Are Opponents of the the President’s Health Care Law overreacting to Romney?
September 10, 2012 at 4:59 pm in News, ObamaCare by Tea Party Patriots 13 Comments
Yesterday, Republican nominee for President Mitt Romney offered some possibly problematic language regarding his plan to repeal and replace the President’s health care law. This morning, Tea Party Patriots called upon Romney to clarify exactly what he meant by saying he would “not [get] rid of all of health-care reform.”
A few hours before Tea Party Patriots published its concerns, Grace-Marie Turner blogged at National Review’s “The Corner” that foes of the President’s health care law should calm down and remember that while repeal of the law is important, so is replacing the law. Turner, President of the free-market health care think tank Galen Institute, pointed out that the two policies Romney said he would keep are popular, and that without the “replace” part of “repeal and replace” health care will continue to be a public policy concern in America. Below is her blog post in full.
Calm Down, Conservatives – by Grace-Marie Turner
Some conservatives are aghast that Mitt Romney told NBC’s Meet the Press that there are some health reforms he would support.
“I’m not getting rid of all of health-care reform,” Mr. Romney said in an interview broadcast Sunday, sending conservatives into a fury. “Of course there are a number of things that I like in health-care reform that I’m going to put in place.”
Romney was responding to a question from host David Gregory who asked him what he would do about two of the most popular provisions of Obamacare. Romney said up front he would repeal Obamacare, then he immediately acknowledged there are indeed problems which demand solutions.
Romney is right. There are problems in the health sector that need to be fixed, and we can’t stick our heads in the sand and pretend otherwise. If we fail to act, the health-reform battles will return with a vengeance.
Here is the full transcript of the relevant part of the Meet the Press exchange:
GREGORY: On health care, you say that you would rescind the president’s health-care plan on day one. Does that mean that you’re prepared to say to Americans, young adults and those with pre-existing conditions, that they would no longer be guaranteed healthcare?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course not. I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan. And, you know, even in Massachusetts where I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people. Everybody . . .
GREGORY: So you’d keep that part of the federal plan?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, I’m not getting rid of all of health-care reform. Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health-care reform that I’m going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like. I also want individuals to be able to buy insurance, health insurance, on their own as opposed to only being able to get it on a tax advantage basis through their company.
Pre-existing-condition coverage and coverage for young people have been two of the more popular parts of Obama’s Affordable Care Act. It would be politically foolish to cast them aside without offering any alternative.
Romney was right to acknowledge there are problems that need to be fixed. The alarmists who think that means he won’t repeal Obamacare need to calm down. Congress will see to it that a bill reaches the Oval Office if Obamacare opponents have majorities in both houses. Then they can get to work in fixing incentives to get health reform right — without turning one-sixth of the economy over to the federal government.
When it comes to the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Tea Party Patriots fully support only one option related to reforming it – full repeal. Repeal comes first, then replacement. Turner’s excellent points notwithstanding, we will call upon the Romney campaign to clarify exactly what Mr. Romney meant in his comments.
First, we have to defeat Obama to change ANYTHING.
Second, I listened to what Romney said, so what?
If he repeals it and then introduces legislation that may have some of the same things that were in Obamacare, if it can be done in a fiscally sound way then so what?
Children on a family plan? I have my issues with it… but as long as the insurance companies were allowed to charge for that addtional family member a price that was justified, instead of forcing them to do it cheaper and passing the cost on to others, big deal.
Pre-Existing conditions is an important topic and whatever results, something has to be done to accomodate it. Unforseen things happen in everyones life at some point and people shouldn’t go bankrupt because they can never get insurance, it just has to be structured into a completely different model than Obamacare.. one that pushes market forces to lower costs so that covering pre-existing conditions doesn’t bankrupt anyone.
PEople need to stop freaking out… get rid of Obama, we work from there.
It is not up to government to “fix” anything regarding health insurance. it is up to the feds to get out of the way of it! By limiting health insurance compaines by state lines, this hampers competition, lower rates, better coverage and more flexible policies. If government got its foot off the throat of business, it could then breathe and grow and we would see a healthy competition for people with pre-existing conditions, kids at home older than 18, and other issues. It sickens me that the TEA party would at all support more government and will support this “replace” mentality.
