Mitt Romney

RomneyCare Returns


No one should be too surprised by the fact that the Romney campaign appears to have decided to start touting RomneyCare, the statewide health care overhaul signed while Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts: Despite criticism of the plan and the way it paved the way for ObamaCare, which Romney has lambasted, Romney has always defended his own health overhaul, qualifying that defense only by saying that it might not be right for other states and that the Democratic administration that succeeded him in the governor's office botched the implementation. Otherwise, he's stuck to his guns, even when they've threatened to shoot him in the foot. 

What's odd about the decision to talk up RomneyCare now is that it's so unnecessary. Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul brought up Romney's state-based health plan in response to an ugly, error-filled ad by a pro-Obama group run by former Obama press staffer Bill Burton. The ad implicitly accuses Romney of having killed a woman because she lost her health insurance when Romney's former company, Bain Capital, closed the steel mill where she* her husband worked.

But Romney wasn't actually participating in the day-to-day activities of Bain when she was let go; she didn't die until five years after Bain closed the plant she was working at; and the woman's husband, who is the face of the ad, has admitted that his wife retained her primary health insurance from a different employer following the closure of the plant.

Yet instead of simply debunking the fact-challenged ad, Saul's response was to insist that "if people had been in Massachusetts, under Gov. Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care. There are a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their health care in President Obama's economy."

It's a strange, contradictory argument. What the Romney campaign seems to be saying is that people in the state of Massachusetts are better off because Romney did for them what Obama did for the entire country — and what Romney has promised to undo for everyone outside of his home state.  

Yes, there is a difference between passing an ObamaCare-style plan at the state level and at the federal level. What's constitutional at the state level isn't necessarily constitutional at the federal level. But Romney has described ObamaCare not only as "bad law" but also as "bad policy." And as a matter of policy, the difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare is a difference of scale rather than a difference of kind.

Nor does it suggest any coherent future health policy. If Romney's preferred method of fixing the health system is to expand insurance through a policy vehicle like RomneyCare, then why insist so strongly on repealing ObamaCare, which is essentially RomneyCare at the federal level? Is his belief that every state should simply pass its own version of RomneyCare? (He has, after all, touted the Massachusetts plan as "a model for the nation.") If so, how is that substantially different, for the end user, from doing essentially the same thing through ObamaCare? Heck, thanks to the Supreme Court and the law's exchange subsidy provisions, it already looks like many states are going to have the ability to opt out of much of the law. So what policy does Saul's defense of RomneyCare imply? 

Maybe it's a mistake to look at this through a policy lens. But if this is a general election strategy — a shift to the center — I can't see that it's likely to be very effective. In touting RomneyCare, all the Romney campaign has succeeded in doing is further weakening Romney's criticism of Obama's unpopular health law while reinforcing the perception that Romney is a pandering flip-flopper. When Obama passed a health care overhaul that relied on a combo of Medicaid, private insurance subsidies, and an individual mandate, it was terrible, terrible. When Romney did the same thing for his own state, it was praiseworthy. This has been Romney's awkward position since the current presidential race began. But he's tried to stay quiet about it in recent month, and I'm not sure why he felt the need to remind people of it now.

*Correction: It was the woman's husband who worked at the plant that was closed. 


NEXT: Violent Student Protests in Chile

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. totally agree this was tactical stupidity by the Romney campaign. It probably won’t cost him a single vote, but will make it a little harder to pull the lever.

    1. So don’t.

    2. Gary Johnson, man.

  2. Bain Capital, closed the still mill where she worked.

    There’s a mill that makes stills?

    1. Fixed! Thanks for the catch.

      1. It was nothing. Pointing out other people’s mistakes is just a hobby of mine.

        1. The spelling error isn’t nearly as incompetent as the factual one

  3. Most important election eeeevvvveeerrrr

    1. Of course. It’s the choice between RomneyCare and ObamaCare!

    2. I’ve found myself hoping that whichever one I read about last loses. But hearing Obama talk can make me want him to lose for a coupe of days no matter what.

  4. Otherwise, he’s stuck to his guns, even when they’ve threatened to shoot him in the foot.

    No worries, he’s got great coverage under obamneycare.

  5. “The ad implicitly accuses Romney of having killed a woman because she lost her health insurance when Romney’s former company, Bain Capital, closed the steel mill where she worked.”

    Suderman obviously doesn’t care for the tediousness of research. The woman was the wife of an employee at GST. Has he even seen the ad? Goggle…how does it work?

    1. lmfao…doesn’t work if you don’t spell google correct either.

  6. Seriously though, if he were smart he would have denounced the plan and blamed the democrats in the legislature or the voters in Mass, but his pride keeps getting in his way. How can he expect to argue against Obamacare otherwise? I guess it doesn’t matter. It’s not like TEAM voters are bothered by cognitive dissonance.

    1. To be fair, he doesn’t even really need to argue against it. Just use the economy and it should be an easy win.

      Though using Obamacare would make it even easier.

    2. He signed the Mass heathcare law. He crossed the Rubicon a long time ago.

      1. He could admit that it was a well intentioned mistake. And that unlike Obama, he learns from his mistakes.

      2. Libertarians can excuse Romneycare on 10th Amendment grounds, the states as laboratories of democracy, etc. I certainly do. One of the most insidious aspects of national programs is that there are no control groups, so statists can point to people who benefit from Social Security/Medicare/whatever, and anti-statists are left with statistical and hypothetical scenarios about how people would be better off without them. But with Romneycare we can compare the Massachusetts results with other states. It’s harder to hide or excuse the failures of programs done at a state level.

    3. A politician denouncing their own plan would be akin to a stock broker calling BS on their ability to invest. The blame card has already been played and the result is:

      “This was pretty good considering the circumstances”

    4. Mitt Romney:
      “What I did in Massachusetts was just a STATE plan. I think everyone in the country should have Romneycare. But not Obamacare, because he’s a democrat.”

  7. If Romney is this terrible at running a campaign, how crappy a President would he be?

    1. Conversely, in 2008, Obama ran a great campaign, so he must have had a great first term.

      1. Fair enough. But this shit should be like shooting fish in a barrel for Romney.

  8. It should only be expected that Mitt would go through spokespersons as Spinal Tap goes through drummers considering what a difficult job it is trying to speak for someone with no actual beliefs.

    1. That’s really unfair to Romney. He actually believes he should be President.

    2. tony – a gop friend (yes, i have a few) told me to vote romney cause “he’s whatever you need him to be, whenever you need it”…and that’s a republican!

      actually its the best argument ive heard to vote romney.


    1. don’t even read him.

  10. Was there ever any doubt the Romney campaign wouldn’t go full retard…

  11. Is the GOP really this stupid? Or are they trying to throw the campaign? Or both?

  12. “Repeal and Replace”???? Why not just repeal?

    1. Repeal liberal Democrats and replace them with liberal Republicans.

      Lather, rinse, repeat…

    2. i agree no replacement is needed. However, talking to people….I hear things like coverage shouldnt be through work, should be portable, etc. This is what “replace” means for many. It’s this season’s “mend it dont end it”

      1. I hear things like coverage shouldnt be through work, should be portable, etc.

        So let’s use more government to fix the problems caused by the government!

        1. Just repeal all the bullshit health care regulations and let the market figure it out.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.