it. Had some of them not been bribed or threatened, they would not have voted for it. Now, many of them who did are gone.
They were wrong that approval of it would grow over time. I don’t know of a time that 26 states were simultaneously suing the fed. govt. over a bill. It will destroy the best health care system in the world.
We can afford about HALF of the fed. govt. we are saddled with today, before Obamacare goes into effect. If we don’t CUT IT IN HALF, the US will not survive.
bill
May 12th, 2011
4:21 pm
why did you folks not “means test” when I was paying both sides (employer/employee) of SS? Now that I am retired y’all don’t want to pay me because I worked hard all my life and saved! Refund all I paid in less amount I have received and we will call it even! How ’bout that slick??
Painful Truth!
May 12th, 2011
4:27 pm
Linda, I Just called me Doctor to see when is the soonest I could get in for a Physical…Mind you, I have had the same PCP for nearly 10 years, and pay upwards of 400.00 a month in healthcare premiums to United Healthcare…. Thursday June 16, 20011 is a soon as I can get in… Please don’t try to downplay the wait time and other issues under the current system…
Painful Truth!
May 12th, 2011
4:30 pm
called My doctor not me Dr….( sorry about that)
MrLiberty
May 12th, 2011
4:33 pm
Ron Paul is a doctor, and he has ALWAYS supported a FREE MARKET solution to our health care problems. He is the only one clearly pointing out that it is the PRESENCE OF GOVERNMENT IN THE MARKETPLACE THAT IS DRIVING UP COSTS and destroying healthcare.
He also correctly points out that since government produces nothing, creates nothing, but must take from someone else everything it has, in order for it to support healthcare as a supposed RIGHT, government must violate someone else’s rights to pay for it, etc.
The free market delivers quality food at affordable prices (even with enormous government intrusion), as does every other resonably free market for goods and services. Technology is driving down prices everywhere except where government is intruding and destroying the marketplace and with 50% of all dollars being handed out by govenrment, it is clear where the real source of the problems lie with healthcare.
Only Ron Paul has the courage and principles to point that out and to keep fighting for a free market.
Romney is a clown and has always been one.
Jefferson
May 12th, 2011
4:36 pm
only average $150 – $200 K a year.
Not too shabby for day work.
Gordon
May 12th, 2011
4:37 pm
@John,
“And what do they do with their wealth…they invest it and produce move income. I’m sure you mean payroll income though. So how do some, such as Richard Fairbank CEO of Capital One Financial get around it…by earning no salary. In 2009, Mr. Fairbank earned a total compensation of $6,076,805, which included no base salary, no cash bonus, $2,000,019 in stock awards, $4,000,001 in option awards, and $76,785 in other compensation.”
One of the things being proposed, even by Republicans, is lowering the rates and removing loopholes like the one you describe. Raising tax rates won’t cause Mr. Fairbanks to pay more taxes (which we both agree he should), it is simplifying the rules which determine what his income actually is.
By the way, I don’t blame Mr. Fairbanks for LEGALLY avoiding taxes as much as possible, and I don’t resent him for making more money than I do.
Dr. Kildare
May 12th, 2011
4:43 pm
@Jefferson: It’s not for a day’s work and is acheived only after eight to ten years of education and huge college expenses. Compared to other professionals it’s not anything to write home about.
John
May 12th, 2011
4:51 pm
Linda@4:03, “Why don’t you do your own research & decide for yourself?”
I wasn’t the one trying to put out facts…you did. And you got it wrong. You put some bullet points that you said were the result of the state’s health care law and you referenced the article. As I stated, while the article stated some problems with healthcare, it was clear that the problems were not a result of the health care law. The article clearly stated some of these same problems are found throughout the nation, not just in Mass., which the law covers.
“In Georgia, we don’t have to wait an average of 7 wks. for a non-emergency internal medicine appt. or 24 days for a pediatrician. ”
Where did you get your statistics on this from? Or did you make this up as well? While I will admit, I don’t know the average wait time is, as I pointed out to you my physician has a longer wait time than 7 weeks.