Just in case we should not forget the list of taxes included in OBAMATAX: I wrote about the medical device tax in ObamaCare that will destroy the medical device industry, innovation and jobs in America. I explained that although ObamaCare has been classified as a giant tax, there are many taxes within the bill that people may not realize now, but they’ll sure realize them when their healthcare costs go up, not down as a result… READ MORE: http://bwcentral.org/2012/08/obama-tax-taking-a-look-at-18-obamacare-tax-hikes/
No sane insurance executive would “compete” for customers having preexisting conditions since that would reduce profits not increase profits. Overall, the issue is whether or not US citizens want to fund (by government mandate) all persons needing heath care. If this is the “want” then the key argument is whether or not a government mandate should be at the local level, the state level, or the Federal level. Those states/communities that approve of this will no doubt get an influx of sick people looking for help with their chronic disease medical bills.
Charles, I think the real issue has nothing to do with what people want, or what parts of Obamacare people might like- the real issue is how much power the government is granted by the Constitution.
I don’t see any grant of power to authorize government interference in free markets, beyond preventing internal tariffs and trade wars between the states.
Of course theft and fraud have always been illegal in all of the States…
To a point, we are already paying for people with chronic ailments and serious diseases. There’s anecdotal evidence of the lowest of the lower class committing a crime so they go to prison, where the government is responsible for their health care, and getting chemo for their cancers or whatever else they need.
I am stunned if it is accurate that Romney has said he has his own health plan! I don’t recall him saying anything like that while he was running for nomination. I was under the impression that he was making a commitment to the people that he would REPEAL OBAMACARE. I thought he commited to allowing health care to be sold & purchased across state lines which would increase competition. Would someone please correct me if I’m wrong. Thanks
That is because you and many others are not listening or hearing what he has said all along. I have been screaming about this for months but people prefer to pay more attention to the MSM hype about Romney then use their own brain. Romney has NEVER said he will repeal Obamacare. He ALWAYS says he will REPEAL AND REPLACE. Now what did you think he meant or did you not listen to what he said. Replace with what??? We are going to find out. Obamacare will be replaced with Romneycare. THEY will never allow him to stop what THEY have been trying to do for years….replace healthcare with population control. And because people failed to listen or do their research on this
globalist we are again stuck with another NWO candidate.
There are many issues worthy of debate, but few people prepared to debate the issues “on-the-level”, which is to say without preexisting positions born of emotion rather than reason. So far the Tea Party comes across as very narrow minded, simply seeking smaller Government in all things, lower expenditures, and lower taxes. These are actually commendable as objectives, even if the underlying principles are weakly stated or poorly understood and implemented (such as would be needed in a really valid solution).
Charles, the Founders wrote the Constitution to ensure that we would have a very limited federal government. The problem over many years has been that huge additional power has been given to the federal government without properly amending the Constitution, that is, without the approval of the people that Article V requires.
The Tea Party would be more relevant and useful in all these matters if it were to subscribe to and promote vigorously another way of doing Government business and hold all politicians to that way of doing Government business, using the ballot box to vote only for those candidates who understand and implement such a way of doing the business of Government. It would be nice if the media were forced to do the same of similar, as the media are a large part of the problem and offer no solutions other than whatever slant their favored party promotes or (simply) compromising two poorly understood positions. How does one distinguish between 12th grader views and those offered by kindergarteners? For most topics the media offers just that, unknowingly, as they try to give two sides to every issue.
In demonstrable modesty (I have been relatively quiet on this for many years) I can say that I penned a common-sense solution that offers a pathway for Tea Party refinement and assertiveness that is both sophisticated enough to force conformity by candidates without being too complex for the common man. Indeed, the Tea Party reflects the common man and woman desiring something better but not knowing what that is. My common sense approach seems trite and sophisticated only because it is easily understood and observed in its application, while the application is very challenging.
For use by everyone: I would vote for that candidate who addresses issues based on the 12 Technidigm elements.
For use by candidates: My “plans” are all based on the 12 Technidigm elements.
For use by debate moderators: Please state which of the 12 Technidigm elements you are addressing (for the issue at hand).