Post by duke on Mar 24, 2012 10:36:49 GMT -5
Mitt Romney's bizarro health care conundrum The Bullock Pulpit: Calculated musings of a pragmatic idealist|Pam Bullock
Health care reform is arguably Mitt Romney's greatest accomplishment as governor of Massachusetts, yet as a GOP candidate for President, he's pretty much forced to pretend it never happened. And by turning his back on his efforts, he once again looks like a flip-flopper who will say whatever it takes to appeal to conservatives. With principles this flimsy, it's not surprising that he's a very weak front-runner. But how did his healthcare plan go from being his mission to his nemesis in less than six years?
Romney's current stance on the campaign trail is that he has never advocated a national version of his Massachusetts health insurance program, and certainly not the health insurance mandate. Yet in July 2009, he wrote an op-ed piece for USA Today in which he urged President Obama to use the Massachusetts plan as the model for national health care reform. In this column, Romney made no mention that the Massachusetts plan might be unconstitutional at the federal level. Instead, he touted his plan for 'getting every citizen insured'' as one that Washington should heed: 'Using tax penalties as we did...encourages 'free riders' to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.'' Um, that sounds like a mandate to me. It also sounds like an idea that makes sense. But apparently Romney no longer thinks so. Or maybe his campaign managers encouraged him to no longer think so. That 2009 column was only unearthed a few weeks ago by Romney's foes, and rather chips away at his argument that he opposes - and has always opposed - a national health insurance mandate.
thebullockpulpit.typepad.com/the-bullock-pulpit-calcu/2012/03/mitt-romneys-health-care-conundrum.html
Romney is depending on the short memory of voters.
Health care reform is arguably Mitt Romney's greatest accomplishment as governor of Massachusetts, yet as a GOP candidate for President, he's pretty much forced to pretend it never happened. And by turning his back on his efforts, he once again looks like a flip-flopper who will say whatever it takes to appeal to conservatives. With principles this flimsy, it's not surprising that he's a very weak front-runner. But how did his healthcare plan go from being his mission to his nemesis in less than six years?
Romney's current stance on the campaign trail is that he has never advocated a national version of his Massachusetts health insurance program, and certainly not the health insurance mandate. Yet in July 2009, he wrote an op-ed piece for USA Today in which he urged President Obama to use the Massachusetts plan as the model for national health care reform. In this column, Romney made no mention that the Massachusetts plan might be unconstitutional at the federal level. Instead, he touted his plan for 'getting every citizen insured'' as one that Washington should heed: 'Using tax penalties as we did...encourages 'free riders' to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.'' Um, that sounds like a mandate to me. It also sounds like an idea that makes sense. But apparently Romney no longer thinks so. Or maybe his campaign managers encouraged him to no longer think so. That 2009 column was only unearthed a few weeks ago by Romney's foes, and rather chips away at his argument that he opposes - and has always opposed - a national health insurance mandate.
thebullockpulpit.typepad.com/the-bullock-pulpit-calcu/2012/03/mitt-romneys-health-care-conundrum.html
Romney is depending on the short memory of voters.