USA Today again aired Romney attacks on Clinton health plan without noting he signed a bill with similar requirements
In a September 24 USA Today article, reporter Fredreka Schouten quoted Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's charge that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) health care proposal is "a 'socialized medical plan' " 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. From the article:
Republicans, who have rejected proposals for universal health care, last week criticized Clinton's approach. [Former] Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, for instance, called it a "socialized medical plan." On Sunday, Clinton hit back, saying, "I'm waiting for any Republican candidate to come out with a plan that can be really scrutinized."
As Media Matters for America has noted, in a September 18 article -- noting Romney's criticisms of Clinton's proposal -- The Boston Globe reported 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." The Globe 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."
The USA Today article follows several instances (here, here, and here) in which the media quote Romney's attacks on Clinton's plan without noting his role in the passage of the Massachusetts plan. On September 18, USA Today's Richard Wolf had similarly reported:
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."
I look forward to the debates on this issue.
do not hold your breath. The day we get medicine for everyone is the day hell freezes. The HMOs will not allow it.
Sue,
I'm not so sure the HMOs are against it. While I don't know that to be the case, why would they care as long as someone or something pays those premiums?
Romney strikes me as being as much an empty suit as W. He just doesn't seem to have any depth. He basically speaks in platitudes and bumper sticker slogans.
But, I'll keep an open mind.
Yeah, but what a chin!
You're turn HBL.
Geez, Sorry WK, I had about 10 hours to see that.
ummm... you could land Chris Mathews head on Mitt's shoulders? Something about a jib? I'm bombing!
Wouldn't it be cool reporting to say, "while presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Clinton's plan, Governor Romney of Mass. floated a very similar plan while running that state."
Emphatic. Done. Point of flip flopping made.
it is more than flip flopping its pandering and dishonest. Romney is the worst of the bunch. So disgusting.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Who would you prefer to have the last say so about what care, or medicine you receive, a HMO with nurses willing to deny anything more elaborate than Tylenol, or a doctor that is not concerned about "prior authorization" denials of payment when billing a single payor system.
The truth is when we privatized medical care in this country, and turned non-profit hospitals into for profit centers, we made withholding care the easy way for insurance companies can make greater profits. They can point to their own pricing in a HMO structure as a reasoning for raising premiums at the same time.
They get you coming and going, and would tell you that a Universal Medicare System for all would have the government telling you who you can see for medical care. The big lie! This would only simplify, and dramatically reduce the administrative costs, and eleminate insurance companies profit margin, while making a single, enormous pool of patients able to negotiate prices for drugs and care from a position of incredible strength,
No wonder the Insurance Companies & Drug Companies would tell what ever lie they can come up with to frighten people from supporting Universal Healthcare!
Republican Values, or better put, protecting Republican Supporters Value, Insurance & Drug Companies at the expense of the American Public!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Are you serious? Do you really think that our Government can take on a program costing hundreds of billions of dollars and it will solve the health coverage problem in this country? Since when did our government become such good stewards of money and such efficient workers? For the life of me I can't figure why some want to give health coverage to those who can afford it. "Promote the general welfare" not Provide for the general welfare. I'm sorry, but I think you are a little idealistic when you believe such a big government program will magically solve all these problems you wrote of. Government entitlements could certainly be described as inefficiently run programs. I realize the need for many and happily support them. But, again, I see no need to give to people who don't need it or want it.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
achrispage6992 / Monday September 24, 2007 04:39:08 PM EST
MEDICARE!! Administers millions of claims for millions of patients care with millions of caregivers of all discriptions at a dramatically cheaper administrative cost than any private care system in America.
Medicare is 3% of billing, Private Insurance Industry range from 30-40% of billing!
Medicare would be solvent had the Republicans not raided the Trust Acount, and if Bush would have used the budget surplus as Congress had originally intended, Medicare and Social Security would be solvent by 3/2006, and build a new surplus!!
The truth works, the hype, and lies of government failure in administrating healthcare has been the Republican effort to undermine Medicare at every turn, and stil unable to bring it down!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Medicare, medicare, medicare. If that program is so efficient why do so many seniors complain about it. How is it going to be solvent in the next twenty years? Your right there is a clear parallel between Medicare and universal Health Care, but I fear it is not the rosy picture of big brother holding all the children in his bosom you want.
"Are you serious? Do you really think that our Government can take on a program costing hundreds of billions of dollars and it will solve the health coverage problem in this country?"
It depends on who's in charge. Republicans generally don't believe in government so I wouldn't trust them with any program designed to help people.
Name one federal program with the budget of universal healthczare that is run efficiently.
Tell me who's been in charge for the last several years?
Name one federal program with a budget like the one projected for Universal Health Care that is has been or is run efficiently? I wold thnk the military is the closes thing, and we all know that is a laugh, efficiency in the military??????
Just as soon as it is shown how effectively the so called 'free market' has brought healthcare to every man, woman and child.
