Mar 09 Romney's Sinking Ship?

Ed's post reminded me of the various reasons I can't support RomneyCare. The inclusion of Romney's interview this past Sunday with FNS's Chris Wallace gave me knew reasons why I won't support Mitt Romney should he decide to run for president in 2012. Here's a quote from Gov. Romney's interview with Chris Wallace:

What we did is the ultimate conservative plan. We said people had to take responsibility for getting insurance, if they can afford it or paying their own way. No more free riders.

CFG's Andy Roth thinks differently:

"We can say unequivocally that that is not a conservative plan," Andy Roth, Club for Growth's vice president for government affairs, told our reporter Ryan Derousseau when asked for comment on Romney's claim about Romneycare.

On Sunday, Romney elicited skepticism even from Fox's Chris Wallace when he said: "There a big difference between what we did and what President Obama is doing. What we did I think is the ultimate conservative plan."

But Club for Growth's Roth dismissed this as bunk, citing Romneycare's individual mandate as proof. "The individual mandate is diametrically against what free-market conservatives believe in," he said, adding that if Romney thinks his plan amounts to a conservative policy "than I think he is in the wrong party."

Gov. Romney is turning a bad hand into the worst hand possible. There's an old maxim in poker about a really crappy hand that holds "the best way to throw that hand is away." That's what Gov. Romney should've done right from the start.

Instead, Gov. Romney's pride wouldn't let him do that. Instead, he fought to explain why his plan was better. Right now, I'd say that tactic isn't working. In fact, I'd say that tactic is failing miserably.

Mr. Roth is right. This isn't what free-market conservatives believe. Gov. Romney is left with the difficult task of arguing that government telling private citizens what to buy in great specificity is a good thing. Paul Ryan illustrated what free-market principles look like this interview:

1. Here in Minnesota, there are 65 separate mandates on health insurers, all of which drive up the cost of a health insurance premium. With Ted Kennedy & Co. writing health care 'reform', isn't it likely that their legislation will contain lots of expensive mandates? Wouldn't that necessarily drive up health care costs?

Yes. That is one of the major problems with a public plan. Insurance shouldn't be one-size-fits-all. The public plans being proposed by Ted Kennedy and others will likely mandate a lot of coverage that not everyone needs, making it more expensive for everyone. We've seen this problem at a state level where a state mandates coverage for something like hair regrowth formula, that only a small percentage of the population even wants access to, but ultimately, those mandates drive up the cost of insurance for everyone, even those who don't use much coverage at all. The Patients' Choice Act addresses this problem by allowing insurance plans that sell health insurance through state exchanges to be exempt from these mandates. These plans only need to meet the minimum benefit standard prescribed by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. People need to be able to purchase health insurance that isn't heavily loaded with mandates.

2. Shouldn't people, working in concert with their physician, have the option of putting together a customized health insurance policy?

Yes - that's a great idea and just the type of innovative thinking we don't want the federal government to squash. Patients have different needs, and that's exactly why health insurance shouldn't be run by the federal government. The government does not know what is best for patients. Patients and doctors should be able to make decisions together about the types of health plans that best suit their individual needs. That concept is exactly what motivated the Patients' Choice Act. We don't want the federal government taking over these decisions and we want to show people that there is another way that allows the individual to maintain control over these personal decisions.

Congressman Ryan's plan is the quintessential free-market conservative plan because it relies on people making their own decisions on how best to address an area of need. RomneyCare is the exact opposite. It tells people what they should do.

Think of Ryan's Patients' Choice Act as what real health care reform looks like. By contrast, I've started thinking of RomneyCare as the disastrous 'big brother' to ObamaCare. No thanks. Obamacare hasn't even been enacted but I've already had too much of it.

Comments welcome at LFR.