About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Tumulty, Ambinder tout Romney for health care position, citing MA plan he says would be wrong to impose on states

February 04, 2009 4:40 pm ET

SUMMARY: Time's Karen Tumulty suggested Mitt Romney for Health and Human Services secretary, citing the role he played in creating Massachusetts' universal health care system as governor, while The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder pointed to the Massachusetts plan to suggest Romney for "White House health care czar." But neither Tumulty nor Ambinder noted that Romney rejected applying the Massachusetts plan to the entire nation, saying "[a] one-size fits-all national health care system is bound to fail."

38 Comments

On February 3, Time magazine national political correspondent Karen Tumulty suggested that President Obama consider former Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney for the position of Health and Human Services secretary, pointing to the part he played in creating Massachusetts' "universal health care program" as governor. Atlantic associate editor Marc Ambinder also pointed to the Massachusetts plan in suggesting Romney be named "White House health care czar." However, neither Tumulty nor Ambinder noted that Romney rejected applying the Massachusetts plan to the entire nation, saying that "[a] one-size fits-all national health care system is bound to fail," or that Romney reportedly derided Obama's health care proposal as "socialized medicine" during the 2008 presidential campaign.

In a post on Time's Swampland blog, Tumulty wrote that Romney, her "suggested nominee," is "the only person in America who has ever put together and passed a universal health care program." Ambinder asserted that "what Romney, in a bipartisan fashion, was able to do in Massachusetts -- even with caveats -- is pretty much the same as what Obama wants to do on a national level."

However, while Romney stated during an August 24, 2007, speech before the Florida Medical Association, "I like the plan we came up with in Massachusetts," he also said that "what works in Massachusetts probably won't work in Texas. It's going to need a different plan." From Romney's speech:

ROMNEY: Now, my experience is that effective health care reform that is going to reduce cost and get more people insured has to begin at the state level.

[...]

ROMNEY: What other differences between states? Well, the-percentage uninsured is quite different. In my state, it was 7-percent. In Texas, it is 25-percent. So what works in Massachusetts probably won't work in Texas. It's going to need a different plan. And in Florida, you are approximately 20-percent uninsured. So you are seeing some pretty big variations between different states.

[...]

ROMNEY: A one-size-fits-all national health care system is bound to fail. It ignores the very dramatic differences between states, and it relies on a Washington bureaucracy to manage. You think about this. I do not want the guys that ran the Katrina cleanup running our health care system.

So in my review, health care reform has to take a federalist approach. And the federal role, therefore, is to facilitate and encourage reforms, like Tommy Thompson and Mike Levitt did for us, giving us flexibility in our funding so we could create our own program. But we don't mandate those reforms. We let states decide how they are going to craft their own program. States are able to craft programs that match their unique needs and, of course, we let states remain as the laboratories of innovation. And by the way, I like the plan we came up with in Massachusetts. I wouldn't be surprised if some other states say, I like that. We are going to copy it. And I would be proud if they did. Some states will find they have got better answers than we came up with, I'm sure. And if they do, hats off to them. We'll all copy them. But I like what we came up with. But I'm going to let other states make their own choice and decide whether our plan is right for them or whether they have better ideas.

Additionally, during an October 21, 2007, Republican presidential debate, Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler asked Romney, "[W]e have an e-mailed question from Kendrick of Oakland, California, who says the health care plan you left in Massachusetts, which required people to get their own insurance, amounts to Hillary Care. You say it was the result of a Democratic legislature. I want to ask you: If a Democratic Congress placed such a plan on your desk in the Oval Office, would you sign it? And why was the plan good for Massachusetts and not good for the nation?" Romney again advocated allowing the states to "create their own plan":

ROMNEY: I'm very proud of what we did in Massachusetts, and I think it's a model that other states can adopt in some respects. ... For Democrats, they want to have government take it over. And I don't want to have the guys who did the cleanup at Katrina taking responsibility for health care in this country. ... But Hillary [Clinton] says the federal government's going to tell you what kind of insurance, and it's all government insurance. And I say no, let the states create their own plans, and instead of government insurance, private, market-based insurance. "

Additionally, while Ambinder wrote that "what Romney ... was able to do in Massachusetts -- even with caveats -- is pretty much the same as what Obama wants to do on a national level," he did not point out that Romney has reportedly criticized Obama's health care plan as "socialized medicine." Tumulty similarly did not note this fact when touting Romney as her "suggested nominee" who can "work pragmatically across party lines." The Associated Press reported on July 22, 2007, that Romney "attacked Obama's health care plan," and quoted him saying, "Barack Obama said we're going to have to have the government take over health care" and "The right answer is not a government takeover, it's not socialized medicine. It's not Hillarycare."

From Tumulty's February 3 Swampland post:

I've got an out-of-the-box suggestion that he might consider. My suggested nominee is a proven problem-solver on the health care issue, who has shown that he is willing to invest whatever political capital it takes to get the job done. Someone who has shown that, on this issue, he can work pragmatically across party lines. Someone who has partnered with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the chairman of the Senate health committee, on a plan. In fact, he's the only person in America who has ever put together and passed a universal health care program.

