Mitt Romney Finds the Republican Problem on Health Care

The Trail at The Washington Post details an exchange in which Mitt Romney got a few lessons on the health care problems of the working class. This is just a small sample:

“After we pay our huge deductibles for our insurance and our cost for our prescriptions, there’s nothing left,” she said.

“Are you a Massachusetts resident?” Romney asked.

“No I’m a New Hampshire resident,” Griffin said, and then added, before Romney could jump in, that “we pay over $1,000 a month for our insurance. Then we have co pays. Every time you go to the doctor, it’s $50 a visit. Then you have co-pays for our prescriptions. Can you tell me what your co pay is?”

“Yes,” Romney said. “$10 for each prescription.”

“That’s very nice isn’t it?” Griffin answered dryly.

“Yes. What are yours? Romney asked.

“Mine are like $30-$50. I have three sick children.”

This provides an excellent reminder that the health crisis isn’t limited to the uninsured. Mitt Romny tried to answer, but it was obvious he has no plan to help. This will make it hard for any Republican to get elected in 2008.

Republicans might respond that this isn’t the role of government. By their logic, government shouldn’t get involved should you be robbed, your house catches on fire, or the country is invaded. Only the most radical libertarian argues that government shouldn’t be involved with providing police protection, fire departments, and a military. For most of the industrialized world it is also accepted that government has a role in health care. This does not need to be “socialized medicine” as Republicans scream. The plans offered by the Democratic candidates will help alleviate the problem while preserving our system of private delivery of medical care.

Republicans will have a hard time winning in 2008, which is a shame for Mitt Romney. Imagine a socially liberal businessman who was involved in expanding health care coverage for his state. This is the type of person who could win in a blue state, to become Governor or possibly even President. Unfortunately such a person cannot win the Republican nomination–which is another reason why it will be hard for the Republicans to win the general election.

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Comments

  1. 1
    I need health care says:

    My family needs health care, this is a very important issue to me.

    You are so out to lunch on this, your article is obviously very biased. Romeny is the ONLY candidate that has any claim to helping in the Health Care issue. He accomplished something in four years that Hillary couldn’t accomplish in 8.

    I don’t vote party lines I vote for the candidate. Why would I vote for someone who has only “talked” healthcare. My vote is for experience, I vote for Mitt.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    You miss the whole point of the post. Mitt is runniing away from the Mass. health care plan. He might make a good candidate if he hadn’t moved so far to the right on many issues, including health care.

  3. 3
    cwpete says:

    “You miss the whole point of the post. Mitt is runniing away from the Mass.”

    Simply not true. You need to re-watch that very same video. Did you miss the part where he brought up his MA health plan to explain to this woman what he has done in his state for health care? That is hardly running away in my book.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    cwpete,

    I’m referring to Romney’s full campaign, not a single event. We know Romeny will flip flop from moment to moment when expedient. It doesn’t mean anything if he brought up his heatlth care plan when cornered like this, and otherwise tries to distance himself from the plann.

  5. 5
    Eric Dondero says:

    It is not accurate to state that “only the most radical libertarians believe that government doesn’t have a role in health care, fire protection, ect…”

    This is not true. Mainstream libertarians also believe that government is the problem, not the solution. True, radical libertarians just want to abolish it all. Mainstream libertarians would legalize private alternatives, and if the private alternatives prove to be better, than we would phase out the governmental functions.

    Government is the problem, not the solution. Even in Health Care. We should move towards a more privatized solution, not more national socialism.

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    “It is not accurate to state that “only the most radical libertarians believe that government doesn’t have a role in health care, fire protection, ect…””

    First of all, go back to may actual statement rather than your limited quotation: “Only the most radical libertarian argues that government shouldn’t be involved with providing police protection, fire departments, and a military.”

    That most certainly is accurate. The term libertarian is applied to a wide variety of views. Sometimes it is used in the “big tent libertarian” manner which people like Bill Maher use it, where they want limitations on government but not a radical roll back from present functions. Often libertarian is applied to those who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative but also would maintain many of the current government functions. When used in this way, eliminaing these functions would be more radical than these libertarians propose.

    Then there are people such as yourself who most would not consider to be libertarian who support the Iraq war and restrictions on civil liberties. If you back the Iraq war and enforcement of restrictions on civil liberties, then eliminating the police and military would be more radical than what you advocate.

    Finally we get to the more pure use of libertarian. Even then there is disagreement between limited government libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. Those who support eliminating the police and military remain the most radical libertarian.

    “Mainstream libertarians would legalize private alternatives, and if the private alternatives prove to be better, than we would phase out the governmental functions.”

    Some libertarians might try to bridge the differences between limited government libertarianism and anarchism in such a manner. I’ve also known a number of limited government libertarians who strongly objected to anarcho-capitalism and argued that government was needed for some fuctions. Compared to them, those who would eliminate the police and military are more radical.

    Discussing libertarianism leaves a great deal of ambiguity, but using any definition of libertarianism, those who would elimiate police and the military are the most radical.

    “Even in Health Care. We should move towards a more privatized solution, not more national socialism.”

    That is a bogus debating tactic often employed by right wingers. The alternatives are not a privatized soultion or “national socialism.” The solutions offered by the right are not increased privatization of health care, but simply forcing a greater burden of payment for health care on individuals as opposed to insurance. I’ve discussed the reasons why this is unrealistic in many other posts. The advantage of many liberal proposals is that they provide a way to make health insurance more affordable while avoiding socialist ideas.

Leave a comment