Mitt Romney, the Individual Mandate, and Personal Responsibility
Mitt Romney says he has no love for ObamaCare's individual mandate to purchase health insurance. But he continues to defend the strikingly similar state-level mandate he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts. The reason, he's often said, is that he wanted to encourage "personal responsibility." Here's Romney from over the summer, via ThinkProgress:
I will repeal ObamaCare, but the Massachusetts plan was right for Massachusetts. Personal responsibility was the way to go. People in Massachusetts favor the plan 3 to 1. If they don't like it they can get rid of it. I like what we did in our state. It won't work in Mississippi. That's what's great about a state plan. Obama is trying to impose on nation. I like personal responsibility and I like freedom.
Let's leave aside the question of whether it really counts as personal responsibility when state authorities require you to do something. Romney claims he was trying to address the so-called "free-rider problem" in health care; every year, some number of uninsured individuals showed up at emergency rooms or other health care facilities, got care, and never paid for it. This is what's known as uncompensated care. It doesn't go entirely uncompensated, however. State and federal officials pay for it through safety net funds. And one of the reasons that the federal government approved a Medicaid waiver to help pay Romney's health care overhaul was that increasing the number of Bay State residents with health insurance was supposed to rid the state of the need for safety net spending.
But it hasn't exactly worked out that way, and that's complicating the efforts to extend the state's Medicaid waiver. Via Politico:
Now CMS and Massachusetts face pressure to phase out some of the safety net funds. More than 98 percent of residents are now insured, according to the state's own figures, but demand for care at the safety net hospitals and clinics is on the rise.
"The underlying principle … was that as more people became insured through new health reform options, the funds needed for uncompensated care necessarily would decline," according to a 2009 report on the Massachusetts waiver.
However, the August study showed that community health centers and safety net hospitals saw an increased demand — although not all the care was uncompensated — during the first three years of Massachusetts health reform.
That experience spells out a larger lesson for implementation of the Affordable Care Act because of how closely the federal law follows the Massachusetts model, said a Massachusetts health policy source. The ACA scales back funding for disproportionate share hospitals — a special designation for hospitals with significantly higher shares of impoverished patients — while Medicaid is expected to absorb 16 million more people after 2014.
"The assumption that near-universal coverage will eliminate the need for extra financial help for safety net institutions is false, and Massachusetts provides the proof," the health policy consultant said.
Indeed, uncompensated care in the state's hospital system rose five percent between 2008 and 2009. The following year, it rose 15 percent. The state has already spent hundreds of millions expanding insurance coverage in hopes of solving the uncompensated care problem. In the medium to long run, it may spend billions more. But the problem is still growing. And for that, Mitt Romney is personally responsible.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"It won't work in Mississippi."
Why? Because people in Mississippi are stupid and can't deal with personal responsibility? Does that jackass actually think that counts as an answer?
"I like personal responsibility and I like freedom."
Except when endorse using state power to force people to do things and except when we are talking about places like Mississippi where they are too stupid to handle it.
This scumbag is worse than McCain.
""This scumbag is worse than McCain."'
Yet likey to be the next President.
This country is either doomed or so strong nothing will ever kill it.
Nope. Obama will get a second term. Count on it.
Wishful troll is wishful
Hey, Mitt. Fuck you, I'm not voting for you.
He is just reptilian. They should have cast him in V.
Didn't they?
Maybe they did. My eyes never got passed that Brazilian chick. Ronald Reagan could have been in that show for all I know.
You mean the woman from Firefly?
yes. Morena Baccarin I think is her name. Oh my fucking God she is amazing.
Yep.
"The reason, he's often said, is that he wanted to encourage "personal responsibility."
Romney is a lying asshole. He refused to demand that people pay for themselves, or to make those debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy.
On the contrary: He demanded to force some people to pay so that other people could live for free, resulting in doubled premiums for his victims in five years flat.
As much as I dislike Romney, I will say that there is an important distinction between a state government forcing you to have insurance than the Federal government forcing you to have insurance. The former, is, after all, constitutional per the 10th amendment. The latter not so much.