That man: Mitt Romney.

From Ambinder's February 3 post on his Atlantic blog:

President Obama could do worse. Romney has a bad reputation among Congressional Democrats, so I can't imagine they'd cotton to this. In fact, it's highly unlikely. But what Romney, in a bipartisan fashion, was able to do in Massachusetts -- even with caveats -- is pretty much the same as what Obama wants to do on a national level. Karen Tumulty notes that Romney is the only American who can claim the provision of universal health care as a resume line. Didn't help him in the GOP too much, but that's another discussion. If Obama wanted to bring Romney into the cabinet, he'd have to balance him by appointing a pro-choicer to a top HHS post because there are so many controversial, sexuality-related programs in that department that apportion money. The thinking here is that Romney would be the White House health care czar and that a Democrat -- Gov. Kitzhaber of Oregon, maybe -- would move over to Health and Human Services.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DAWUSS (February 04, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
         

      But neither Tumulty nor Ambinder noted that Romney rejected applying the Massachusetts plan to the entire nation, saying "[a] one-size fits-all national health care system is bound to fail."

      That's probably why they touted him for HHS.

      But c'mon... The Indiana Hoosiers are more likely to win the Rose Bowl next year than Mitt Romney be named Health and Human Services secretary.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (February 04, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
         

      One problem for Romney with this possible nomination by president Obama, all evidence shows that he is not a tax cheat.  That immediately disqualifies him for a position in this administration.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 04, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
           

        But he is a pandering theocratic douchebag, which makes him just one administration too late.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by onionhead (February 04, 2009 6:28 pm ET)
             

          That's worse than being a tax cheat, for sure.

          To echo what you said below about Romney: Yuck!  He and Sarah Palin should never be part of any cabinet or administration (unless someone creates a Department of Basket Weaving).

          Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (February 04, 2009 7:26 pm ET)
             

          "But he is a pandering theocratic douchebag"

          Are you talking about PC?

          Report Abuse
      • Author by jamesB (February 04, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
           

        Republicans are tax cheats, for Democrats it's a mistake.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (February 04, 2009 6:14 pm ET)
             

          Nope, I think for either party, people mess up on their taxes, and then some people REALLY mess up on their taxes, and as long as they set it straight, where is the issue?

          Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (February 04, 2009 6:13 pm ET)
           

        Yeah, republicans usually get busted for looking for male companionship in bathrooms, sexually harassing underage male congressional aides, committing other felonius acts (Ted Stevens, Randall "Duke" Cunningham, Delay, and so on and so forth).

        Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (February 04, 2009 8:05 pm ET)
           

        He's a republican though.  In my book, that's worse than being a tax cheat.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 04, 2009 11:08 pm ET)
             

          Gotta laugh at the wingnuts running around like headless chickens over Obama's appointees who are not being put into office due to their various tax problems.

          I hardly remember hearing a peep about Bush's cabinet picks. But then, they were all such sterling squeaky clean public servants. Abrams,Ashcroft, Negroponte, Rumsfeld,Otto Reich, guys like that who I don't recall ever failing to claim gifts in their taxes.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (February 04, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
         

      Romney in Obama's cabinet?

      Yuck.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jamesB (February 04, 2009 4:50 pm ET)
         

      why not? It would be a very inclusive, diverse pick.  of course, mmfa isn't down with extending a non-partisan hand to one's political adversaries, it's not on their radar. keep the partisan lines clear, makes for better copy.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (February 04, 2009 6:15 pm ET)
           

        Why not? Because mostly Romney is not anywhere near where Obama wants to be on health care. A much better choice would be Howard Dean actually.

        And Obama already has a couple of republicans in his cabinet. We don't any more muddying the waters.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 04, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
         

      Wait...I'm confused. AA had me convinced that Time was hopelessly liberally biased. I automatically figured The Atlantic must be liberally biased because I subscribe to it. Then how could these members of the liberal media push for a biased right winger like Mitt Romney to serve in the Obama adminstration? These liberal media are no better than FOX, according to AA.

      If memory serves me correctly, Mitt Romney was a regular on FOX saying, among other things, that Barack Obama said he wanted to attack our ally, Pakistan...an outright lie. AA, refresh my memory...when did FOX ever push for a Democrat with a propensity for lying to serve an essential position in the Bush administration?

