About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media air Romney attacks on Clinton health care plan without noting he signed a bill with similar requirements

September 18, 2007 4:14 pm ET

SUMMARY: In articles on Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care proposal, several media outlets reported Mitt Romney's attack on the plan without mentioning that, as governor of Massachusetts, he signed into law a health care bill that requires every state resident to obtain health insurance -- one of the central tenets of Clinton's plan.

17 Comments

In September 18 articles, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post all quoted Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney attacking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) health care proposal without noting that, as governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed into law a health care bill that requires every state resident to obtain health insurance -- one of the central tenets of Clinton's plan.

In a September 18 article noting Romney's criticisms of Clinton's proposal, The Boston Globe asserted that "the central premise of Clinton's plan -- an 'individual mandate' requiring that every American have health insurance -- is precisely what Romney proposed in the Bay State, in what was seen as a bold approach to attaining universal coverage." It also noted that one of the "few differences between Clinton's plan and the law Romney signed" is that Clinton's plan "does not open any new government agency, according to the campaign, unlike the Massachusetts law, which created the Health Connector to help uninsured people obtain insurance."

From the Globe article:

Key elements of Hillary Clinton's healthcare proposal are strikingly similar to the tenets of the health overhaul that Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts last year. But you would never guess it from the broadsides he hurled yesterday against what he called "Hillarycare 2.0" and described as "a European-style socialized medicine plan."

"In her plan, we have government insurance instead of private insurance," he said at a press conference in New York, held before Clinton had even unveiled her proposal. "In her plan, it's crafted by Washington; it should be crafted by the states. In her plan, we have government Washington-managed healthcare. Instead, we should rely on private markets to guide healthcare. And in her plan, you see increased taxes. The burden should not be raised on the American people."

But the central premise of Clinton's plan -- an "individual mandate" requiring that every American have health insurance -- is precisely what Romney proposed in the Bay State, in what was seen as a bold approach to attaining universal coverage. The idea became a pillar of the law, which he signed in April 2006.

Clinton's plan and the Massachusetts law also share a guiding principle: Build on the existing employer-based private healthcare system, instead of replacing it with a government-run system.

"What Hillary proposed is in many ways the Massachusetts plan gone national, and I think that's great," said MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, an early adviser to Romney on the healthcare reform law who has consulted with all the major Democratic presidential candidates. "We are the shot fired around the world again - there's a whole new movement in healthcare started by what we did here. And rather than claiming credit for it, Romney's running away from it."

While the law is Romney's signature achievement as governor, on the campaign trail he has soft-pedaled or avoided mentioning elements of the law that might trouble conservative audiences, such as the extent of state government's involvement.

There are a few differences between Clinton's plan and the law Romney signed. Even though Romney said Clinton's plan is inspired by "European bureaucracies," it does not open any new government agency, according to the campaign, unlike the Massachusetts law, which created the Health Connector to help uninsured people obtain insurance. Massachusetts also does not provide subsidies to small employers to help them provide insurance, as Clinton's plan would.

As Media Matters for America documented, the Associated Press noted in a September 17 article that Romney's attacks on Clinton's proposal contrasted with a central tenet of the bill he signed as governor:

Republicans have already readied attacks on the Clinton plan. The Republican National Committee sent an e-mail to reporters Monday dubbing it "Hillarycare'' and questioning why she waited months to release a plan.

On Saturday, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney warned it would smack of "socialized medicine'' and said Americans didn't want the government to be in charge of health care.

But as Massachusetts governor, Romney signed into law a health care plan requiring every state resident to purchase health insurance.

However, in a September 18 article, the Los Angeles Times noted Romney's charges against Clinton without mentioning the bill he signed into law:

Romney called a news conference outside a Greenwich Village hospital Monday to denounce Clinton's healthcare plan just before she released it in Iowa.

Mocking her leadership of the Clinton administration's failed 1993 attempt to overhaul the healthcare system, Romney said: "HillaryCare continues to be bad medicine."

"Fundamentally, I think she takes her inspiration from European bureaucracies," he said.