Churchill's MOM.....Rand Paul for President
May 12th, 2011
4:51 pm
Other than the Pauls, I will not vote for this bunch of fools.
Gman
May 12th, 2011
4:52 pm
I’m a Republican and I wouldn’t vote for any of the pitiful GOP hopefuls that have declared so far. Not a single one of them can win because each one has a fundamental weakness in their appeal to the Christian-Right.
JP
May 12th, 2011
4:54 pm
For you history buffs, what version of the individual mandate were Repubs for back in the early 90’s? Was it a lof different than what is out today?
Painful Truth!
May 12th, 2011
4:55 pm
“Compared to other professionals it’s not anything to write home about.”
I am sorry….But 150k to 200k a year put a person in the top 5% of earners in this country…When the median income in this country is slightly more than 25k.
Dr. Kildare…at least be honest in this forum….
Linda
May 12th, 2011
5:02 pm
Pinful@4:21, I used to wait over 1 1/2 mts. to see my dermatologist since he was the best in the SE US (before he retired). Let’s compare apples. We know when it’s time to go to the PC doctor when he tells the pharmacist that our prescriptions are not refillable. We are able to see him within a few days for these routine, non-emergency, not-even-sick appts. Complete physicals would probably take longer. I’m not trying to spin.
Jefferson
May 12th, 2011
5:03 pm
No its good money, that dog don’t hunt.
John
May 12th, 2011
5:04 pm
@Gordon,
“One of the things being proposed, even by Republicans, is lowering the rates and removing loopholes like the one you describe. Raising tax rates won’t cause Mr. Fairbanks to pay more taxes (which we both agree he should), it is simplifying the rules which determine what his income actually is.”
Why not just get rid of the loopholes? Why do Republicans feel they have to offset getting rid of the loopholes with lowering the rates?
John
May 12th, 2011
5:09 pm
Linda@5:02, “Let’s compare apples. We know when it’s time to go to the PC doctor when he tells the pharmacist that our prescriptions are not refillable. We are able to see him within a few days for these routine, non-emergency, not-even-sick appts. ”
There you go again…this time wanting to compare apples. Where in the article you cited does it say the average wait time does not include appointments for physicals but only includes appointments to go to the PC doctor when he tells the pharmacist that prescriptions are not refillable?
Linda
May 12th, 2011
5:24 pm
John@4:51, There was only ONE problem, not problemS (plural) that was mentioned that was consistent throughout the nation, & that was a shortage of doctors. With the additional 30,000,000 more insured patients & with no additional doctors, the wait time to see doctors will increase all across the country & the number of visits to the ER will continue.
As far as wait time, you question my statement without any facts of your own, admitting you have no idea if I’m right or wrong.
You are still accusing me of getting “it wrong.” I don’t appreciate your accusations when I was just trying to be helpful. You can take one tiny point, blow it out of proportion, argue about it all day, over & over & over, hammer it up one side & down the other, try to fit a size 10 into a size 5, give out low blows & never stop.
Well, it’s stopped. I don’t mind responding to you, but you MUST change the subject. Talk about something that is IMPORTANT. That’s it. As Kyle said once before, that’s enough! Pick on someone else.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
5:26 pm
John@5:09, Go join OBL & leave me alone.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
May 12th, 2011
5:37 pm
liberals are wholesale murdering an entire generation of black children by giving their “mothers” abortions paid for with your tax money, and, they call us “monsters.”
I thank the Lord everyday that I am not a liberal.
Jefferson
May 12th, 2011
5:40 pm
Modern health care don’t need doctors to treat cuts, colds, infections many of these items can(will) be handled by nurse practicioners and PA. Doctors and surgeons can do the heavy lifting. There is a lot of money wasted just getting a shot…
Gordon
May 12th, 2011
5:54 pm
@John
“Why not just get rid of the loopholes? Why do Republicans feel they have to offset getting rid of the loopholes with lowering the rates?”