      If Time and The Atlantic are part of the biased liberal media, then why is MMFA running this piece? If they are liberally biased why would they recommend a right winger like Mitt Romney?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by jamesB (February 04, 2009 5:03 pm ET)
           

        I remember Mrs. Clinton saying a few things that didn't endear her to Obama or his supporters, but I didn't see mmfa question her Cabinet position. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (February 04, 2009 5:09 pm ET)
             

          What's your point? I'm asking whether Time and The Atlantic are liberally biased media? Yes? No? Maybe? Just sometimes...?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 04, 2009 5:15 pm ET)
             

          That's easy.  Romney is a Troglodyte, Clinton is not.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by jamesB (February 04, 2009 5:16 pm ET)
               

            even easier.  Clinton is a Democrat and Romney is not.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by IRONY 101 (February 04, 2009 5:20 pm ET)
                 

              So, did Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and FOX News push for Hillary Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State? I was sick for a few weeks and might have missed that.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jamesB (February 04, 2009 5:24 pm ET)
                   

                i have no idea.  The point being mmfa whines about some print or web columnist suggesting Romney without mentioning his criticisms of Obama, but did they bat an eyebrow when and if some media person pushed Clinton, who had her own criticisms?  no, more mmfa's double standard, it only affects their own credibility in items such as these, that's all.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by IRONY 101 (February 04, 2009 5:24 pm ET)
                   

                Better yet...when did Hannity, Limbaugh and FOX push for Hillary Clinton to serve as Secretary of State in the Bush administration?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by jamesB (February 04, 2009 5:25 pm ET)
                     

                  ok, an eyelash, not eyebrow

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by IRONY 101 (February 04, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
                     

                  Or, getting back to the actual point I raised, perhaps all this right wing trash talking about the liberal media is just that...as evidenced by the recommendations of Time and The Atlantic. Good try at changing the subject, though...

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jamesB (February 04, 2009 5:35 pm ET)
                       

                    the subject is Romney, which is what I have addressed.  I have no clue what rant you're on about the liberal media.

                    Report Abuse
                • Author by nerzog (February 04, 2009 6:01 pm ET)
                     

                  No, I think the point is that they didn't mention his stated opposition to implementing a National Healthcare plan.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by IRONY 101 (February 04, 2009 6:07 pm ET)
                       

                    ...and that "they", who are recommending a right winger, are presumed by right wingers to be part of the so-called liberal media. From now on I want to see a list of who is part of the liberal media and who is not because I'm confused.  ;>)

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by jamesB (February 04, 2009 6:08 pm ET)
                       

                    when Clinton called Obama irresponsible and naive regarding foreign policy during one of their debates, did mmfa complain when some reporter failed to mention it when she was being suggested for secretary of state?  of course they didn't.  But they complain when Romney's criticism of Obama isn't mentioned now.  if you don't recognize the double standard there, well it's there.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by magnolialover (February 04, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
                         

                      Last time I checked, this was a website for conservative misinformation. Hillary Clinton is no conservative. Last time I checked also, this site doesn't normally address criticisms leveled by, and at, politicians. Last time I checked, this was for conservative misinformation within the media, politicians, not being the media and all, your assertion that MMFA didn't take down Clinton's criticisms of Obama doesn't make any sense at all, and even less sense considering that Clinton is a progressive, and a democrat.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by jamesB (February 04, 2009 6:14 pm ET)
                           

                        that's always the default excuse for the double standard here.  mmfa only criticizes the media when it's not favorable to the left, i get it.  but it should be pointed out nevertheless.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by magnolialover (February 04, 2009 6:17 pm ET)
                             

                          There is NO double standard. Again, read the mission statement of this site. If you want to criticize perceived and or real liberal bias in the media, this isn't the place for this, and it never tried to be. Also, if you've happened to read anything posted here, MMFA doesn't criticize the media when it's not favorable to the left, they criticize it when it's untruthful about the left.

                          It's not a default excuse, it's the truth, sorry.

                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 04, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
                         

                      But they complain when Romney's criticism of Obama isn't mentioned now. 

                      Whoooooooosh...! <sound of relevant points going over James' head>

                      James, MMFA never complained about Romney's lying about Barack Obama...I brought that up to illustrate that so-called liberal media recommended a nasty right winger, which kinda makes you wonder if they're really so liberally biased. That was my point, not MMFA's. MMFA's point was that these two writers recommended the nasty right winger with disregard for the fact that the nasty right winger himself previously said his plan was not applicable on a national scale. You might try reading more slowly...

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by magnolialover (February 04, 2009 6:18 pm ET)
                           

                        Read the J man's responses to me. It appears he's not sure what MMFA does. And calls it a double standard if they don't point out when liberals do something that would be considered misinformation.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by eweston8542983 (February 04, 2009 9:13 pm ET)
                             

                          Plenty of places availible to complain about democrats. There are many places to complain of democratic missimformation. Its just that it doesn't seem abnormal with the beltway and neocons to find fault with anything that a democrat might say. Since anything they might say is by definition missinformation to the core conservative population. Its been reinforced for so long some of them will be cursing democrats to their dying day.

                          Report Abuse
    • Author by tman418 (February 04, 2009 9:18 pm ET)
         

      Romeny's pearl of wisdom:

      "Washington is broken. It's broken. Washington is broken, broken. It's Broken. Washington is broken. Washington is broken. It's broken."

      And now on health care

      "Health care in America is broken. It's broken. Health care is broken, broken. It's broken. Health Care is broken. It's broken."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by michnort41558 (February 05, 2009 9:53 am ET)
         

      Actually, I would put forward Romney's Secretary of Health And Human Services, Tim Murphy, as a potential nominee for this administration.  Mr. Murphy did a masterful job of bringing health care reform to implementation.

      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.