On September 18, USA Today similarly included Romney's attacks on Clinton's plan, but omitted any mention of Romney's plan in Massachusetts:

Republicans criticized Clinton's plan as heavy-handed. Rudy Giuliani's campaign called it the "Clinton-Moore plan" after filmmaker Michael Moore, whose film Sicko lambastes the U.S. health care system and lauds government-run programs in other countries. Mitt Romney called it "a European-style socialized medicine plan."

A September 18 Washington Post article also quoted Romney, but it made no mention of the bill he signed as governor. Though the article noted that Massachusetts was "mandating universal care," it did not report that the mandate was a result of Romney's plan:

Now, with states such as Massachusetts mandating universal care and even Republicans such as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pushing similar initiatives, Clinton's proposal is not as politically daunting as it might have been even four years ago. The labor unions being courted by the candidates have essentially demanded that candidates offer universal coverage, and the plans Edwards and Obama have offered are so expansive that there was little short-term risk to Clinton in offering an ambitious scheme.

[...]

At a news conference, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said " 'Hillarycare' continues to be bad medicine."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Sueelldd (September 18, 2007 4:19 pm ET)
         

      At least Hillary has a plan,the rest of these clowns sit and call it names.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by redking75687 (September 18, 2007 5:31 pm ET)
         

      This isn't universal coverage, this is universal slavery. Forced to buy health care plans from private companies, who will rush to raise their rates to cash in on the forced enrollment. Forced to decide between feeding the kids or feeding the profit margins of the health insurance industry. Forced to pay out extra for what our taxes could already pay for. Forced under penalty to go bankrupt or else. Hillary is pandering to the health care industry with a plan of ENSLAVEMENT and serfdom for the American worker. Why doesn't she use some of that money we use on weapons to give us all a Medicare-style program? Why is she wanting to FORCE us into the arms of the insurance industry? Because she wants their donations, that's why. Oppose this plan, oppose this woman, both are bad for the American people.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by BLR (September 18, 2007 7:01 pm ET)
           

        A-friggin-men.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Former Democrat (September 18, 2007 7:06 pm ET)
           

        Good point, Redking. Here's a question that NO ONE is going to DARE ask Hillary in regards to this plan:

        Just where in our Constitution does the federal government acquire the power to force free citizens to purchase anything, let alone a health insurance policy?

        The Constitution is clear on this point, the federal government can only take actions that are specifically authorized by the Constitution. All other powers are reserved for the states or the people. Nowhere in that document do you see anything that can in be interpreted to allow the feds to tell you what you must purchase.

        Damn the states. Damn the people. Washington knows what's best for us, right?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by redking75687 (September 18, 2007 7:44 pm ET)
             

          Yeah, this isn't like car insurance, where it's designed to protect the other motorists. This is about our bodies, our most private of property. Forcing us to buy private health care is a violation of our individual sovereignty. It's just like the Drug War. The DC politicians really do think they OWN us. We're not citizens to them, we're mere subjects.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by lolo (September 18, 2007 11:26 pm ET)
               

            This is like car insurance. Insured people and we, the taxpayers, pay for the uninsured, many of whom are uninsured by CHOICE. If someone can afford insurance but simply chooses not to get it why should the rest of us pay when that person gets sick? We shouldn't.

              The difference is that you DON"T HAVE TO DRIVE. And the insurance companies can still assess you a risk rating. You are forced to have insurance if you drive but if you can't afford it because of the rated, too many DUI's whatever, then you have a choice. Don't drive.

               If you get sick what is your choice? To die? From a financial point of view it makes obvious sense that between the two things to insure, a car or a human body, the human body can cost you and an insurance company a lot more then a car if something goes wrong. After all, what's most of your car insurance really for? The car? if you think so think again.

              One of the main problem here is that insurance companies will have to insure everyone, regardless of risk. Historically, when insurance companies have been forced to do this they simply stop selling their insurance products in the mandated areas. What will be different this time?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by BLR (September 19, 2007 8:14 am ET)
                 

              Yeah, the real victims here are the insurance companies that offer crap insurance that covers virtually nothing, and costs far too much - certainly not those families who can't afford to buy overpriced, underproducing insurance, but are forced to by the federal government, or they lose their jobs.

