Blaming RomneyCare for ObamaCare is like blaming lettuce and tomato for a cheeseburger.  Any blame is false and irrational.

Saying Romney is not conservative because of RomneyCare is nonsense.  RomneyCare was lauded by conservatives for its use of conservative principles - and he specified no new taxes, no employer fees, only free market-based and only "mandating" that "free riders" pay their fair share.  It met a state need.  It was a conservative way of doing some good for real people.

To come to a reality-based assessment of RomneyCare, just read the two short sections below.


Even the very conservative Heritage Foundation was credited with being the basis for ObamaCare.  for ObamaCare is as preposterous as blaming jet propulsion for wars, bricks for an ugly building, or good ideas that are misused for the misuse!

Or the Heritage Foundation response to Obama crediting them for the basis of ObamaCare:  "The Obama health-care law 'builds' on the Heritage health reform model only in the sense that, say, a double-quarter-pounder with cheese 'builds' on the idea of a garden salad. Both have lettuce and tomato and may be called food, but the similarities end there."

"What Obama and Capitol Hill did was to take a mainstream idea and push it toward a much more interventionist, regulatory model, as opposed to the original idea, which was more market-based,"

There is a huge difference and anybody not seeing it has failed to look in even the slightest detail.  Even a cursory view would yield an easy perspective: one is 70 pages and the other is 2700 pages!   See RCare compared to OCare and the individual mandate (and for even more differentiation, read ObamaCare is hugely different).
If you want to see what went wrong here, read the logic errors of cause: "precedence" and "being there" - it will help one make better decisions, avoid errors, and not be caught in fool's web of illogic.

(Some may like to see the "ad" version of this.)


Romney's proposal and design was based entirely on conservative ideas and principles - and he got as much of it through an 85% Democratic legislature as he could. 

As he took it up "he did so with the blessing of the Heritage Foundation. The idea was, essentially, people who were getting a free ride with respect to their healthcare would now have to pay. No more getting healthcare for free."

"In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney's plan as one of the most promising strategies out there. I know, because I've been part of the Heritage Foundation team advising the governor and his staff on the design..."   Source 

See  RomneyCare is a masterpiece of conservative accomplishment and  Praise From Conservatives, Before ObamaCare 

Notable quotes:

Conservatives were for the individual mandate, before they were against it, after OCare passed.

"My plan is based on personal responsibility and allowing the free market to work in a more effective manner."

"This is his advantage, he can speak well on a strong Democratic issue like health care," Huffington said.

Optional, for those with greater interest only:

BOTTOMLINE: (For further clarification, see RCare compared to OCare and the individual mandate.)

BASED ON ENTIRELY CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES, and lauded by conservatives.   Conservatives Sowed Idea Of Health Care Mandate - how soon they forget!   (Applauded by Conservatives for use of conservative principles and innovation achieving a greater good for the uninsured.)

NOT A GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.  Romney insisted on it being free market.

Only a COST SHARING requirement for "free riders", to prevent state from taxpayers paying for those who could afford health insurance.

     Romney vetoed Democratic legislature's fee for businesses
     The 85% Democratic legislature did slip in some items, which Romney vetoed but they overrode.

NO NEW TAXES (Vs. ObamaCare of 3.8% additional taxes, plus lots of fees) Romney insisted on that.

Low Complexity:  Massachusetts bill:  70 pages.  ObamaCare: 2700 pages

LANDMARK ACHIEVEMENT, supported by those on the left and the right.

ObamaCare is completely different, an extreme, borrowing only a few basics. See RCare compared to OCare.
I think that it would be best to look at RCare compared to OCare and the individual mandate, if you want to quickly understand what actually happened.  And figure out if there really was an "individual mandate" or what really went on.

Why the bill had to be done

    A bill was going to be passed anyway, so Romney gathered together experts, who proposed innovative
         ideas to improve a bill that was going to be passed anyway.  They did the best they could against an
         85% Democratic legislature
    Uninsured residents were not covered, which had a high cost to it
    $395 million in federal funds - Required to be restructured to go to individuals rather than institution.
    Romney only one of all states to request to keep saved funds of $580 million

Coverage very high

    98.1 percent of state residents
    99.8 percent of children; 99.6 percent of seniors

Easy overview: Just go to RCare compared to OCare and the individual mandate.  This should be sufficient for most people to see that Romney just proposed "cost sharing" and did a few big rescues.

Past Governor William Weld:  "He signed into law a health insurance reform modeled on a conservative market-oriented approach that emphasizes personal responsibility."  
(Source for reference or further info:  Romney Is The Kind Of Leader We Need.)  


Let's first handle RomneyCare clarifications, as there are massive misunderstandings and mischaracterizations, for obvious reasons.  Then we will show the differences, though it is no fault of Romney's that the Obama people were smart enough to look and see what they could use from the landmark bill. (The illogical accusation of guilt by association is totally unjustified and the accusations about Romney not using conservative principles are simply not true - it is just a false political football - we should be talking about the principles and how they are violated in ObamaCare.)

Take the quiz to see what the truth actually is versus the accusations and twistings - and then rate its smartness and conservativeness.

Convervatives endorsed the plan en masse, until ObamaCare happened.   Read Gingrich's Endorsement  endorsement of the idea of the plan (and of the individual mandate nationally, since 1993) - and the widespread support by conservative.  In fact, both Gingrich and Santorum endorsed it (click on the link).

Abortion lie.  Gingrich told a "mistruth" about Romney putting in abortion (he didn't, the courts did), and after the bill abortions went down!  (Romney inserted a co-pay feature to help cope with the court's mandate.
"...learned that he had taxpayer paid abortion as part of RomneyCare", implying he had inserted and/or approved it, but he never did.  (Video)
Planned Parenthood mistruth.  "...learned that he put in Planned Parenthood by law into RomneyCare"
He was forced by the Democrats if we wanted it to pass to put Planned Parenthood in the law, but he only allowed them to be a member of the Connector Board.  There is no other provision about PP in the law.

Guilt by association - A gross misjustice is done here, blaming (illogically) the innovators for someone else adopting some of the ideas.  See Rational Decision Making - Unravelling What Is False And Manipulative.
There is zero blame that should go to Romney here!

He defends it and is therefore for ObamaCare - Totally illogical (see Rational Decision Making).  Gingrich says he is now absolved of advocating the individual mandate because he has changed his mind.  Romney simply says that the bill had merit, for other practical reasons and necessities, but that can't be logically stretched to "therefore he supports the individual mandate nationally" (which he totally doesn't!).  (Video interview that is specific.)

"Romneycare sent costs spiraling out of control" (NOT!) In Massachusetts, "hiking premiums, squeezing household budgets."   Rated 100% untrue of Gingrich.  No, it’s not government-run health care. No it did not send costs spiraling out of control. See Politifact.com  


A success!
A need met
Comparing the two
It's absurd to say they are the same
He did not put in abortion - Gingrich was incorrect, again
Abortion rights issue misinterpreted; abortions decline
Gingrich in error about writing in Planned Parenthood, again

After looking into and understanding why and what he participated in, I can see why he would hold that it was a good plan.  Indeed, it was suitable for the broken system, the threats from the Federal Government, and an 85% Democratic legislature.  Anyone who criticizes it is making up some artificial criteria that are mostly based on "being right" about the individual mandate issue, while resisting anything that looks like or smells like ObamaCare.   It is a rational, conservative, effective plan - and the best that could be done.

Another success of his chain of successes!.

I find it patently ridiculous that we would condemn something in total, out of context, not knowing the whys and the barriers.   Just because Obamacare is modeled largely on the health care that Romney created while governor of Massachusetts does not mean that Romney is some non-conservative.  It only means that he must have been smart in the design of the plan and in picking good advisors.  And then he put the right plan in place.

The plan is still highly approved of in the state, even though his successor has worked hard to change some provisions.

"I am pro-life -- by the way, is there any possibility that I've ever made a mistake in that regard, I didn't see something that I should have seen? Possibly," he said. "But you can count on me, as president of the United States, to pursue a policy that protects the life of unborn, whether here in this country or overseas."


Romney was at the forefront of a movement to bring near-universal health insurance coverage to the state, after Staples founder Stemberg told him at the start of his term that doing so would be the best way he could help people and after the federal government, due to the rules of Medicaid funding, threatened to cut $385 million in those payments to Massachusetts if the state did not reduce the number of uninsured recipients of health care services.

Despite not having campaigned on the idea of universal health insurance, Romney decided that because people without insurance still received expensive health care, the money spent by the state for such care could be better used to subsidize insurance for the poor.                           Wikipedia

After positing that any measure adopted not raise taxes and not resemble the previous decade's failed "Hillarycare" proposal, Romney formed a team of consultants from different political backgrounds   beginning in late 2004 that came up with a set of innovative proposals more ambitious than an incremental one from the Massachusetts Senate and more acceptable to him than one from the Massachusetts House of Representatives that incorporated a new payroll tax. 

He had to make the best of the restrictions and barriers and he did!  And it was mandatory that he solve the problem (though many Republicans fail to see this!).

