Fred comes out swinging, Romney swings back

My Man Mitt ^ | Nov 15 2007 | by Justin Hart

[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)

[CharlesWayneCT]

I’ve read the links associated with this claim, and I’m not convinced. It does not appear that “cosmetic” abortion would be necessarily covered under the plan.

While “abortion” is not qualified in any documents I’ve found, it seems it would be covered under the general clause of the insurance regarding medically necessary treatment. Those clauses are included so that the insurer does not have to qualify each service — and if you look, you won’t find the word “medically necessary” under other provisions either.

For example, the plan doesn’t say that only “medically necessary” hospital visits are covered, or “medically necessary” doctor visits, or “medically necessary” specialist visits.

Practically speaking, “medically necessary” is no restriction at all for abortion. ANY abortion can be found “medically necessary” by a pro-abortion doctor. But I don’t see any firm evidence that abortion, unique among the items covered by the insurance, is exempt from the “medically necessary” coverage rules.

I’m not saying I am right about this, just that the references make a lot of assertions but don’t provide legal proof.

[Petronski]

I get to buy the plan that I want.

LOL

More like "you're forced to buy one of the plans available."

[Frank L]

>No one here has proposed an alternative solution. Despite all the explanation, some Freepers continue to call this socialism and universal health care. So car insurance is socialist too and so is home and life insurance right.

The difference is that I don’t have to have car insurance unless I am driving on government roads. I can drive forever uninsured on private roads and areas.

I am aware of no law requiring me to buy life insurance. Or home insurance. When taking out a mortgage, the lender may require me to have insurance so that they do not lose their investment, but it is not the government making me buy it.

[traditional1]

Where the government intervenes for "the common good" (including Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), WE subsidize others' costs.

Without removing the CAUSES of the INCREASE in medical costs (illegal aliens, non-payers, sex deviates, drug users, etc.), it is ludicrous to blame "the system" for the increases, when adding in the cost of malpractice litigation-lotto on top of it.

I would NEVER try to defend the government getting more involved in private lives, but apparently, you see this as necessary.

Boiling the frog in Massachusettes is working.....

[restornu]

So did your candidate ignore The Human Right Amendment!:)

[CharlesWayneCT]

I read an article from MIT noting that the cost of excluding abortion coverage for those who would want to do so would actually INCREASE the cost of the health plan for everybody.

I won’t argue too much, I would prefer there be NO government offering in the health care plans. Then the question would be whether vouchers given to individuals should be RESTRICTED from being used to purchase a health plan that covers abortions, which at the moment are unfortunately legal.

I have no choice of a health plan that doesn’t cover abortions, but I’m not going without it. My payments don’t even cover MY costs, much less cover anybody elses, that’s my company’s choice. So I’m not really funding abortions.

I wish he had vetoed the item, even though it would have been restored, just so he wouldn’t be attacked for it (except I note that others attack him for even suggesting a plan because he KNEW the democrats would put all sorts of bad things in it — which I guess would be a good argument for a conservative to REFUSE to serve as governor in a state with a majority democrat legislature).

[longtermmemmory]

Did anyone see the thompson commericial?

I have some minor contructive observations but overall it was pretty good.

So far only Romney and Thompson have shown commercials.

(not counthing that homsexual group that came out with a romney commercial to “support him”)

[rintense]

Stop telling the truth, damn you!

[Maneesh]

That does bother me and I did say in my post that an improvement to this plan would be the consumer being allowed to pick what procedures they want to be covered for.

BTW whatever insurance you have now covers you for abortions, so why just pick on this plan ?

[CharlesWayneCT]

BTW, if you don’t support abortion, you can purchase a plan that has a much larger co-pay for abortion.

You can also purchase a plan with NO copay, I hate to mention that because your next tagline will be “free abortions”, which would be a misnomer since the plan with no copay has a higher base price.

[Maneesh]

Finally a voice of sanity with some logic. Sometimes we have drive by freeper posters who read Romney and the next word that they type is socialized medicine.

[Petronski]

So did your candidate ignore The Human Right Amendment!

False again. It seems no truth comes from the Romney Sleaze Machine.

[Jim Robinson]

The federal government has no business meddling in health care or health insurance. Any federal mandate or involvement whatsoever would be unconstitutional.

[Maneesh]

And that is different from your current system how ?

If you are an employee, you get to pick one of 2-3 plans. With Romney’s plans you can pick from a larger pool but the consumer still has some level of choice.

[Petronski]

And that is different from your current system how ?

You really can't tell, can you?

The Willardian state has taken away your right to buy NO insurance.

[Jim Robinson]

We already have unconstitutional socialist plans instituted by liberals so now we should allow “conservatives” to add even more unconstitutional socialist plans to the mix? And this helps us? Oh, yeah. I almost forgot. “We’re here from the government and we’re here to help you.”

[Neu Pragmatist]

LOL ! .... post 29

[Maneesh]

I agree with you completely from a constitutional perspective. The same logic applies to the education system.

However we have reached a point in our country where too many people think of health care as a right. At least Romney’s plan forces people to buy their own insurance instead of showing up at the emergency room and we pay for them anyways. It should reduced ER visits and is in general a move towards personal responsibility which is why I support it.

Ideally none of us should have to pay for someone that has lung cancer because of chain smoking but we do. This plan would make that person pay and maybe they would think twice about stupid behavior.

My support is more from a pragmatic view, from a strictly constitutional view you are correct.

[Jim Robinson]

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?
-- Ronald Reagan

[ejonesie22]

I know you guys have sour grapes over Fred’s endorsement.

Chin up, the sun will come up tomorrow and there’s a good shot at getting an actual conservative in the general race after all, not one who has been playing at it since about 2002...