• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Posted on 11/15/2007 11:58:21 AM PST by restornu
Today, the Thompson campaign comes out swinging. In an email from Comms director Todd Harris, Fred's campaign knocks Romney for his Healthcare plan citing a fine for non-enrollment and the low cost abortion option.
(Note, I believe this is the first official Fred offensive.)
The Romney Camp, prepared for just such an occasion, lets loose an arsenal of serious rebuttals to the charges:
The Thompson campaign tries to link Romney with the $295 charge for non-insurance.
"Many of the law's core elements, including the requirement that all people in the state get insurance, were in Romney's original proposal in 2005. The Democratic legislature added many of its own ideas to the final law, including a $295 fee per employee for businesses who do not offer health insurance to their workers. Romney vetoed that provision but was overridden by the legislature." (Perry Bacon Jr., "Romney Plays Down Role In Health Law," The Washington Post, 4/13/07)
"My Democratic counterparts have added an annual $295 per-person fee charged to employers that do not contribute toward insurance premiums for any of their employees. The fee is unnecessary and probably counterproductive, and so I will take corrective action." (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Health Care For Everyone?" The Wall Street Journal, 4/11/06)
The other big charge, that Romney happily included a low-cost abortion option in the plan. False. The law of Massachusetts REQUIRES that medical care fund abortions. If you want to blame someone, blame the Supreme Court of Mass.:
According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On "The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right" Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
In 1997, The Supreme Judicial Court Reaffirmed Its Position That A State-Subsidized Plan Must Offer "Medically Necessary Abortions." (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997)
Next onto the plan itself. First, goals are being met across the board:
"The law appears to be working. As of Nov. 1, the date for the most recent statistics, more than 200,000 formerly uninsured people had gotten insurance, roughly half of the state's target." (Glen Johnson, "Rivals Chide Romney On Health Care Plan," The Associated Press, 11/15/07)
Second, the costs are both affordable and consistent with the plan:
"The average uninsured Massachusetts residents could obtain health care coverage for as little as $175 a month under the state's insurance law, Gov. Deval Patrick announced Saturday as he released the results of negotiations with the state's health insurers." (Steve LeBlanc, "Patrick: Residents Can Get Health Insurance For $175 A Month," The Associated Press, 3/3/07)
Note also, that numerous conservatives have praised the plan giving Romney credit for tackling the issue when no one else would:
The Heritage Foundation: "In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney's plan as one of the most promising strategies out there." (Edmund F. Haislmaier, "Mitt's Fit," The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org, 1/28/07)
"Given these limitations, Governor Romney deserves credit for proposing (and to a lesser extent, enacting) a plan that encourages individually-owned health insurance and circumvents some of the inequities carved into the federal tax code." (The Club For Growth, "Mitt Romney's Record On Economic Issues," Press Release, 8/21/07)
"Romney's plan also got a thumbs up from an unlikely source yesterday – Barbara Anderson, head of Citizens for Limited Taxation, a group that often looks with deep suspicion on government mandates and programs. … The tax activist said that Romney is proposing universal insurance, not universal health care – which Anderson said society effectively already has, as almost no one is denied care even if they can't pay for it. 'Let's just face that reality and deal with it,' Anderson said, adding that covering more people will reduce costs to taxpayers." (Jay Fitzgerald, "Romney Wins Health-Y Reviews," Boston Herald, 6/23/05)
"Health Care: Massachusetts lawmakers have passed a universal-coverage bill. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney plans to sign it. Has Romney flipped? Not at all. He has won a victory for market-based reform." (Editorial, "Blue-State Surprise," Investor's Business Daily, 4/6/06)
One charge out there is that the plan brought more taxes. False.
"The big question we faced, however, was where the money for the subsidy would come from. We didn't want higher taxes; but we did have about $1 billion already in the system through a long-established uninsured-care fund that partially reimburses hospitals for free care. The fund is raised through an annual assessment on insurance providers and hospitals, plus contributions from the state and federal governments." (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Health Care For Everyone?" The Wall Street Journal, 4/11/06)
"The subsidies require no new tax monies. Federal and state funds currently subsidizing hospitals for treating the uninsured will simply be redirected into buying coverage for the low-income uninsured." (Edmund F. Haislmaier, "Massachusetts Health Reform: What The Doctor Ordered," The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org, 5/6/06)
• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
It’s going to get much tougher for Mitt the panderer .
Nice spin, but the plan includes a $50 copay for all abortions, not just "medically necessary" ones.
RINOs install a big government socialist program then blame the Democrats for doing what Democrats do? Romney is an idiot.
Socialized Medicine has NEVER improved healthcare systems anywhere in the world to a point they even can compare to our current quality available.
I'll decide what I consider for myself and my family, NOT depend on the whims of politicians, nor do I want to pay for others coverage for high-risk lifestyles, lack of responsibility, and dependence on a Nanny-State for their benefits.
Wealth-redistribution by ANY name is socialism, and I don't support any of it whatsoever.
Of course, the same release also says:
To be sure, the Massachusetts plan's individual mandate to purchase healthcare insurance rankles libertarian instincts and necessitates a government-defined standard for compliance-and Romney should be taken to task for this.
The other big charge, that Romney happily included a low-cost abortion option in the plan. False. The law of Massachusetts REQUIRES that medical care fund abortions. If you want to blame someone, blame the Supreme Court of Mass.:'They made me do it!'
Pathetic.
Followed immediately by:
Nonetheless, Romney has distanced himself from the mandate.The national health insurance provisions he unveiled earlier this year specifically avoid a mandate. Romney has said he would leave it up to the states to devise their own plans. He later criticized Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton for including a mandate in her health care proposal.
Romney is a big government socialist.
Yup.
Careful you’ll get everyone from queers, hos ( men and women ), reckless drivers, bungee jumpers, and smokers on your case.
By 2006, Mitt was well into Presidential campaign mode, so anything he did at this late date would not be indicative of the real Romney. You’d probably have to go back to 2002 and earlier to get a sense of the true Mitt.
No argument here.
My biggest concern over the unlikely prospect of "President Romney" is that he'll be elected on the promise of "doing something" about health care, and wind up giving in to what the Democrat-controlled House and Senate (because I also see Romney as having zero "coat tails") gives him.
There was a time when Romney was my choice for VP. Thanks to his latest passing-of-the-buck, that time is gone for good.
Lovely. Still waiting for your response to post #5.
Thanks for posting this. I really wish the Romney campaign would also address the other blatant lies that the Thompson campaign is telling, blaming Romney for something that a private citizen said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.