Not saying I support any sort of mandate, only that there is nothing illegal about Romneycare, even if it has been a failure in lowering healthcare costs.
Romenycare was, unlike Obamacare, totally legal. But it has been an abject failure. And rather than admit that, Romeny continues to piss on our legs and tell us it is raining.
What he is saying makes no sense. How much different is Mississippi than Massachusetts? We are all one country. That doesn't pass the laugh test. And the Democrats are going to shove that right up his ass in the general election.
I also think a state enacting healthcare reform has the added benefit of serving as a laboratory; in theory, if all fifty states try something different one of them could hit on something that works. Of course, in this situation there was plenty of evidence before RomneyCare was even passed that it wouldn't work; there's plenty of evidence AFTER it was passed that it hasn't worked; and to my knowledge Romney refuses to admit that it hasn't worked. Pudwhack.
Define hasn't work. 98% insured now... Yeah it costs more. The thing is, there are plenty of other laboratories for healthcare policy. They're called the other industrialized countries of the earth. They spend half what the US does per capita and manage to cover everyone. This experiment is over, we just haven't figured it out yet for one reason and one reason only: the insurance industry doesn't want to stop making lots and lots of money.
Idiot. The insurance industry helped write Obamacare.
You're right, and that's the main reason it's inadequate policy. It's the only reason the individual mandate exists.
I wonder if the mandate was actually a trap, and the hope was that it would be found unconstitutional and removed, thus leaving the rest of the law as a hideously underfunded mess that liberals could point to as evidence that nationalized healthcare was the only remaining hope.
No sleight-of-hand going on, it was simply the result of industry implicitly claiming that it has a constitutional right to whatever profits it declares it wants, with conservatives and libertarians cheering that philosophy on. National healthcare is the only hope, and we'll get there eventually.
What people don't often mention is that, entirely apart from Wall Street, people's shrinking net worth is a result of rising healthcare costs and employers paying more into health insurance than wages. If you guys stopped distracting from the issue in service of the idea that existing firms deserve whatever profit they declare they want, we might get somewhere.
FUCK OFF SLAVER!
By what percentage would annual national healthcare costs go down if all insurance industry profit were eliminated and all it's administrative function transferred to ther federal government?
Well much of the rest of the world has a freer market in healthcare than America. Other places that don't just get shittier healthcare.
"we'll get there eventually"
Yeah just hold your breath asshole. With a deficit this big NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Um a huge part of the deficit problem is our inflated healthcare costs. You don't do national healthcare for shits and giggles, but because it's cheaper.
Unsupported bullshit.
Insurance co only have a 2-3 profit margin
His hair will rule us all!
About this Obamacare business. Instead of referring to the mandate, it should be called the manbate.
No reason.
Since Romney kind of has a male gay pron actor vibe to his look, that kind of works.
Go 'way, manbatin'!
Yes, this is an actual picture of Mitt Romney.
"Being seven rape-faced creeps on their first lunch-hour visit to a strip-club VIP room is a matter properly left to the states. As President, I'll be just this one vaguely menacing dork, as the Constitution requires."
"FLIP-FLOPPER!"
+1
What is that thing coming out of Romney's jacket just below his tie? It doesn't look like a dollar bill.
Stain? He must have had a great time.
Vote Mitt Romney!
Piss off douchebag. Don't you have some Obama cock sucking to do?
Are you planning on voting LP if Romney gets the nomination?
Maybe. Or I just might not vote. I am not going to vote for him. If the Republicans give the finger to their base by nominating this clown, they don't deserve my vote.
This is an important question. I'm normally an unqualified yes on a question like this. This time, though, I'm going to have to really think about how dangerous another term with Herr Idiot in office really is. I think I'd vote LP, anyway, but I might consider an offensive GOP vote if Obama annoyed me enough. Even with the coming GOP Congress, I don't want this insult to ineptness in office.
I live in Maryland, so my vote doesn't count. Maybe I will write in Ted Nugent or something.
I taste no coffee or booze in this semen. He really is a Mormon!
Vote Romney!
Seriously, how the hell is he still considered the front-runner?
