Mitt Romney has been getting a bad rap in some quarters for a few aspects of his Massachusetts Connector plan that resemble components of Hillary Care 2.0 - notably the individual mandate. While we at Olympia Business Watch have our concerns about the Massachusetts reforms and believe it foolish for Washington or any other state to try to imitate that program without first seeing how it plays out in the Bay State, we want to set the record straight that Romney's reforms are, indeed, very different from Hillary's plan. In fact, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed (registration required), Gov. Romney does an admirable job of dissecting Hillary's much ballyhooed health care agenda and pointing out exactly what's wrong with it.
Quoting Romney:
Some of the details have changed, but at the heart of Sen. Hillary Clinton's new health-care proposal are the same flaws that sunk her first version. They flow from her distrust of markets, from her distaste for profit-motivated private enterprise, and from her consequent faith that Washington knows best.
... when a sector of the economy is not working as well as it might, you should look to give the people more influence, to unleash competitive forces, and to welcome private ingenuity. The last thing you should do is apply more government.
Specifically, according to Romney, the plan will:
Raise taxes. The new plan is slated to cost $110 billion a year. And to pay for the new entitlement -- a tax hike. That in turn will slow down the economy and make the cost of [Hillary's] system grow even higher.....
Expand government insurance. People who don't obtain insurance through their employer are invited to buy a government-run, Medicare-like plan or enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). And so, more Americans will end up in government-run insurance. ...
Impose a national model on everyone. ... But the states are closer to the people, and more responsive to them. ...The senator's plan ... ignores significant differences between people and the needs of the 50 different states. Federalism is the right approach....
Significantly increase the role of the federal government at the expense of free markets. For example, Sen. Clinton proposes the creation of an entirely new government-run Medicare-like program for the uninsured. ...
Leave the mandate problem unsolved. Before you can impose a mandate on employers or individuals to purchase insurance, you need to reform state health insurance markets. Otherwise, policies can be so beefed-up with state mandated coverage and regulation that they are simply unaffordable. Then a mandate is unfair.
Echoing our past criticisms of the Connector project, Romney admits that his Massachusetts reforms were, in part, hampered by the Legislature's insistence on heavy insurance company mandates, but emphasizes the real differences between his approach and that of Sen. Clinton:
... First, we worked to reduce the burdens of regulation. The legislature insisted on more coverage mandates and regulation than I would have liked, but even so, less regulation has resulted in much lower premiums.
Significantly, he rejects the idea of a one-size-fits all approach where all states would copy Massachusetts:
I like the plan I put forward in Massachusetts. But even so, I wouldn't do what Sen. Clinton does -- impose my way on every other state. ... let's keep faith in federalism, in private markets and in individual responsibility.
And I don't think I could put it better.