Because our country has a spending problem, not an income problem. As I said in my first post, you and others are just too comfortable taking money from people who make more than you. You will never be satisfied.
If we do have tax increases, it should only be AFTER major spending cuts. The government has proven it can raise taxes, lower taxes, and increase spending (many times over), but it hasn’t shown it can significantly cut spending. Close at least 75 or 80 percent of this huge deficit with spending cuts, and then we can raise taxes. By the way, when 45% of income earners pay no federal income tax, something is wrong. They shouldn’t pay much, but everyone should have some skin in the game.
John
May 12th, 2011
5:59 pm
Linda@5:24, “With the additional 30,000,000 more insured patients & with no additional doctors, the wait time to see doctors will increase all across the country & the number of visits to the ER will continue.”
As the article pointed out…”"It’s a success in terms of the number of patients who have seen a doctor in the past few years, but the physician workforce has been strained,” Coombs said.” Of course, what you said could happen to wait time. But are you saying, you’re so selfish that you’d rather be able to make a non-emergency appointment with your doctor and get in within a few days and deny doctors appointments to 30,000,000 patients? Or would you be willing to sacrifice a little time in waiting for a non-emergency appointment and allow those 30,000,000 the same?
This may also be temporary…don’t Republicans shout free market and supply and demand? If there is a large demand for doctors, don’t you think more people would go into medicine supplying us with more doctors?
John
May 12th, 2011
6:11 pm
@Gordon,
“Because our country has a spending problem, not an income problem.”
Once again, spouting the Republican mantra. Economist, even Wall Street is saying we have to look at both spending and revenue. A bi-partisan commission has said the same thing. That’s the solution Democrats want but of course, Republicans only want to talk about cutting spending.
From CCN money…”But practically, can the country live with a regimen of spending cuts alone? It’s unlikely, since the changes could end up being too severe to be palatable, fiscal experts say.
Just to keep the country’s total debt where it is now — around 60% of GDP — without tax increases, lawmakers would need to cut spending today by 35% or about $1.2 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office.
That’s almost as much as what the country spends on defense and other discretionary spending — i.e., nearly everything Americans expect their federal government to do outside of providing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits.”
MarkV
May 12th, 2011
6:17 pm
Kyle, the federalist argument Romney is making, and which you call “potentially powerful,” makes no sense at all. Give me one good reason why health care issues might be different from state to state and should require different approaches.
Mary Margaret Thomlinson-Hanson
May 12th, 2011
6:33 pm
Good job, John. Linda loves to dodge questions, and point out B.S. Continue to call her out on her B.S.
Our healthcare system is good, but not the best. I know of more than one person that lost their insurance when they really needed it. And when you have a pre-existing condition, forget about it.
Healthcare is a for-profit business. When more people realize that, then real changes will be made.
bob
May 12th, 2011
6:36 pm
“Because our country has a spending problem, not an income problem.” Clinton balanced the budget. The tax code and expenditures should mimic his successful reign.
Painful Truth!
May 12th, 2011
6:40 pm
I report…Report this…
“Thirty percent of abortions occur to non-Hispanic black women, 36% to non-Hispanic white women, 25% to Hispanic women and 9% to women of other races. [6]
Now as a percentage what you sais is true..But in raw numbers it’s not even close..More abotions are given to white women….Now don’t let the facts get in your way the next time you wanna toss that gem out there…
Painful Truth!
May 12th, 2011
6:41 pm
Gordon…You say we have a spending problem….
Our Military budget is larger than the rest of the industrailized world combined…are you prepared to reduce spending there as well????
Linda
May 12th, 2011
6:47 pm
John@5:59, So now you are saying I’m selfish & that I’m deciding WHEN my doctor sees me? You have no credibility.
I could answer all you questions, but you are a complete waste of my time. It’s not productive to argue with a tree stump, someone who did not even know when the economic stimulus bill was passed by the Democrats & Obama.
