I'll Bet 10 Grand You Can't Pin Down Mitt Romney on Whether His Health Care Plan Is a Model for the Nation*
Tough choices in political punditry: Choosing whether to take sides with Mitt Romney or Rick Perry in a bet about what Romney has said about health policy. Perry's hopelessly out of his depth when it comes to policy details, and Romney's been on just about every side of every major political issue, health care in particular. Can't they both be wrong?
At Saturday's GOP primary debate in Iowa, Perry accused Romney of stating in an early edition of his 2010 book, No Apology, that the health insurance mandate Romney signed into law in Massachusetts was a model for the nation—and then erasing the line from a later edition. In response, Romney bet his rival ten grand that he didn't write what Perry accused him of.
Romney did cut a line about the mandate from his book, but, as is frequently the case in these debates, Perry seems to be confused about the particulars. Yet Perry's charge is not entirely without merit: Romney's book doesn't quite live up to Perry's accusation, but Romney has said essentially what Perry accused him of saying in other instances.
Let's start with the exchange from Saturday's debate:
RICK PERRY: I'm– I'm– (THROAT CLEARING) I'm listenin' to you, Mitt, and I'm hearin' you say all the right things. But I read your first book and it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts which should be the model for the country. And I know it came out of– of the– the reprint of the book. But, you know, I'm just sayin', you were for individual mandates, my friend.
MITT ROMNEY: You know what? You've raised that before, Rick. And– you're simply wrong.
RICK PERRY: It– it– it was true then. (CHUCKLE) It's true now.
MITT ROMNEY: That– now, this– Rick, I'll– I'll tell you what. (CHUCKLE) 10,000 bucks– (APPLAUSE) $10,000 bet?
RICK PERRY: I'm not in the bettin' business, but, okay.
MITT ROMNEY: Oh, I– I'll–
RICK PERRY: I'll show you the– I'll– I'll– I'll show you the book.
MITT ROMNEY: I wrote– I've got the book. And–
RICK PERRY: And we'll show– (LAUGH)
MITT ROMNEY: And I– and I– and I wrote the book. And I haven't– and chapter seven is a section called The Massachusetts Model. And I say as close as I can quote, I say, "In my view, each state should be able to– to fashion their own program for the specific needs of their distinct citizens." And then I go on to talk about the states being the laboratories of democracy. And we could learn from one another. I have not said, in that book, first edition or the latest edition, anything about our plan being a national mo– model imposed on the nation.
The right course for America, and I said this durin' the debates the last time around, I'll say it now and time again, is to let individual states– this is a remarkable nation. This idea of federalism is so extraordinary. Let states craft their own solutions. Don't have ObamaCare put on us by the federal government.
In this particular instance, Romney is correct: He did cut a line from his book regarding the national implications for his plan. But it didn't say that the Massachusetts mandate should be a model for the country. In the hardcover version, Romney touted some of the virtues of his Massachusetts health care plan, then said: "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care." In the paperback version, he changed the line to read, "And it can be done without letting government take over health care."
That alteration is revealing in a lot of ways: It suggests Romney's unwillingness to stand behind his words, and it highlights his anxiety about his repeated suggestions that his Massachusetts health care plan could provide some basis for a national health policy overhaul. But Romney never actually says, as Perry accused, that the "mandate in Massachusetts…should be the model for the country."
But you can see where Perry's notion comes from. In years past, Romney has explicitly confirmed that he believes his plan should be a "model for the nation," and predicted that the country would end up with some sort of mandate-driven approach. Watch below:
Now, the most charitable interpretation is that Romney merely thinks that his plan for states is to be adopted at the state level. He's indicated as much on a number of occasions, saying that there's a lot states can learn from the plan he passed in Massachusetts. But even there he's changed his mind, saying in 2007 that it could provide a model for most states, but reversing himself last week, telling The Washington Examiner that he wouldn't recommend RomneyCare, in its entirety, for any state at all. So Mitt Romney's position on RomneyCare appears to be that it's a model for the nation, but neither the federal government nor any state should adopt it themselves.
*Note: I'm not actually betting $10,000.
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
No amnesty!
*barf*
Ironically, this might cost Romney some votes among Mormons because he suggested betting was an acceptable behavior.
Not many, though. “He’s a Mormon and a Republican” is all most of them will need to know before voting for him.
Considering Reid’s continued success in NV, I don’t think that Republican is even a requirement.
Reid has explicitly said he’s doesn’t do very well among the Mormons in NV.
But, unlike neighboring UT, NV is only about 7% LDS, so liberal Las Vegas is where Reid does well, and loses pretty much the rest of the state.
There are some Democratic Mormons — I’d guess maybe 25% or so, based on the LDS I’ve known in Hawaii.
But Romney never actually says, as Perry accused, that the “mandate in Massachusetts?should be the model for the country.”
But he has said that the Massachusetts plan (which includes a mandate) should be a model for the nation.
You’ll pardon me if I think Perry was damn close enough.
I’ll take that bet.*
Nobody likes long odds like a gambler.
*Note: I am not actually accepting a bet for $10,000.
But it didn’t say that the Massachusetts mandate should be a model for the country. In the hardcover version, Romney touted some of the virtues of his Massachusetts health care plan, then said: “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care.” In the paperback version, he changed the line to read, “And it can be done without letting government take over health care.”
Huh?
I think journalists have a different definition of things then the rest of humanity. It looks to me that Romney did what Perry said he did.
You have to look at the specific passage in question, and what came before the altered line in the book. Here’s the entire original paragraph:
In this passage, Romney is promising to accomplish the listed goals — expanded coverage, affordability, etc. — for everyone in the country. This is different than saying that the Massachusetts mandate should be the model for the nation.
Now, I think it’s pretty clear that, when the Massachusetts plan passed, Romney hoped he could take it national, somehow. But that particular passage is carefully written to avoid actually proposing a mandate as a national model.
You have to look at the specific passage in question, and what came before the altered line in the book. Here’s the entire original paragraph:
In this passage, Romney is promising to accomplish the listed goals — expanded coverage, affordability, etc. — for everyone in the country. This is different than saying that the Massachusetts mandate should be the model for the nation.
Now, I think it’s pretty clear that, when the Massachusetts plan passed, Romney hoped he could take it national, somehow. But that particular passage is carefully written to avoid actually proposing a mandate as a national model.
And enough with the weaseling around about whether Romney thought his plan should be adopted only at the state level, and never ever, no way, no how, at the national level.
He thought it would do just fine as a federal plan. While he said on several occasions that it was a model for the nation or the country, he never (until very recently) said “but not a federal plan”. And if what you’re really thinking is “states-only, not federal”, then you damn well say it.
His plan is failing at the state level. How does that qualify him for being president?
Perry’s line of attack though seems to be to irritate Romney until Romney screws up. Typical Fabian strategy of a loser like Perry. Romney’s cracks are showing, however. A couple more debates and Romney might actually assualt Perry.
The whole “bet me” business is very school boy.
The Coot in the Suit
This is the place to start if you want to learn about Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul has been a coot since before you were born. He began running for President when Angus Young was still in short pants. In this richly illustrated autobiography, find out the ups and downs of Dr. Paul, his loves and losses and what keeps him awake at night other than his 80 year old bladder.
http://drpaul2012.wordpress.co…..he-suit-2/
C-. Mildly clever concept, piss-poor execution.
I liked the Angus reference.
It would have been a fairly successful troll if he had stopped after one comment. Commenting several times in a row becomes a big time troll failure. People just stop reading and scroll past.
Rectal can’t help herself, though. Overdoing a shitty concept is what she does. Bless her fat little heart.
What Was I Scared Of? Inflation!
In this remarkably poignant introspective written in diary form, Dr. Paul exposes his deepest fear, with the word “Inflation” scrawled madly across page after page. Reading this will make you yearn for bygone days when the economy ran like a sewing machine except for the infrequent depressions, near-constant recessions, bank panics, stock market busts and crushing poverty. If you think standing in a bread line is a good time to talk to your neighbors about Jesus, you’ll love Dr. Paul’s prescriptions.
http://drpaul2012.wordpress.co…..flation-2/
There’s a Taxman in my Pocket!
The only thing scarier than inflation is The Taxman! Once he creates a symbiotic relationship with your back pocket, there is no running away from him. The Taxman has been vexing Dr. Paul in particular since the graduated tax schedule was instituted. Having to do really hard math WHILE being robbed by The Man is insult on top of injury. To keep the Taxman from having a monopoly on your money, Dr. Paul’s simplified tax plan is Pay 10% or $200.
http://drpaul2012.wordpress.co…..-pocket-2/
symbiotic implies that both parties benefit. No, the taxman is simply a parasite.
Why do we pay so much in taxes, you ask? The short answer is you don’t. However, Dr. Paul does because he’s really freaking rich. He owns gold mines and stuff. But for the little piddly bit of taxes YOU pay, the reason is simple- you have to feed the children of lazy, unemployed people. Dr. Paul explains how your tax money doesn’t fund anything you will ever use but instead goes specifically to welfare, foreign aid, and the occasional preposterous scientific study, like the mating habits of marmots or something equally ridiculous.
http://drpaul2012.wordpress.co…..bunches-2/
Re: Grammatically challenged,
So you do – implied in your answer, as you excluded yourself after having included yourself with the use of the pronoun “we.”
Who are you talking to, OM?
Anything above 0% government theft is too much. Dunno about you, but my household pays marginal tax rates for all levels of government combined of about 2/3 of income, which seems plenty excessive even if you don’t consider taxation theft.
Lost in all of this “state-run healthcare” is the fact that the MA plan relies on 50% federal funds (according to Romney himself):
http://thinkprogress.org/polit…..ral-funds/
So, even if all 50 states implement Romney’s plan, the federal gov’t will be funding half of it. As it is, taxpayers in 49 other states get the “benefit” of contributing to the people of MA.
Interesting. Odd that none of our Giant Media Brains or Cunning Political Wizards have thought to ask him about that.
*Note: I’m not actually betting $10,000.
Oh, come on, Peter! You can donate the winnings to H&R. Minus profit, of course. 😉
I got your Lede Suderman: “Same Mitt, Different Day”.
I think in the name of accuracy this should be changed to “Different Mitt, Same Day”.
Romney is clearly rhetorically challenged but am I the only one who doesn’t see the big deal in the 10k bet? All of these guys are rich. The Obamessiah is even richer than some of them. Almost all of our Presidents have been rich guys. Would you really trust a poor guy to do the job?