E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSOne of the downsides of live-tweeting a debate is that nuance, complexity, and precision sometimes get lost in 140 characters.
During the back-and-forth over health care in tonight's GOP debate, Mitt Romney said this about his Massachusetts health-care law, "This is something that was crafted for Massachusetts. It would be wrong to adopt this as a nation."
Since I've spent the past four years examining Romney's record, I knew he had said -- on "Meet the Press" back in Dec. 2007 -- that his health-care law could serve as a model for other states. And I fired off this tweet: "Fact check: Romney said on MTP in 2007 that he'd want the 50 states to use the MA health-care as a model."
That was close to what he said, but not exactly: "Now, I happen to like what we did. I think it's a good model for other states," Romney said. "Maybe not every state, but most."
The Romney camp also wrote back to emphasize what he said at the top of that health-care answer in '07: "Given the kind of differences between states, I'm not somebody who's going to say what I did in Massachusetts I'm going to now tell every state they have to do it in the same way."
Here is his full answer from that "Meet the Press" interview:
So, let's look, for instance. The plan we put together in Massachusetts I think is working in Massachusetts. I sure hope so. We're going to get more information about how well it's working, of course. But Massachusetts has roughly 7 percent of our population uninsured. Texas has 25 percent. Given the kind of differences between states, I'm not somebody who's going to say what I did in Massachusetts I'm going to now tell every state they have to do it in the same way. Now, I happen to like what we did. I think it's a good model for other states. Maybe not every state, but most. And so what I'd like to do at the federal level is give to every state the same kind of flexibility we got from the federal government, as well as some carrots and sticks to actually get all their citizens insured. And I think a lot of states will choose what we did. I wouldn't tell them they have to do our plan. (Meet the Press, 12/16/2007)
Leave a Comment:
You mean Romney lied during the debate? ! I'm so shocked! His flip flopping will keep us entertained until the general election 2012. He is a white version of our current president except President Obama does not want to free up the banks to cause another world wide recession. That is pretty much the only difference. He has flip flopped on abortion so only God knows if he really plans on legislating women's vaginas like the Boehner's House has done numerous times. I really don't want to wait and see if he is as perverted as our current House is.
Romney was campaigning back in '08? Well, he had time to hone his fip flopping skills. Ambitious, isn't he?
How missing of the point by the Romney camp--whether Romney said every state or most states could use the Mass. plan as a model---clearly back than he stood behind his plan and now he repudiates it. That is what I call a flip flop.
Clearly back then he stood behind using the Mass. plan in Mass, but not forcing it on every state. Which, apparently, he still does.
How in the world is this a flip-flop. Or even just a flip?
Romney to america"I was for it before I was against it. but dont hold that against me."
@Steeler, I'm not sure how you can call it a flip flop. I've yet to hear Romney say that what they did in Massachusetts was wrong. In fact, I've heard him say numerous times that he's proud of what they did in Massachusetts. You can disagree with the approach of the health care law, and you can even potentially argue that even at the state level the individual mandate could be unconstitutional, but to call him a flip flopper on it is a bit dishonest.
And for those making the Obamacare vs. Romneycare comparison, it might be a good idea to actually read the bills and see what they say. In particular, you should check out the sections at the end of the Massachusetts law where it shows which provisions Romney vetoed when signing the law (Massachusetts allows for line-item vetoes by the governor), which were then overturned by the democratic legislature.
Romneycare: malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2006/Chapter58
Obamacare: gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3200ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr3200ih.pdf
Mark Murray says
"Since I've spent the past four years examining Romney's record"....
Yes, as part of the Obama Team at MSNBC, we get it.
There was no inconsistency here. You seem to miss the critical distinction between the federal government taking over health care, and each state acting on its own.
In 2007, Romney did not want any one size fits all federal plan. He wanted the feds to allow the states to experiment; the right way under federalism.
"what I'd like to do at the federal level is give to every state the same kind of flexibility we got from the federal government, as well as some carrots and sticks to actually get all their citizens insured."