It's his turn. This is how the GOP works. Last time it was McCain's turn.
It's gonna be Romney/Christie, so Christie can have "his turn" in 2020.
You know, why isn't it my turn? I don't particularly want the job, but I'd be a million times better than this doofus.
I have an idea. Give me the controls over the Romneybot 2000, and I'll just run things behind the scenes. Better that way.
Maybe we could do some kind of black ops raid and cease the controls from out of the crypt beneath the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City.
I had a Mormon roommate one summer. Maybe I can blend in.
Just cut your hair, put plain on a suit and tie, ride a bicycle everywhere and try to act natural. And no swearing!!
Fuck. Really?
No fucking kidding. No swearing. They get really angry about that.
Like any swearing? Is dangit out?
yes "dang it" is out. They don't kid around about this stuff. So much as a "god darn it" will blow your cover and get us locked in the stocks in the middle of the square or something.
Huh. Well, I suppose I could manage that. If I slipped, I'd blame TV.
So we can count on Romney to never call a reporter a "major league asshole"?
Yes.
So I guess Johnson's latest YouTube ad rules him out for all the Mormons. Damn! Otherwise I was sure he was their man.
He is the least threatening to the establishment. I think the powers that be know Obama is toast. So they are desperately trying to make sure that whoever replaces him doesn't actually mean to change anything.
He is the political equivalent of the victory formation in football. The Rs know they have this election won if they don't do anything stupid. Just hike the ball, take a knee and it's game over.
That is true. But the problem is that the game doesn't end after the election. You have to actually do something once you win.
Doing something stupid would be nominating Romney.
Not that he won't crush Obama, but it's the least safe path, I think.
I really think most voters don't like him.
Small sample size, but over half of the Republicans I talk to say they'll vote third party if he gets the nomination.
I most likely will. I need to think about which GOP candidates I could live with besides Paul and Johnson. Romney being possibly the least appealing.
I have never met a single person who likes him or wants to vote for him. McCain and Dole were the two worst candidate in memory and I knew plenty of people really liked them and wanted to see them win.
Forgive me for going all Pauline Keal. But I just can't understand how he is going to win the nomination.
Well, to back up, I don't think he has much chance of winning. He got some love last time and failed pretty badly.
His ceiling is about 30%, I think.
Here's a theory: Romney can't win this nomination. Whoever is the last conservative standing is going to win it. As long as the "leader" keeps changing, no one else will have enough funding besides Ron Paul to go deep into these primaries. Thus, Paul is going to win the nomination.
Really, the GOP has to decide what's more important: fixing the economy or killing brown people.
Oddly, I favor fixing the economy. Does this make me an outlier?
If you don't kill your enemies, your economy doesn't do you much good. Killing our enemies is pretty much the number one duty of the President.
We were ALL your enemies, making our deaths justified!
So far, yes.
I love you, pro libertate. That's what I fixed, and it hasn't been the same since I left.
~Slick Willy
P.S. Miss me yet?
That is an interesting theory. At some point, the "anyone but Romney" vote will coalesce around one candidate. Right now that looks like Cain. But he could easily flame out the way Perry did. If can flames out, then Paul is probably next in line. And Paul has a hard core group of supporters and enough money to stay in it until the very end.
And Paul doesn't have to be a peacenik or an adventurer. All he has to do is take the "my foreign policy is 'rubble doesn't make trouble', 'talk soft carry a big stick'" and the base will eat it up. You can do that and still not be an interventionist.
I think his more recent ad about foreign policy and "securing the border" is attempting that. I think he also benefits from not having gotten into the mix with Santorum on the subject the last few debates.
At some point, the "anyone but Romney" vote will coalesce around one candidate. Right now that looks like Cain. But he could easily flame out the way Perry did. If can flames out, then Paul is probably next in line.
Here's the thing, though. The media is working hard to prevent Paul from getting his "turn". All of his successes have been ignored: straw poll victories, fundraising totals, any upticks in polls, etc. However, anytime another candidate has a success, it gets splashed all over the headlines.
Hence, Bachmann's build-up to victory at Ames was huge and gave her a boost, Perry's entrance into the race was all over the place and gave him a boost, until people found out he was a blithering idiot, and Cain wins one measly straw poll and is suddenly the frontrunner. It would be funny if it weren't so obscene.
The longer Paul stays in 3rd/4th the better. The left is already pissing themselves over Cain's 9-9-9 and his willingness to say "i don't know"
The longer Paul can stay somewhat under the radar the better, as it's not like the press is going to write love sonnets about him
Once we get actual votes returns from Iowa and NH, all of this predictifying will be ancient history. My guess is that the results will be surprising to almost everything.
I don't think any of the candidates should feel too comfortable about their current perceived position in the race.
It's about as idiotic as it gets, deeming one candidate as doing better than another when there hasn't been a vote cast.
It's another reason why the Johnson snub is so unprincipled. Two-term governor with just as many votes for him as any other candidate.
But come on, he's fringe.
And socialists aren't?
And socialists aren't?
Hardly, Pro'L Dib. Have you not been paying attention to the OWS nut bars? Yes, yes some lucid ones have been sympathetic to issues many l's hold dear (ending crapitalism, prostesting bailouts, drug legalization, the one in my city wants to also eliminate the death penalty) but the propensity for wealth redistribution and expansion of government is rather popular these days.
If people can't get jobs the conventional methods or create their own business, out of "rational" self-interest, they will resort to government theft.
The GOP establishment is comprised of the most arrogant inept assholes on the planet. Like an army of David Frums. (Check out his National Post pity column the guy is just SOOOO confident that the TP is a passing fad, and reason will prevail). If it's Romney vs Obama, I'll take a third party candidate, even if it means 2nd term of Obama because any defeat for Romney is death for the GOP establishment. What's Steve Forbes up to lately?
I don't think Romney's going to lose support anyway, but Paul has a ton of skeletons in his closet waiting to come out and do the Danse Macabre. His drug positions, newsletter scandals, campaign payments to family members, etc. He had the same core support and money in 2008 and couldn't do squat with it.
I would say that Santorum is a much more likely "next in line" guy than Paul. But I still think conservatives will give up and "love the one their with" as I have.
Permission to steal this?
If anyone is capable of botching the snap, the R's will find a way.
The Miracle at the Meadowlands
Based on the surprises that came down during and shortly before the early primaries in 2008, I think we're a long ways from being able to predict who the GOP nominee will be.
My guess is that it won't be Romney, but I'm not willing to wager actual money on that guess.
Doesn't matter who the nominee is, he'll be crushed by the forces of economic populism. Every single one of these idiots has declared that the problem with the economy is not enough tax cuts for millionaires. There is no coherent economic message in the GOP, and it will spell their doom.
But it's gonna be Romney. Sorry.
At least, that's how it always happens in my fantasy when I'm fapping to Obama's picture.
handlejack! [drink]
Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim:
The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
Bertrand Russell
Damn, you finally figured the Obama administration out!
Bravo, troll. Bravo.
Semi-related: Ron Paul to Make Major Announcement in Las Vegas.
VP candidate? Big endorsement? New campaign porn flick? What?
I know, what the hell could he be announcing at this point the campaign?
He's George Washington, back from the dead?
'Cause I'd totally vote for Reincarnated George Washington.
Hell, I'd vote for Zombie Washington.
I'd vote for a crackpot who merely claimed to be channeling the spirit of George Washington.
We have a winnah.
Ron Pauls' announcement is his economic plan, it seems.
After this thread, I'm really disappointed.
Actually, that article says that both Herman Cain and Jon Huntsman plan to boycott next week's debate in Nevada unless Nevada moves its caucus date back to "make room" for New Hampshire. I am salivating at the thought of a debate with only six participants, and no Cain and Huntsman to suck up a big chunk of the oxygen.
This is what's known as uncompensated care. It doesn't go entirely uncompensated, however. State and federal officials pay for it through safety net funds.
And the safety net funds come from lollipop sweat and unicorn farts, right?
Except when endorse using state power to force people to do things and except when we are talking about places like Mississippi where they are too stupid to handle it.