Lately, Mitt Romney seems to be attracting some attention from the right and left concerning the health care plan he signed into law while he was governor of Massachusetts. His colleagues on the right who are angling for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination are quick to draw the comparison between Romney's plan and the health care plan that President Obama signed last year. Obama himself has even complimented, albeit with ulterior motive, Romney's health care plan. But is RomneyCare really that similar to ObamaCare?
State vs. Federal
If we're looking at glaring differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare, let's start with the most obvious: ObamaCare is a federal (i.e. nationwide) plan while RomneyCare was a state (just for Massachusetts) plan. This is the defense that the Romney camp has consistently given, and with good reason. There are many forms of state legislation that would not apply very well at the federal level. And since Massachusetts is typically a rather progressive state, a comprehensive health care solution makes sense for them. But in Alabama, this program would never fly because they are much more conservative. And as states, Massachusetts and Alabama each have the right to deal with health care however they see fit. For those who may not understand this distinction between state and federal, I would refer you to the United States Constitution, specifically the 10th amendment.
Bi-partisan vs. Partisan
One year ago, the U.S. Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObamaCare). Not a single Republican congressman or senator voted for it. In fact, the opposition to the bill was bipartisan, while support for the bill was only found among the Democratic party. In 2006, when Mitt Romney signed the Massachusetts health care plan into law, it had passed the Massachusetts legislature with bipartisan support. Romney had even crafted his plan with assistance from the conservative Heritage Foundation. The state congress in Massachusetts, both Republicans and Democrats, passed RomneyCare. In this particular case, the difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare could not be more clear.
Article comments
1 - Glenn Contrarian
Ah, so Romney would never, ever agree to a national mandate? "But one thing I would never do is usurp the constitutional power of states with a one-size-fits-all federal takeover," he said.
Gee, that's funny. Lookee here what I found from way back in September 2007 on insurancebudget.com:
Reveled recently before the Florida Medical Association the healthcare reform plan reflects Romney’s need to appeal to conservatives if he wants the Republican for the White House. Unlike the health insurance reform he helped devise for the much more liberal state of Massachusetts, his current proposal for the nation calls for providing affordable health insurance though tax and federal incentives. The plan also calls for other changes that will create a free market in which consumers are encouraged to buy private health insurance.
Romney’s most notable exception in his national health insurance plan, is the one that made his Massachusetts plan so ground breaking, and so disturbing to conservatives: the Mandate. Romney’s national health insurance plan does not call for such a mandate. On the stump Mr. Romney holds up the legislation he helped to conceive for Massachusetts. He uses that health insurance reform plan as an example of how creating a free market can work to help those without access to affordable medical coverage. However he almost never mentions the idea that it forces people to purchase insurance, and businesses to provide health insurance, or face penalties.
Instead of the mandate for the country Romney proposes a federalized system in which the federal government will provide incentives and assistance for those who cannot afford medical coverage to obtain affordable healthcare insurance.
So...if he didn't propose a mandate, but what he proposed still forced people to buy insurance and businesses to provide insurance or face penalties...then how, exactly, is that not a mandate?
I guess that just like Newt Gingrich on the airstrikes against Libya, Romney was for the national mandate before he was against it....
2 - Nonplussed
The differences between the two plans listed in the article are differences in process, popularity, etc. The author does not cite any differences in the actual policy and makes rather the opposite point than intended.
3 - Josh Archambault
Braden,
Thought you might be interested in a new report from the Pioneer Institute based in Massachusetts about the 2006 reform. Fixing the Massachusetts Health Exchange.
4 - Braden
Nonplussed, the state vs. federal argument actually has a lot to do with the policy, so does the big vs. small argument. MassCare was a much more simple. ObamaCare raised taxes, put a strain on small businesses, and expanded Medicare. MassCare did none of those things.
Glenn, that's really all you've got? An obscure article from 4 years ago?
5 - Glenn Contrarian
An article from four years ago that proves you wrong is STILL an article that proves you wrong.
6 - Costello
Was hoping to read something of substance from the title but this was so disappointingly superficial. Federal big, state smaller. That's quite some political insight. You also left off Romney was involved in Romneycare where Obama was involved with Obamacare.
How about looking at the constitutional aspects? Why can a state can compel a person to get involved but the feds can't?
7 - Braden
Glenn, it didn't prove me wrong. It was almost irrelevant.
Costello, I took for granted your understanding of the 10th amendment.
8 - Costello
Yet didn't take for granted people knew one was state and one was federal?
9 - Braden
No, it's easy for many to assume that federal government is essentially a bigger version of state government. When in reality, the constitution delineates what rights are left to the states and what rights are left to the federal.
10 - Dr Dreadful
So...if he didn't propose a mandate, but what he proposed still forced people to buy insurance and businesses to provide insurance or face penalties...then how, exactly, is that not a mandate?
Glenn, to be fair, the way I read that quote is that the "forcing people to purchase insurance" bit refers to the Massachusetts plan, not the federal one.
The article you quote is at pains to make the distinction that Romney's national healthcare proposal does not include the mandate.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
Doesn't include a mandate...but still forces people to buy insurance and businesses to provide insurance. How, exactly, is not for all practical purposes a mandate?
We never declared war in Korea, but we all know it was a war.
12 - Dr Dreadful
Glenn, go back and read that para again. It's talking about the Massachusetts plan, which Romney readily admitted contained a mandate, not his national proposal.
13 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc (and Braden) -
'scuse me while I go flush my head down a toilet. My comment #1 and my defense thereof are wrong. Let me collect my wits for a few minutes so I can go find another windmill to go tilting at.
And Doc - thanks.
14 - Braden
Thanks, Doc (and Glenn).
15 - Dr Dreadful
That's OK, Glenn, we all make mistakes - as the hedgehog said climbing off the toilet brush.
I'm no fan of Romney, but there's no hypocrisy in that particular manifesto item.