Bagga Bob, please! You are conveniently forgetting this part:
What does the Bagga decoder ring tell you about what that statement means? Let me guess:
"Under no circumstance should this plan be adopted by any state other than MA. It is a plan for MA residents only. Do not attempt. Adoption of this MA plan in a state other than MA could result in unintended, unforeseen risks and consequences, including, but not limited to, political harm. Do not consult without the advice of Governor Romney."
That what it means? God, you people are as advertised. You can retreat to the Fox hole now. O'Reilly wants you to bring back his decoder ring!
Romney (a la Gingrich paraphrased): "So let me say on the record, any video or ad which shows me saying what I said on 12/16/07 on MTP is a falsehood."
You just got to have huge matzah balls to claim consistency with that statement. Way to go Willard!
Romney was for universal health insurance mandates before he was against them. Perry was a Democrat before he was a Republican. Herman Cain thinks and actually said at the GOP debate that it "wasn't Wall Street didn't put in failed economic policies,Wall Street didn't spend a trillion dollars that didn't do any good,Wall Street isn't going around trying to get $440 billion for jobs they ought to be protesting at the White House." He couldn't be any more wrong. Wall Street did have failed policies that wrecked the country's economy and it was Wall Street who squandered more than a trillion by running the economy into the ditch. I am glad President Obama is stumping for more money for dearly needed jobs and infrastructure improvements. On the other hand, knowing the greed of Wall Street I would expect they would not support any jobs measures or anything for that matter that would benefit anybody but themselves. Today, Ron Paul released his "Plan to Ruin the Country's Economy". First, he would increase the unemployment rate by 100,000s when he disbands several important Cabinets of the Government that provide much needed services to those of us who are not millionaire fat cats like everyone of the GOP candidates. Not only do they serve the citizens but he would fire numerous employed people and at the same time he would instantly decrease consumer demand by reducing employment and thus reducing domestic manufacturing and employment. If Ron Paul puts the US back on the gold standard can you afford our money nearly $1700 an ounce. Think about how much you are going to pay for groceries, gas and anything at all when speculators run the price of gold even higher than the already have and that is not even taking into consideration any foreign Nations and foreign Banks will be able to manipulate the US economy by merely hoarding gold. This actually did occur quite frequently when our Nation was on the gold standard and was a major reason for crating the Federal Reserve Banking System. By hoarding gold there is less gold supply available to meet demand for gold and, thus, the price of fold increases. The price of everything will go up and down at the whim of gold speculators, ETF managers and Hedge Fund managers. They all screamed that QE2 would ruin the Nation and "debase" the USD to the demise of our economy. The GOP was wrong and the USD is still the safe haven for the world.
Like I said, Romney does not know what Romney stands for! LOL
Healthcare costs are killing us and all these guys can do is play political games with it. The Affordable Care Act used the Republican's ideas to reform health insurance, and because the Republican's did not want the Democrats or the President to get any credit for it, they attacked it, demagogued it, and decided to focus on the individual mandate as the part to criticize (even though that was their idea as well). Now they have to try to weasel out of their previous statements because the Republican party has moved so far right that they would rather the uninsured died than come up with a way to have them get health insurance.
They need to be honest about this. Healthcare reform is very necessary for individuals and businesses and for the economy of the US. The ideas they proposed years ago were a step in the right direction. They can quibble with details of the Affordable Care Act, but they should admit that they were for this type of reform and that it is necessary for the country.
Clearly back then he stood behind using the Mass. plan in Mass, but not forcing it on every state. Which, apparently, he still does.
How in the world is this a flip-flop. Or even just a flip?
This article is blatantly false. The 999 is not regressive. The sales (consumption) tax replaces all the current stacked embedded federal taxes that EVERYONE is currently paying in all goods purchased. Do the math people.
You know you're in trouble when chief ding-a-ling Bachmann disses your tax plan! So, Carson, you, Cain and a handful of loud-mouthed Baggas are probably the only voters who think 9-9-9 is just what America needs. Puh-lease!
Romneycare was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation. It was a market-based alternative to single-payer socialism. I would only recommend it as a last ditch effort to stave off socialist healthcare. In a far left state with super majorities like Massachusetts it was either Romneycare or socialist healthcare.