In particular, Romney successfully pushed for incorporating what is often called an individual mandate at the state level.  (He calls it a fee to compensate the state for its costs that would be incurred if an individual does not have health insurance.)  Past rival Ted Kennedy, who had made universal heath coverage his life's work and who, over time, had developed a warm relationship with Romney, gave Romney's plan a positive reception, which encouraged Democratic legislators to cooperate.  The effort eventually gained the support of all major stakeholders within the state, and Romney helped break a logjam between rival Democratic leaders in the legislature.

I would call this excellent, though not perfect as it was the first of its kind and there had to be compromises due to the Federal Government and the 85% Democratic legislature.  He "shot the curl", so to speak.  ("Shooting the curl" is where a surfer gets underneath as breaking wave and shoots away from where the wave is crashing - maximizing what can be done with the wave.)

Romney said of the measure overall, "There really wasn't Republican or Democrat in this. People ask me if this is conservative or liberal, and my answer is yes. It's liberal in the sense that we're getting our citizens health insurance. It's conservative in that we're not getting a government takeover."    [The law was the first of its kind in the nation and became a signature achievement of Romney's term in office, though saving the state from financial catastrophe from its deficits was, I think, the biggest achievement.]

For implementing this plan, Romney receiving the 2006 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

On April 12, 2006, Romney signed the resulting Massachusetts health reform law, which requires nearly all Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance coverage or face escalating tax penalties such as the loss of their personal income tax exemption.  [The bill also establishes means-tested state subsidies for people who do not have adequate employer insurance and who make below an income threshold, by using funds previously designated to compensate for the health costs of the uninsured.  He vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including a controversial $295-per-employee assessment on businesses that do not offer health insurance and provisions guaranteeing dental benefits to Medicaid recipients.  The legislature overrode all eight vetoes; Romney's communications director Eric Fehrnstrom responded by saying, "These differences with the Legislature are not essential to the goal of getting everyone covered with health insurance."

People, understandably, misunderstand what has been labeled RomneyCare and then they judge it and link it with ObamaCare, not knowing the differences and how it was created and why.

Massachusetts had a mess on its hands when Romney became governor.  

It accomplished it's two goals:

1.  Goal of more insured
2.  Fix a broken system.

"Our state already suffered from high insurance premiums due to oppressive regulations and domination by several large insurers."  

Massachusetts found that people who could afford insurance weren't buying it. The law said hospitals couldn't turn anyone away, so why would people pay for insurance? It was costing the state millions of dollars.

As opposed to ObamaCare, it didn't take over the medical part, tell doctors what they could or couldn't do or ration care. Romney tried to veto parts of the bill but was outvoted, nevertheless he still gets credit for the whole thing. His biggest problem is not health care, but prejudice.

Did he sell people down the road or was he loyal to what was needed, did he do his job.  Yes!!!!

And is improving things anathema to conservative goals.  There are only spurious objections, based on lack of true understanding or what is really possible.

One is a massive federal program without cost controls that requires a vast bureaucracy to operate; the other is a more modest plan that constitutes less than 1 percent of the state budget.

One was decided by the people of a single state, by and for themselves. The other presumes to dictate what individual states must do.  A federal one-size-fits-all plan, the ultimate costs of which are not really knowable.

Keep it small; keep it simple; leave it to the states. States come up with programs that suit them best.

Just because something works well on the state level doesn't necessarily mean it will work on the federal level, alas, sometimes that means that he fails the ideological purity test, but this fact might also be viewed as refreshing - and, I think, progress and success, without causing harm, is the higher value.

Nancy Pelosi, famously now, said:  "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy."


See the RomneyCare Compared To ObamaCare discussion. 

Money taken from Medicare Advanatage Program:  *This was taking Medicare funds and paying premiums to health institutions to take care of people, but the health institutions would bear the risk instead of Medicare paying for all things.  And then seniors could add an additional fee if needed to get the Advantage benefits of coverage of items that weren't covered by Medicare.

Taking the $500 billion away from the senior citizen support has a $500 billion impact on beneficiaries, though I've heard individuals protest:  "Oh, he didn't take from Medicare, he used the subsidies to the Advantage program."  Are you kidding me?  It did not come from thin air (that would be wishful thinking!) and it has to have an impact on the seniors, not removing a privilege but hurting the basic overall fund for all Medicare eligible people being cared for.!


To hear the so-called pundits compare the Massachusetts health care plan with Obamacare is absurd. Just start with the size of the legislation; Obamacare contains over 2,700 pages with tax increases not even related to health care, and Romneycare consists of 70 pages — not even a close comparison.

Romneycare was limited to the state where it was designed for a specific populace. Obamacare is a one-size fits all attempt imposed upon the nation as a whole.

