‘Romney has bought into a bidding war’

April 12, 2006

Some of the details on Massachusetts’ [tag]health-care[/tag] reform initiative apparently still need to be ironed out, but the new program that achieves near-universal coverage in the state has a series of political upsides. First, of course, is Gov. Mitt Romney’s (R) victory lap, which instantly makes him the flavor of the month among 2008 aspirants.

But then there’s the progressive goal of [tag]universal[/tag] health care for the whole country. TNR’s Jonathan Cohn noted last week that Romney’s approach makes it far more difficult for conservatives to “demonize the very concept as ‘big government.'”

Oh, they’ll try — and they’ll have at least some success. But now Democrats will have this retort: If a Republican governor and leading presidential contender with strong conservative credentials thinks universal health care is a good idea, how radical an idea can it be?

Cohn was definitely on to something. For example, consider this item published today by the far-right Wall Street Journal editorial page.

The core flaw is that the plan forces individuals to buy health insurance, and penalizes businesses that don’t provide it, before deregulating the market for private health insurance. So the state is forcing people to buy insurance many will need subsidies to afford, which is a recipe for higher taxes and more government intervention down the road. Could this be why Mrs. Clinton, Ted Kennedy and the Families USA government medicine lobby are all praising it to the skies? […]

By making a fetish of “universal” coverage, Governor [tag]Romney[/tag] has bought into a bidding war that Democrats and advocates of socialized medicine are bound to win in the end.

As luck would have it, I agree; we are bound to win this in the end.

Romney’s plan is not without flaw, but as a political matter, [tag]Massachusetts[/tag] is helping move the ball forward and making [tag]universal health care[/tag] a more accepted standard for where the country needs to be.

Health insurance just means you are paying someone extra to pay your doctor.

Private health insurance administrative costs are about 23%.

Medicare administrative costs are about 2%.

So what exactly is wrong with socialized health insurance?????

  • “Universal coverage” means that if you have a crappy job, you can leave and get a better one because you’re no longer tied to your employer for health care benefits… I can’t see how this is a problem?

  • ” . . . that Democrats and advocates of socialized medicine are bound to win in the end.”

    Note the loaded phrase “socialized medicine,” in
    the WSJ editorial. I don’t know anyone who has
    advocated socialized medicine. Only universal
    health insurance.

    I’d also like to know how conservatives can justify
    their opposition to it. I can’t see any reason other
    than just plain mean spiritedness. None of their
    stated arguments hold up when you consider
    how many countries are doing it, with more
    effective systems at lower costs than ours,
    which leaves 45 million uninsured and probably
    another 100 million only a job loss from having
    none.

  • “I’d also like to know how conservatives can justify their opposition to it.” – hark

    Their dividend checks from their stock in health insurance companies would disappear.

    Don’t you know, we live in an ownership society. That means someone else owns your fear of getting sick 😉 You can’t take that away from them!

  • “Universal coverage” means that if you have a crappy job, you can leave and get a better one because you’re no longer tied to your employer for health care benefits… I can’t see how this is a problem?

    This has mystified me.

    There are right wing think tanks that want to do away with the deductability of home mortgage interest, because a nation of homeowners isn’t as mobile as a nation of renters. Hence, workers can’t go where the jobs go. Worker mobility good.

    Workers with portable health care aren’t tied to their jobs to remain covered. They can go to new, growning firms without fear of getting sick while uncovered.
    Worker mobility bad?

  • Well, if they use the term “socialized medicine,” ask how US business are not run in a socialist manner (i.e., handouts, corporate welfare). Whats good for them is good for us, right?

  • “So the state is forcing people to buy insurance many will need subsidies to afford, which is a recipe for higher taxes and more government intervention down the road”

    I wonder if they ever factor in the costs associated with lack of healthcare. Lost productivity, more people dependent on gov $ if they lose their jobs because they couldn’t afford medical care, the costs of acute medical care for the uninsured when their untreated conditions require emergency care, etc. Conservatives are all very pious until they get to the accounting ledger…oh, wait, I get it. The poor should simply pray.

  • “The poor should simply pray.” – CJ

    They just had a scientific study that proved it does not help 😉

  • I’d also like to know how conservatives can justify
    their opposition to it. I can’t see any reason other
    than just plain mean spiritedness.

    I haven’t paid close attention to the plan, but the whole “forcing people to buy insurance” thing can be an aspect that both liberals and conservatives take issue with. Especially when the governor is vetoing the required fee on businesses who don’t provide insurance to their employees. Sure there will be subsidies for the poor, but if those don’t come through, and you are too poor to afford paying health insurance on your own, you’re a criminal? (Again, I’m not sure the bill says that.) And what about illegal immigrants? They are still out in the cold.

    It would have made a lot more sense to a) provide an exemption for people below a certain income, and b) ensure the availability of affordable health care for those with preexisting conditions that would cause insurance to be otherwise extraordinarily expensive for them. Unless someone who’s a health care expert can explain otherwise, of course.

  • Here in Ohio, the state Medicare program for families—ironically named “Healthy Families,” just went through a “provision-reduction.” Now, a family who’s AGI is more than 90% of the federal poverty level is no longer elegible—because the idiots in Columbus have determined that “they earn enough to buy their own coverage.” If this comes to Ohio, then families in this predicament will be penalized for not buying health insurance. They’ll lose, of course things like their Earned Income Credit, their Child Care Credit, and their general-deduction credits that they qualify for on their FEDERAL tax returns, because states can seize Federal return monies for “legitimate debts owed the State.”

    • Comments are closed.