              Those poor, poor robber barons.  Here, let me wipe away a crocodile tear for them.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by redking75687 (September 19, 2007 12:39 pm ET)
                 

              If they're forced to give coverage, they'll just jack their prices up to maintain their profit margins. And you know how much corpos love record quarterly profits. This will be a cash cow for them. 40 million new customers to fleece.

              What we need is real socialized medicine, like they have in Europe and Canada.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by lolo (September 18, 2007 11:17 pm ET)
           

        The companies wouldn't race to raise rates because of the mandate. Many would simply quit selling individual health insurance. Why? Just take a look at states that have forced insurance companies to give coverage regardless of health conditions or risk ratings. Insurance companies LEFT those states, almost entirely, leaving only 1 or 2 carriers in the market. Result? Fewer choices. Higher premiums. And MORE UNINSURED PEOPLE.

           If insurance companies can't raise rates or deny coverage because of risk assessment then they aren't insurance companies. Because THAT'S ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES DO!

         It would be like telling a Mercedes dealership they have to sell a Mercedes to anyone who walks in the showroom, regardless of income, credit history, ability to make a down payment, etc.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by simwah688 (September 18, 2007 6:58 pm ET)
         

      The US Constitution does not give the federal government such power over the states, and reserves such legislation to the states.  Romney signed a bill exclusive to Massachusetts.  Hillary's plan is a federal plan.  That's the difference.  And the problem. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (September 19, 2007 12:52 pm ET)
           

        Two federalising parties, intent on destroying any vestige of state sovereignty. DC Uber Alles is their motto. The states are just there to make pretty colors on the map. Just look at the way DC treats the medical marijuana referendums. The people of those states vote in majority to allow it, the DEA stomps on them. First they fund the campaigns against it, in violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments, then jail those who work within those state laws, using federal statutes. All to keep a useful drug from the sick because some DC politician doesn't like to see people getting high. Federal tyranny. A valid reason for secession.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (September 18, 2007 8:14 pm ET)
         

      Her posts leaked somehow from the next thread up.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by defenseintelligenceagency6628 (September 19, 2007 1:02 am ET)
         

      Romney is a flip flopper. By next week he'll endorse the plan. 

      What is it with Massachusetts politicians and flip flopping?  

      Report Abuse
      • Author by anyfreedomleft (September 19, 2007 12:49 pm ET)
           

        Actually, he already endorsed the plan, and THIS is the flip-flop ...

        In fact, he signed Hillarycare 2.0 into law in his state ... 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Wonderkitty (September 19, 2007 5:45 pm ET)
         

      I personally don't think that Hillary's plan goes far enough.  I don't know why anyone thinks "European style socialized medicine" is a bad thing.  Gosh, everyone gets treated when they're sick?  You keep more healthy people in the workforce?  People work longer because they live longer?  Fewer babies die?

       The horror!

      How ANYONE falls for this bullsh*t tall tale that the insurance companies and their toadies have been spewing for ages is beyond me.

      Main arguments against socialized healthcare:

      Standard of care will go down:  I'm sorry, I don't understand... what's worse than nothing?

      There will be longer wait times:  Y'know what?  Deal with it.  Maybe they will go up, because EVERYONE will actually be able to go to the doctor, instead of just a few. That might happen even if we keep the private insurance system and somehow make it affordable.  I don't care if I have to wait for a whole DAY.  I can't wait to be able to afford to go to the doctor.

      All that said, I can't muster up any real optimism that someday we'll have have real healthcare reform and everyone actually gets covered.  I've yet to see any real change in how the average American approaches issues.  There's no thought, there's no nuance.  They usually side with whomever can scare or piss them off the most about the opposition.  And most politicians, whichever side of the aisle they're on, can't stomach the idea of openly, actively and effectively fighting for such a radical change from the status quo.

      Too bad the status quo sucks.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace