Rare indeed is a law that can outrage both libertarians and socialists, but that is precisely what the new Massachusetts mandatory health insurance law does. Though it was touted by its biggest proponent, former governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as innovative legislation that addresses the public’s demand for health care reform, the measure is little more than a political tool that reflects distorted priorities.
The law, which now has many Massachusetts residents and employers scrambling to purchase health insurance products from large insurance carriers, reflects the common GOP practice of utilizing the tax dollars and paychecks of working people to subsidize big businesses (in this case the insurance industry). By requiring everyone to purchase health insurance products, Romney has secured not the well being of Bay State citizens, but the revenues of insurance companies. Under any level of scrutiny, the plan reveals itself as little more than corporate welfare.
It is understandable that Romney, in crafting such a health care law, would ignore progressives, who disapprove of corporate handouts and usually call for more drastic health care reform, such as a single-payer system akin to those commonly seen around the developed world. The progressive community has never been part of Romney’s base, and nobody would expect Romney’s plan to reflect its preferred approach.
More interesting, however, is the fact that small-government, libertarian conservatives, who view needless government meddling unkindly, also object to the Romney plan, particularly its provisions requiring citizens to purchase health insurance. Because small-government libertarians are a traditional part of the GOP base, Romney’s willingness to step on their toes is noteworthy.
What this shows is that the small-government crowd is a relatively insignificant segment of today’s Republican base. Romney, ever the shrewd politician, realizes that today’s Republican engine is fueled by neo-conservatives and social conservatives, neither of which are particularly interested in seeing government downsized. Barry Goldwater would roll over in his grave at the suggestion of mandatory health insurance, but today’s GOP candidates can support it without blushing.
But if Romney has abandoned traditional Republican principles, one should not assume that his health plan lacks a fundamental philosophy. On the contrary, in addressing the health care crisis by dictating the mandatory purchasing of health insurance coverage, Romney has opened his heart and mind to the public. To properly consider Romney’s philosophy, we must contrast it to the philosophy behind the single-payer health care systems of European social democracies.
The basic philosophical view espoused by social democracies towards health care is centered on the rights and dignity of the individual. That is, given the nature of modern industrial society, with sophisticated medical technology available within the framework of highly complex socioeconomic systems, reliable health care is seen as a right that all citizens should enjoy.
The Romney philosophy, however, approaches the issue differently. To Romney the issue essentially becomes a business matter, with the insurance industry at the center and revenue opportunities abundant for astute industry leaders. Ordinary people become mere pawns in a system, created by law, that subsidizes the industry.
Under Romney’s view, health insurance is an obligation, not a right. The delivery of health coverage becomes part of a business model guaranteed by governmental mandates, with citizens being ordered by law to purchase products from private insurance companies. The citizen has become a customer, often unwillingly, of a private company that has a strong financial interest in paying out as little as possible.
For Romney, a savvy businessman who thinks in terms of cash flow and profit margins, such a philosophy comes naturally. To the average working person, the message from the government is simple: Buy insurance or else.
With this law on the books, the only thing more certain than improved cash flows for insurance companies is that candidate Romney will hold out both himself and his health plan as innovative. The real question is whether the public, caught within a political and economic system that has moved so far to the right that the notion of a single-payer health care system seems unimaginable, will accept Romney’s corporate-welfare version of health reform out of desperation.
If pondering that question makes you ill, hopefully you have insurance.
I am 62 and up until Mass Health was enacted I had no health insurance for me or my wife. We couldn’t afford any.
After providing information for a means test , we now have medical coverage beyond our wildest dreams. We even have dental care that has been beyond our reach for years.
<
p>
Dave, if you can get past your obvious hatred for Mr Romney and actually read and understand what Mass Health is all about, I think you’ll discover that it is not a conspiracy to enrich insurance companies. It is plan that looks at each persons capacity to pay for health care and asks them to pay according to their income and ability to do so. Can it be any fairer than that?
<
p>
I am guessing that you are probably an affluent person that like so many fortunate people, takes the good health insurance that they have for granted and views Mr Romney’s plan with cynicism and partisan suspicion.