I would suggest that you enroll in a class in economics at your local college ASAP. I’m not your professor.
MarkV
May 12th, 2011
6:48 pm
“Our country has a spending problem, not an income problem.”
This is one of the pieces of political mantra that seems to sounds reasonable to some people while being essentially stupid. When you explore it further it only shows that whoever uses it has his/her ideas of what the taxes are to be used for, and demands that everybody agrees.
Kyle Wingfield
May 12th, 2011
6:52 pm
bob: “Clinton balanced the budget. The tax code and expenditures should mimic his successful reign.”
Sounds good: Expenditures in FY 2000 were $1.79 trillion. Adjusted for inflation and population growth, that would be about $2.46 trillion, or less than two-thirds of current actual spending.
Given revenue projections, the budget would be balanced next year even at current tax rates.
Who else wants that deal?
Linda
May 12th, 2011
6:57 pm
Miss or Ms. MMTH@6:33, So what IS the best hc system in the world?
What hc insurance companies & hospitals are for-profit & which ones aren’t? What is the percentage of those for profit?
What is the average profit of the for-profit hc insurance companies, compared to the beer & liquor companies, cigarette co’s &, other industries related to the hc industry, the top profit maker companies in the US?
Don’t dodge my questions & don’t use BS. You hate that, right?
Linda
May 12th, 2011
7:06 pm
Bob@6:36, If Clinton “balanced the budget,” why did his adm. add to the natl. debt every single year?
John
May 12th, 2011
7:15 pm
I report, “liberals are wholesale murdering an entire generation of black children by giving their “mothers” abortions paid for with your tax money, and, they call us “monsters.””
Have you heard of the Hyde amendment? In case you haven’t, it’s a law that forbids any federal tax money paying for abortions. So, you’re wrong in your statement.
John
May 12th, 2011
7:21 pm
Linda@6:47, “So now you are saying I’m selfish & that I’m deciding WHEN my doctor sees me? ”
You’re the one who brought up how bad it would be it wait time increases due to insuring 30,000,000 more people. I just asked a question. I’m just asking you to back up your comments with fact.
Are you employed by Fox News? If not, perhaps you should apply there. You have the philosophy down…create stuff and report it as fact, keep repeating it enough and hopefully people will believe it to be fact without checking the true facts.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
7:22 pm
I Report@5:37, …& every time I even think of a family reunion, I thank the Lord I’m not kin to Chuck Schumer.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
7:36 pm
MarkV@6:48, During the last 63 years, regardless of the parties in power in the White House & in congress, regardless of the marginal tax brackets which were as high as 90%, when was the last time that NO debt was added to the national debt in any given year?
The answer is 63 years ago, in 1948.
Regardless of the parties in power, regardless of the marginal tax brackets, regardless of the revenues collected by the fed. govt., it is NEVER enough. DC has always consistently spent every dime it has collected & then some, every year for 63 years. What congress could not tax, it borrowed. That’s where we are today. We have a SPENDING problem.
John
May 12th, 2011
7:38 pm
Linda@6:57, “What hc insurance companies & hospitals are for-profit & which ones aren’t? What is the percentage of those for profit?”
The five largest US health insurance companies set new profit records in 2009, while the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression sent millions of Americans onto the unemployment line and into poverty.
The five firms reported $12.2 billion in profits last year, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, over 2008. At the same time, 2.7 million Americans who had been enrolled in private health plans the year before lost their coverage.
I would say that’s a healthy profit, wouldn’t you?
John
May 12th, 2011
7:48 pm
Linda@6:57, “What is the average profit of the for-profit hc insurance companies, compared to the beer & liquor companies, cigarette co’s &, other industries related to the hc industry, the top profit maker companies in the US?”
Not sure I follow your question here…are you saying beer & liquor companies, cigarette co’s are related to the hc industry?