Romneycare was voted on by both houses of the Massachusetts legislature in open debate. Obamacare was passed by non-open votes and deemed into law through the back door. Health care reform should be initiated at the state level, where health care is delivered.  (Nancy Pelosi's famous quote, to get the thing passed really quickly: 

ObamaCare has massive political favoritism, exempting many unions (over half of the exempted, despite only being at 11% of the workers).

Certainly, it is illogical to assume that accessing the same helpers makes what is designed the same!  

i didn't have to raise taxes and obama did, he got federal government subside to cover , take those dollars and their programs and give their dollars back to them.  people in mass love their health care plan.
We are already unfairly relying on federal subsidies to pay for these costs and will suffer when they stop,


Either Gingrich did not do his homework or understand what went on or he operated out of malintent.  Either is questionable.  

Gingrich's implicit suggestion that "Romneycare" created taxpayer subsidies for abortions is not accurate - something Romney referenced in his response Thursday. (Indeed, the word "abortion" doesn't even appear in the Massachusetts health care law.)

"The courts in Massachusetts, the Supreme Court was the body that decided that all times that there was any subsidy of health care in Massachusetts that one received abortion care," he said. "That was not done by the legislature, would not be done by me either. I would have vetoed such a thing. That was done by the courts, not by the legislature or by me."


The law of the land must be honored until it is overturned.  We do not have the right to impose our rules on others.  We must go through the right channels to change anything - and we must recognize which battles can be won.  If we decide a battle can't be won, we are not agreeing or abdicating, we are merely able to then direct our energies to an area where we can actually get results.  

"Having to be right sucks."   Alfred E. Neuman

"Ethics is doing the greatest good for those involved."

It was appropriate to represent the people of Massachusetts according to their own consensus, rather than imposing what the politician thinks - as repression does not work and it is stupid to push for something undoable.  He could only do what good was possible with a highly democratic state, so he implemented more conservative policies than would a strict ideologue trying to be right about everything and to impose on others but not making any progress.     Substantial progress is superior to very little.  Yet people criticize him for not being conservative,   he clearly is conservative, but not stupid in terms of fighting unwinnable battle and trying to be "right" (making others wrong and encouraging dissent) about it.

FactCheck points out, "the number and rate of abortions declined after the health care overhaul in Massachusetts in 2006." As Jake Tapper notes, the health care law signed by Romney created a "connector" board, many of the members of which were Romney appointees or members of his cabinet. Romney also picked the executive director, Jon Kingsdale, who recommended an abortion co-pay of between $0 and $100, which was eventually approved. Romney's rivals could plausibly argue that the co-pay should have been higher if Romney wanted to limit abortions in the state - and some, including Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson, suggested as much in the 2008 campaign - but they did not know what could or could not ACTUALLY be passed.. 


Gingrich also said during the debate that Romney's health care plan "has written into it Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, by name."

That's not really true in its implication, and it is grossly, dishonestly (or ignorantly) misleading.

A search of the text of the law turns up one mention of Planned Parenthood, and all it says is that someone from the group will be appointed to a payment policy advisory board, along with a number of others;

Gingrich's comments seemed designed to imply a far more prominent role for the group in the law.


Beginning in 2008, penalties increased by monthly increments.[ (after he left office)

Obamacare is a complete takeover of our health system. Let the states decided if they want health care or not. Romney is right.

It is the most flawed piece of legislation passed since ....

I didn't have to raise taxes and obama did, he got federal government subside to cover , take those dollars and their programs and give their dollars back to them.  people in mass love their health care plan.
We are already unfairly relying on federal subsidies to pay for these costs and will suffer when they stop,

Allthough anticipated otherwise: the increased cost of subsidized insurance offset the reduction in "free care", BUT there was a success in benefitting more people!

attribution of motive of self political interest are made up inferences and not facts.

He would also make it possible to cross state lines to buy insurance, and thus competition would bring down the rates. He would also put a cap on insurance lawsuits, the reason insurance rates are so high.

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Romneycare-vs-Obamacare-1380042.php#ixzz1kPnPp6hp


lack of critical thinking

build on what works, employers provided, medicaid expanded

Romney - who said in a 2002 gubernatorial debate that as governor, "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard" - now says he "was an avidly pro-life governor." At Thursday's debate, he also took umbrage at Gingrich's criticism, though he left himself a little wiggle room on the details.

"I am pro-life -- by the way, is there any possibility that I've ever made a mistake in that regard, I didn't see something that I should have seen? Possibly," he said. "But you can count on me, as president of the United States, to pursue a policy that protects the life of unborn, whether here in this country or overseas."

From another site:

More detail and videos
To walk you through the facts...if you need more extensive proof