Since universal health care would cover eveyone that would be hard as I don't think there would have ever been a project as large. However, there have been several large successful federal government projects or federal government related projects rural electrification, WWII, going to the moon (at one time NASA ran a profit, amazing -- a big project that netted money). So, yeah, it is possible if we cut the crap about how wonderful private health care is for everyone. It is goo for a select few, my friend is a PA at a hospital and he says his insurance is so-so, what does that say. Private industry gave us rivers that caught on fire, the S&L scandals, and Enron.
Oh and again, we are going to critize a GOP politician for implementing -- kick and scraming or not -- a plan that most of us would be thrilled to see signed into law on a national level.
I don't get it. And yes Romney is disowning it. Don't care, not a winning position to go hey he is denying something positivehe did while Governor. See Hillary or her staff are bright. They go, "Show us your plan." Knowing the GOP candidates can't offer up real ideas or they risk losing funding or votes. They don't go, "He did what we like to try to do." Because that is dumb. Let the GOP have this misinformation and let them shoot themselves in the foot with it. I am sure the NRA would support that. After listening to Mike Huckabee at the GOP NRA discussions, hey it might get them a few votes.
This is slightly off topic but I was reading the CBO report on SCHIP and found this:
“Although SCHIP has significantly reduced the number of uninsured children in low-income families, the net effect on the extent of coverage is smaller than the number of children who have been enrolled in public coverage as a result of SCHIP because the increase in public coverage has been partially offset by a reduction in private coverage. SCHIP provides an alternative source of coverage that is less expensive and that often provides a broader range of benefits than private insurance. As a result, some parents who otherwise would have enrolled their children in private coverage may prefer instead to switch their coverage to SCHIP. In addition, to the extent that SCHIP makes private coverage less important for some low income families, parents might be more inclined to take jobs that offer higher cash wages rather than health insurance. Moreover, if employers of low-wage workers believe that SCHIP reduces the value of private health insurance in attracting employees, some might reduce their contribution to the premiums for family coverage, reduce the benefits offered, stop offering family coverage, or stop offering insurance altogether.
On the basis of a review of the research literature, CBO concludes that the most reliable estimates currently available suggest that the reduction in private coverage among children is between a quarter and a half of the increase in public coverage resulting from SCHIP. In other words, for every 100 children who enroll as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children. The available evidence, which is quite limited, suggests that the bulk of the reduction in private coverage occurs because parents choose to forgo private coverage and enroll their children in SCHIP (because of better benefits, lower costs, or some combination thereof), rather than employers deciding to drop coverage for such children. No studies have estimated the extent to which SCHIP reduces private coverage among parents, so the available estimates probably understate the total reduction in private coverage associated with the introduction of SCHIP.”
This may be why Bush wants to veto the legislation.
As much as I fear total government run health care, I really have so much disdain for Bush over this. He has the audacity to tell us that the Democrats are jeopardizing our poor childrens health care because they have the gall to ask for an increase in funding that they know he will veto. The reality is that he uses transparent stats like; families who make 83,000 per year will be eligible for SCHIP under this bill. He just lies and lies and lies. His own administration rejected a proposal from New York state which proposed raising the level for SCHIP to 400% poverty. That is where the 83,000 stat comes in. He acutally used a proposal he rejected to justify vetoing the bill. Unbelievable!!!!!!! It stinks of O'Reillyesque use of stats and some others disingenious use of stats to make an invalid point.
And it really doesn't matter anyway. After a certain amount of income, SCHIP behaves like a private insurance company with co-pays and premiums albeit at a lower cost than an actual private insurance company.
Yes it does. Quite frankly, it is a good model for what I believe would be a more feasible approach to covering Americans. SCHIP is for kids whose families make too much for Medicaid and not enough for provate coverage. A good idea for adults in the same situation?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The Republicans complain that why should the Medicare Recipients recieve care not available to private care plans during the 80's and 90's until they got into power. Now, we have a Republican Congress, and Republican Administrator spending all it's time angling ways to undermine the system.
You complain about Republican Corruption and Incompetance and the title of every post I make has the simple answer!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Right after "High Treason" and "Crimes Against Nature" in the bill of particlars for impeaching the whole cohort of Repugnants in D.C., we can already include "Depriving Our Children" for Bungle's opposition to SCHIP.
Pelosi might have to put that impeachment back on the table after all!
If the Clinton plan is like the Romney/Massachusetts plan (and it is), all working class Americans can expect to spend $8000 in annual premiums for a bare-minimum heath care insurance scheme. Massachusettians are getting hammered by this bad. A normal family struggling on $30k a year now is gonna go down the tubes with bills like these.
A little side note....Hillary is paid almost $200k a year and gets FREE health care on top of that, courtesy of you and me. She won't be paying a cent for her health care as long as she stays in office. Just think of that when she says she wants to FORCE you to BUY health care insurance.