RomneyCare a Huge Asset for Romney: Proof Romney an Effective Bipartisan Leader
Politico explored this in an Op-Ed and came to that conclusion:
|Since he orchestrated and then signed the Massachusetts health care law, Romney is uniquely qualified to lead the GOP attacks against the federal health care reform bill.|
Why? He would be the first GOP nominee in nearly 50 years with a proven track record on health care who has been praised by Democrats — including the president — as fair and compassionate. He can’t be demonized as an out-of-touch, uncompassionate, hard-right ideologue on this issue.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1qJHywDW7
The writing has been on the wall for a very long time. Why, for instance, did Obama use Romneycare as a model for Obamacare? He wanted to make health care reform his legacy, so he adopted a conservative state model for reform. Obama's problem and Romney's asset: Obama adopted the Democrat-morphed version of Romneycare, NOT the simpler, more elegant original that Romney designed.
Indeed, Romney vetoed many of the liberal Dem provisions, yet his veto was overridden.
Compare the principle of "personal responsibility" between Obamacare and Romney's original idea for Romneycare:
|The confusion arises because of the administration’s argument that the power to enforce the individual mandate is rooted in Congress’ taxing power — but that the mechanism itself is designed to be a penalty, not a revenue-generating policy.|
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli used the phrase “tax penalty” multiple times to describe the individual mandate’s backstop. He portrayed the fee as a penalty by design, but one that functions as a tax because it’s collected through the tax code. link to Fox News report
Romney's Original Plan:
|Furthermore, to allow people to go without health insurance, and then when they do fall ill expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney proposes to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: Either buy insurance or pay for your own care. Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.|
But beyond that, the Romney administration got downright Libertarian in figuring how to make it work. Under Romney's plan anyone opting to not buy insurance would be required to deposit $10,000 in an (interest-bearing) escrow account with the state. If they didn't pay their medical bills, the providers stuck with their bad debts could apply for that money. But what if they won't buy insurance and refuse to put $10,000 in escrow with the state? The answer is that they aren't allowed to claim the personal exemption tax-break on their state income tax, and any tax refunds due them are deposited into the escrow account until the $10,000 limit is reached. link to Heritage Foundation article
In this instance alone, there is a dramatic difference between Obamacare and Romney's plan as he originally designed Romneycare. Obamacare creates a tax penalty that is not designed to generate revenue to help curb the costs that Obamacare was meant to curb in the first place. Romney's state-level plan did the contrary, for those not buying coverage it revoked a tax break and routed those funds to a healthcare fund reserved to reimburse providers who did not get paid by the individual for healthcare services.
Now Romney intends to repeal Obamacare, as as the Politco article points out, Romney is the most qualified to do so. Romney was the Governor who passed Romneycare when Massachusetts citizens wanted it; Romney was the Governor who passed state healthcare reform with full bipartisan participation. Neither is the case with Obama and Obamacare.
Romney cared enough is Massachusetts to tackle healthcare reform and it is a major accomplishment that he, with the Dem majority, passed a conservative plan. Romney is the ideal candidate to speak with authority about the flaws of Obamacare; he would be ideal President to argue for its repeal!