Buy at Amazon

Thursday, December 20, 2007


One thing that Mitt Romney achieved during his term as Governor was to get a law passed that made it so that everyone in Massachusetts could have health insurance.


There are around 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance. 10 years ago, the Democrats pretty much owned this issue. People who didn't have health coverage tended to be sympathetic to democrats on this issue.

Mitt Romney has opened the door for Republicans to own this issue. The problem is, that I don't think anyone else in the field could have pulled it off to begin with. And none of the current primary candidates except for Mitt Romney can really speak to the issue credibly.

Everyone else has talked about this issue. Hillary Clinton talked about it. Barack Obama talks about it. John Edwards, Al Gore, and the Governator in Cali-for-nia talk about improving access to health care for the uninsured.

Mitt Romney actually did something about it.

If somebody besides Mitt is the nominee, how are the republicans going to credibly draw in the 45 million voters who don't have health insurance?

My opinion - If somebody besides Mitt is nominated, we cede this issue to the Democrats.


Brian said...

Where is it written that these "45 million" must have health insurance? Such a notion implies that insurance is supposed to cover all medical bills. That is not insurance (which covers risk), that is socialism and signal the end of quality health care in the US.

Romney opened the door to universal health care and while I will vote for him over all the other candidates, this one issue is a disaster for Romney and America.

nick f said...

I'm sorry, but once again I have to say that this isn't one of Mitt's finest hours.

His plan in Mass. was a step backward for people who desire smaller government and less regulation.

Like the "compassionate conservative" mantra, he is going down the path of big government for domestic issues, while posing as strong on social issues.

I simply cant, in good concises support such a candidate when a strong conservative like Fred Thompson is in the race.

I think many Mitt supporters are on board because they feel he is our best chance at beating Hillary, and that is a reasonable concern. But I believe Fred Thompson is every bit as capable as Mitt to take Hillary down in 08. And with Fred we don't have to compromise on key issues, and wonder about his steadfastness on other ones.

I think conservatives need to stick with Fred.

Big Jay said...


Like it or not, this is a national issue. It will only become a larger national issue.

The question is do we want the issue to be handled by a grownup or not?

Frankly, I think Mitt Romney is the only one in the field (Democrat or Republican) who can pull this off without a tax increase.

Jeff Fuller said...

There is a lot of mis-information about the Mass Healthcare Plan.

It's hard to explain in a quick soundbite . . . but, as a physician, I think it helps solve a serious problem in the most conservative way possible.

People who complain about it being a "new mandate" really don't understand the current situation. THERE ALREADY IS A MANDATE--- a mandate (i.e. EMTALA Laws) that requires that all people be seen and treated in hospitals regardless of insurance status. The uninsured (nearly half of which in MA earned over three times the poverty level) get in car crashes and have heart attacks too and 6-7 figure hospital bills can accumulate. Who pays now for such care? Me, you and all tax-payers via governmental reimbursement for "indigent care" and via increased insurance premiums.

Romney's plan said "NO MORE FREE RIDERS" . . . and requires them to get insurance. It simply SHIFTS THE MANDATE FROM THE TAXPAYER TO THE INDIVIDUAL. Sounds like a pretty conseravative solution to me, which is why the Heritage Foundation worked with Romney in developing the plan and lauds it.