Mitt Romney's Defense of RomneyCare Sounds Suspiciously Like Obama's Defense of ObamaCare

When former Sen. Rick Santorum accused Mitt Romney of having signed a health care overhaul virtually identitical to ObamaCare, Romney responded with a lengthy defense of the plan he signed as governor of Massachusetts. 

I've noted the many similarities between the two plans before. But the resemblance extends beyond the plans themselves: Igor Volsky at ThinkProgress noticed how much Mitt Romney's defense of RomneyCare last night resembled President Obama's defense of ObamaCare, and put together the following video to highlight the similarities:

This isn't even a complete compilation of the similarities. During last night's debate, Romney also defended his plan from charges that it resembled ObamaCare by arguing that in Massachusetts, "there's no government plan." He's used this line before, but it's never helped distinguish Romney's health overhaul from Obama's: There's no "government plan" in ObamaCare either, or at least no more of one than there is in RomneyCare. Both ObamaCare and RomneyCare rely on a regulated market and an expansion of Medicaid. Nor is Romney the only one to point this out in order to defend the structure both plans share: In his State of the Union address earlier this week, President Obama touted the fact that "our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program."

In the end, Romney only ended up reinforcing the similarities between his plan and President Obama's. It's hard to make a convincing case that the RomneyCare is somehow dramatically different from ObamaCare while relying on virtually the same arguments employed by ObamaCare's most prominent defender. 

Granted, this isn't exactly a new thing for Romney. In May of last year, he gave a major speech defending RomneyCare and attacking the president's plan. But Romney's big defense of his own plan turned out to be virtually indistinguishable from a defense of ObamaCare

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The key difference in their defenses in that video is that Romney wasn't standing on water as he gave his rationale.

    Let's face it, voters wanting to do away with Obamacare are going to have to perform very high difficulty intellectual gymnastics to be happy voting Romney.

  • adam||

    No they won't. All it takes is not having a clue. And most voters don't have a clue.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Fist of Etiquette,

    Let's face it, voters wanting to do away with Obamacare are going to have to perform very high difficulty intellectual gymnastics to be happy voting Romney.


    Or simply pretend that RomneyCare doesn't exist, like the little disingenuous bastards always do.

    And before Rev Blue Moon comes here to pick a fight, there's a big difference between publishing some moldy-old and hardly known newsletters 20+ years ago and implementing a property rights-killing State mandate, so a preemptive fuck you to you.

  • ||

    If Obama wanted to get rid of Obamacare, yes. But if the choices are Romney or Obama, then the issue must be settled on another issue.

  • Shorter John||

    ROMNEY RULES!!!

  • fish||

    What issue? How does having Romney occupying public housing (He's slumming I know) improve matters except that now TEAM RED has to play defense. Since they a sufficiently similar I'd rather have Black Kennedy go down as the captain of TEAM BLUE!

  • ||

    That is the question. But the mere fact that he is indistinguishable on one issue doesn't make the choice obvious. That was my point.

  • Paul||

    Let's face it, voters wanting to do away with Obamacare are going to have to perform very high difficulty intellectual gymnastics to be happy voting Romney.

    Democrats have been limbering up for '12!

  • Old Mexican||

    It's hard to make a convincing case that the RomneyCare is somehow dramatically different from ObamaCare while relying on virtually the same arguments employed by ObamaCare's most prominent defender.


    Well, there is a big difference between the two: One shafted the population of an entire state and the other did it twice.

  • o3||

    course it sounds the same considering the individual mandate WAS a conservative position until obama liked it too...just like cap n trade

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: o3,

    course it sounds the same considering the individual mandate WAS a conservative position until obama liked it too...just like cap n trade


    A "conservative" position, or a Republican one? Don't equivocate, oh great equivocator.

  • Tony||

    Republicans used to be conservatives, or something like it. Now they're just about as radical as you guys. They say everything you say.

  • Paul||

    Republicans used to be conservatives, or something like it. Now they're just about as radical as you guys. They say everything you say.