You could not be more wrong. If you were in our ( my wife and I) place you would understand what a wonderful thing has happened for the poorer folks here in Massachusetts.
God bless Mr. Romney and the State of Massachusetts for their wisdom and kindness
<
p>
Tom
Tom,
I don’t quite understand your comments. I agree that MassHealth is a good thing, but Romney did not create MassHealth. Masshealth existed for many years before Romney came into office. Romney’s health care plan and MassHealth are two completely different things. Thanking Romney for Masshealth is like thanking Bush for Social Security.
our particular situation ( wife and me)but this until this program came along we were among those people “in between” that had no health care. My wife read about Mr. Romney’s plan and it works for us especially now that I am semi-retired. We pay for the new program but no where near what it would be without it which is why we had no health care in the past.
<
p>
I am sorry to see that you are very bitter and angry about Mr. Romney and his plan. We think it’s wonderful.
I found an article in today’s Time magazine that tried to explain why some like the plan and some don’t. I didn’t realize until I read it that the Federal Government contributes $ 1 billion a year to the program! This is what makes it possible no doubt. The article says that the program is something of a “trial balloon” and will be subject to changes over time. For now , my wife and I are thrilled and grateful to have coverage thanks to Mr. Romney and the State of Massachusetts.
<
p>
http://www.time.com/…
<
p>
Tom
It’s actually from 2005 not recent. I guess it’s still relevent though?
Tom
Tom, you should avoid ad hominem comments. My posting discussed substantive issues, and your response saying that it is “bitter and angry” or that the posting reflects “hatred” of the former governor is not really appropriate. I’m sure the Mittster is a nice guy on a personal level, but his policy positions are just plain wrong. Moreover, if read carefully your comments suggest that there is something a bit disingenuous about your claim of being just a regular guy who is fond of the governor.
ad hominem comments. I have been reading here for quite some time and recently registered so I could comment.
After reading so many posts that bash Mitt Romney ,most of which are totally unfair, I thought I would offer my personal experience regardless of whether you feel it to be disingenuous or not. Yes I do like Mr. Romney. Yes I am 62 years old and the very happy beneficiary of his plan. I thought your post was both inaccurate and steeped in political bias. I also thought that your premise that this whole program is some kind of right wing plot to force people to pay to enrich Insurance companies was beyond absurd and deserved to be rebutted.
Based on my personal experience, I totally disagree with everything you said.
Tom
I am not suggesting that there is a “right-wing plot” to enrich insurance companies. Rather, I’m demonstrating that the natural philosophical inclination of conservatives such as Romney is to find solutions that benefit corporate America more than average Americans. I’m glad you happen to be one of the beneficiaries of the Romney plan, but it seems that the better solution would be to have a sign-payer system that includes everyone. Such a plan would have helped you long before the age of 62.
Dave, your presentation would lead one to believe what you say is fact …ie ” Rather, I’m demonstrating that the natural philosophical inclination of conservatives such as Romney is to find solutions that benefit corporate America more than average Americans.” Shouldn’t you preface such a comment with “in my opinion or “I think that..etc? Who are you to proclaim that ” that the natural philosophical inclination of conservatives such as Romney is to find solutions that benefit corporate America more than average Americans.”
Do you have supporting factual evidence to support such a statement? Do you see my point Dave? Please avoid presenting your “opinions” as “fact” unless you have supporting data.
Tom, the plan itself is the evidence. The health plan’s characteristics aren’t just my opinion, but facts. For example, it’s a fact that it requires people to purchase insurance products from large insurance companies that benefit greatly from those revenues. These are facts, not opinions. It seems you find those facts troubling, so you are lashing out at me as biased and opinionated. I will concede that I am opposed to Romney’s health plan, but please don’t incorrectly claim that my factual statements are not facts but opinions. If you want to argue that Romney’s plan is better than a single-payer plan, then you should do so without resorting to mischaracterizing my statements. Obviously, Tom, we disagree on this issue, and I’m not inclined to go back and forth indefinitely.