Gordon
May 12th, 2011
7:57 pm
@John
“Once again, spouting the Republican mantra. Economist, even Wall Street is saying we have to look at both spending and revenue. A bi-partisan commission has said the same thing. That’s the solution Democrats want but of course, Republicans only want to talk about cutting spending.”
Did you even read my 5:54 post, or just stop after 2 sentences? Go back and try again.
You gave your “shocking” statement about how much spending would have to be cut if we don’t raise taxes, now consider this: taxing all income over $250,000 at 100% would not come close to eliminating the deficit. Or consider Kyle’s 6:52 post: cutting spending to 2000 levels (the last time we were close to balance) and TAKING INTO ACCOUNT inflation and population growth, we could balance the budget with taxes where they are now. The major part of our problem is spending, not income. You can call that Republican mantra all you want, but its true.
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
7:57 pm
MarkV
May 12th, 2011
6:17 pm
If I do, will you promise to drop off the face of the earth? Okay, maybe that’s demanding a little too much but get this… Kyle made a good point, though, YOU will never admit to it. As recently published the Southern States are infamous for fried fatty foods and different by degrees from state to state even within the south where for instants… people in Mississippi consumes more fatty foods than people in Georgia.
People who consume less saturated fat in their diets are less likely to have circulatory and heart related problems – e.g. lower risk of high blood pressure, heart attacks and strokes to mention a few health problems, which should translate into lower healthcare cost and insurance premiums.
And to another stab: Economist don’t always get it right, in fact, they are known for getting alot things wrong.
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
8:01 pm
John
May 12th, 2011
7:48 pm
About 5% to 6% for HC insurers. The big money is made by the drug companies. Their profit margin was cited as around 16%. Even medical device makers have higher profit margins the HC insurers.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
8:06 pm
John@7:21, You have the diplomacy skills of a two-year-old, the intelligence of a dishwasher, the manners of Hollywood & the credibility of Al Gore.
In addition of taking a course in Econ 101, I would suggest you read that book about how to gain friends & influence people.
Are you happily married?
For the upteenth time, change the subject,
Linda
May 12th, 2011
8:16 pm
John@7:38, I couldn’t notice that you did not answer one single solitary question I asked.
John
May 12th, 2011
8:17 pm
Linda@8:16, I answered all your questions. Problem is you can’t back up your statements so you resort to name calling an ignore my request to back up your position.
Linda
May 12th, 2011
8:27 pm
John@7:48, The question is why you & the liberals would single out the health care insurance companies & not the upteen companies who make a much greater profit off our citizens, especially all the other industries related to health care. Why make the health care insurance companies the enemies when there are dozens of other health care related companies who are making a much larger profit?
Why would you & the liberals demonize health care industries when there are other industries making tons more profit?
Linda
May 12th, 2011
8:45 pm
John@8:17, You answered all my questions? I missed it. Did you submit your answers on the wrong blog?
I don’t know what you do for a living, but let me suggest that you get into sales (after you take that Econ 101 course I recommended). You are relentless & would do well & make a lot of money selling sets of encyclopedias & intensive care insurance by hitting up little old ladies with your charm & charisma.
Michael H. Smith
May 12th, 2011
8:49 pm
So Kyle, ObumerCare or RomenyCare admittedly leave a tremendous amount to be desired. Meanwhile, we and most conservatives on this blog agree that healthcare should rightly be done at the State level pursuant to, and in keeping with, the federalism of the Constitution, as a State’s Right.
However, not much seems to be going on in this state to make what most of us know are greatly needed healthcare reforms, preferable reforming the entire system.
Here’s a challenge for you Kyle, however you want to go about it is fine, on finding the best suggestions or solutions to reform healthcare in Georgia and if they are good enough, why not petition our elected legislators to implement the finding?
You know I’m game and I would hope other Tea Party members are up to the task as well. It is far too easy just to stop bad idea’s and offer nothing better to replace them than poor-mouth condemnations that really do nothing.