    Everything we say! Santorum is all about individual rights. Ditto Newt. And we love Obama's Romney's healthcare plan!

    And that Ron Paul is beloved by the GOP! They just can't get enough of him!

  • ||

    the individual mandate WAS a conservative position

    As I recall, the argument was more along the lines of "ClintonCare is even worse than an individual mandate would be!"

  • BC||

    What crap.

    The individual mandate was only "a conservative position" in the sense that a few conservative think-tanks and commentators played footsie with the idea. It was never a policy embraced by a majority or even a significant minority of conservative grassroots, or advanced in a serious way by conservative politicians.

  • ||

    It would help if he'd TOTALLY FUCKING REPUDIATE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. I WAS WRONG, SORRY, PLEASE GOD I DIDN'T MEAN IT!

    It would help.

  • ||

    Yes it would. And the fact that he refuses to admit it was a mistake says very bad things about his character.

  • ||

    I agree completely. If the GOP nominee is not committed to dismantling socialism that is at least not in place yet, what good is he? I doubt he'll be particularly good on court nominees, either, so I just don't see any reason not to vote for Paul now, and the LP nominee later if Paul continues to not win.

  • ||

    And of course the media will portray him as a libertarian nihilistic radical. So when all of the problems he was sent into office to solve continue, they will blame it on his far right radicalism.

  • ||

    Damn that deregulating maniac! Damn him to hell!

  • Paul||

    I don't understand the "there's no government plan" theme.

    If there's no government plan, why did the government create and implement a plan to "fix" healthcare?

    I don't think "government plan" means what they think it means.

  • ||

    Things mean what Obama tells you they mean, Paul.

  • ||

    The Great Definer!

  • johnl||

    The individual mandate is a regressive tax. Both liberals and conservatives have at times been against regressive taxes.

  • Tim||

    Five bucks says a President Romney won't repeal Obamacare, he'll study it and tweak it.

  • Paul||

    Like No Child Left Behind! Or Gitmo!

  • ||

    I'm gonna need heavy odds before I take that bet.

  • Tony||

    As was clearly demonstrated in one of the debates, the Republican primary electorate prefers a society in which uninsured people are simply left to die.

  • ||

    No silly. We plan to use them for longevity experiments.

  • Gus||

    My hope of hopes is that you lack coverage.

  • spoofey Tony||

    As was clearly demonstrated in one of the debates, the Republican primary electorate prefers a society in which uninsured people gay men are simply left to die.

    C'mon real Tony show us how to project!

  • KB||

    You clearly don't understand how healthcare CURRENTLY works. The overall majority of hospitals are not-for-profit and legally HAVE to treat patients regardless of whether or not they have money, insurance, citizenship, etc. In other words the uninsured will not be left to die.
    Now if you had made a point of stating that the uninsured in society would likely be left with huge medical bills which would lead to them going bankrupt, then you may have a credible comment.

  • nebby||

    They don't have to treat patients, they have to stabilize them. Try going to the ER for chemo.

  • ||

    As was clearly demonstrated in one of the debates, the Republican primary electorate prefers a society in which uninsured people are simply left to die.


    Why are you concerned about the fate of the uninsured in general? You should instead be concerned with rthe fate of specific uninsured and let others worry about the rest.

    Some of them may be sex offenders. Do you think the government should take care of them?

  • Liberty||

    Eh. You'll all fall in line once you're told to rally against Obama. You may use some of these same rationalizations.

  • Brandon||

    Why does it look like Obama has a mustache in that screencap of the video?

  • ||

    As distasteful as it is to defend Romney, under our federal system there is a difference between one of the states exercising its general police power to semi-socialize its insurance market and the federal government stretching its power to regulate interstate trade to force individuals to purchase insurance coverage and otherwise to nationalize regulation of the provision of health services.

  • JamesSRowe||

    The Affordable Care Act, President Obama's health-care overhaul passed by Congress last year, was designed to make it easier for Americans in situations like Verone's to get health insurance BTW check "Penny Medical" for more information

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement