About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN's King drops medicine ball during Romney health care interview

May 03, 2009 5:40 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: On CNN, Mitt Romney responded affirmatively when asked by John King whether the health-care plan passed while he was governor of Massachusetts is "a good model for the nation." However, King did not mention that Romney previously said that the Massachusetts plan would not work -- and should not be applied -- in all states.

16 Comments

During an interview that aired on the May 3 edition of CNN's State of the Union, host John King asked former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney whether "the Massachusetts [health care] approach that was passed under Governor Romney" is "a good model for the nation." Romney replied: "Well, I think so, but I'm not going to impose necessarily my view on the National Council for a New America." King did not mention that, when running for president in 2007, Romney said the Massachusetts health-care system would not work -- and should not be applied -- in all states.

As Media Matters for America documented, 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." Romney later added: "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."

Additionally, during an October 21, 2007, Republican presidential debate, Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler said to 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 replied that the Massachusetts system is "a model that other states can adopt in some respects," and 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. "

On July 6, 2007, The New York Times reported that Sally Canfield, then the policy director for the Romney campaign, also distinguished the Massachusetts plan from what Romney would favor nationally:

On the Republican side, few candidates have been better prepared to deal with the issue than former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who helped push through that state's health plan with bipartisan support. But Republican primary voters tend to be leery of new government requirements, and, arguably, of Massachusetts as a role model. Mr. Romney, on the campaign trail, talks generally about getting "everybody inside the health care system," through "market reforms" state by state to make private insurance cheaper and more available. But not, he says, "with a government takeover."

Sally Canfield, policy director for the Romney campaign, says that Mr. Romney is proud of his record, but "the Massachusetts plan was crafted for Massachusetts," and that a national plan would be different. For example, aides said he did not support a federal version of the Massachusetts requirement that individuals obtain insurance.

And on August 24, 2007, the Times reported that Romney had just then unveiled a health-care plan that "departs significantly from the universal health care measure that he helped forge as governor of Massachusetts":

Mitt Romney, an architect of Massachusetts' universal health coverage plan, is unveiling his proposal for overhauling the nation's health care system, calling for a state-by-state approach that he says will help millions of uninsured in this country gain access to affordable medical coverage.

The proposal, which Mr. Romney will detail today before the Florida Medical Association, departs significantly from the universal health care measure that he helped forge as governor of Massachusetts, reflecting the conservative audience he must now appeal to in order to win the Republican presidential nomination. It relies on federal incentives for market reforms, tax deductions and other changes to encourage people to buy health insurance and drive down costs.

"He's run away from the Massachusetts plan," said Stuart Altman, a health economist at Brandeis University who worked in the Nixon administration and has helped advise many politicians since, including Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic presidential contender.

The Massachusetts plan, which went into effect this year and is still being watched closely to see how it will fare, was Mr. Romney's signal legislative accomplishment as governor but has elements that trouble many conservatives, most notably a mandate that everyone who can afford it must buy health insurance or face penalties.

Mr. Romney often promotes his health care bill in Massachusetts on the campaign trail, holding it up as a private-market-based solution to the problem of the uninsured, as opposed to "socialized medicine," or "Hillary-care," as he often says. But he almost never mentions the requirement that individuals buy coverage.

There is no individual mandate in Mr. Romney's plan for the rest of the country. Instead, it concentrates on a "federalist" approach, premised on the belief that it is impossible to create a uniform system for the entire country. Along these lines, the federal government would offer incentives to states to take their own necessary steps to bring down the cost of health insurance.

From the May 3 edition of CNN's State of the Union with John King:

KING: Health care is another big issue that's going to come up this year. You got beat up in the campaign a little bit by fellow conservatives who said, you know, your approach had too big of a government role. Is the Massachusetts approach that was passed under Governor Romney, is that a good model for the nation?

ROMNEY: Well, I think so, but I'm not going to impose necessarily my view on the National Council for a New America. We're going to exchange ideas, listen to people; I'll put forward my own perspectives. My own view is pretty straight forward -- and that is that we can get Americans insured. We can get virtually every American insured with health insurance, without having to have government take over health insurance.

KING: The president's going to try to move his plan while you're having this national conversation, and he has put in place the rules that will probably allow him to do it. Is he going to get his way on health care?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dave (May 03, 2009 9:08 pm ET)
        7
      I honestly don't care who's program is deemed the best...Mitt's, Hillary's, BO's, etc. I just don't want to pay for other peoples' coverage. I have enough to pay for with my own coverage, not to mention NY taxes.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (May 03, 2009 9:57 pm ET)
        4  
        "I just don't want to pay for other peoples' coverage."


        You're already paying for other people's health care so you won't notice much of a difference when the public option becomes available.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (May 03, 2009 10:16 pm ET)
          1  
          and paying for health care when it gets to the emergency stage, which is pretty expensive.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 04, 2009 12:25 pm ET)
               
            More expensive and more profitable which of course IS the point. That is why there is so little priority for preventative measures in the US.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (May 03, 2009 10:20 pm ET)
        3  
        Judging by your second sentence, you're not real happy about how much your coverage costs. Have you ever bothered to find out why it costs so much?

        There are numerous reasons, but there is one that is most relevant to your desire to pay for just yourself and no one else...

        Whether you like it or not, you're already paying for the care of the uninsured and under-insured, thanks to the current health care system. When uncompensated urgent and emergency care remains unpaid, it results in higher costs for everyone else, which is passed on to you and/or your employer by way of higher insurance rates.

        This is pretty ironic when you consider that one of the right-wing's favorite health care talking points is we have the best health care system in the world because anyone can get the care they need at the emergency room.

        How ever content you are with the current situation, if you think every one of your health care dollars is allocated just for you and your fellow policy holders, you're sorely mistaken.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 04, 2009 11:56 am ET)
           
        Yes you are selfish, worship at the alter of Ebenezer Scrooge and never care in the least about anyone but yourself. You are the GOP demographic that is shriking like wool in hot water. You have already made all this perfectly clear. Pardon those of us who have at least some idea what the concept of empathy is.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (May 03, 2009 11:00 pm ET)
         
      O/T...

      Thank you, MMFA, for implementing post voting. We have yet to see how it will be utilized, but if you've given it teeth, I applaud the move wholeheartedly.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (May 03, 2009 11:51 pm ET)
           
        I like the voting feature, and I know many people will be thrilled to see the preview function back. I'm happy to see spellcheck working again, personally, and also the number of comments on each topic listed on the main page. The gravatar thing is nice, too.

        The big disappointment for me is that it doesn't give a choice between threaded and unthreaded any longer, which I found very convenient. But overall the changes seem to be an improvement.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 04, 2009 9:12 am ET)
             
          Gravatar was working yesterday, then the site went back to its previous form, and now the avatars don't seem to be there. Am I not seeing them because they're blocked somehow, or was the feature deactivated yesterday evening when MMfA came back up in its present form?

          I do like the new design.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (May 04, 2009 10:04 am ET)
               
            Gravatar appears for me right now. I have to think that if they're not showing up for you, the problem must be with your computer. I'm not an expert, but I would try cleaning out your cache and rebooting.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (May 03, 2009 11:34 pm ET)
         
      While the Mass program as put in play under the Romney administration may not work as written for all states, that does not mean that it wouldn't make a good template for other states to use in adopting similar programs for their own use. And it may not be a bad template for the Feds to look at. I think this is a problem that should be addressed primarily on the State level as the conditions from State to State vary so much that a one size fits all as would probably come out of the Federal government may not work well in all States either.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Romario (May 03, 2009 11:48 pm ET)
      2  
      John King is a sorry excuse for a journalist. I stopped listening to anything emanating from his piehole after he sat there nodding at everything Darth Cheney said about President Obama.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mrhebert74 (May 04, 2009 12:38 am ET)
      4  
      ROMNEY: I don't want to have the guys who did the cleanup at Katrina taking responsibility for health care in this country...

      Hey, Mitt, not a problem anymore.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (May 04, 2009 1:23 am ET)
        5 1
        I agree ...

        I don't want the guys who did the Katrina cleanup doing health care.

        And neither do the American people.

        I don't want the guys who did the Katrina cleanup doing anything but time.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by roninkannushi1711 (May 04, 2009 2:19 am ET)
         
      If the federal government provided incentives, to the states, would they be monitored? We know what happened before.

      Depending on the state, some would be left out, if were up to the individual state.

      I think more direct, and very hard, questions should be asked, by the media.

      They claim skill to be President, have them prove it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by smarshall1432997 (May 04, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
         
      If the Republicans would just try to have a more positive stance on Healthcare Reform for "All" Americans and just get away from their "fear" oppositions, then Americans would be better off. Remember back in the day, if a problem developed at a company the Managers would go to employees for their ideas to solve the problem. Eventually, the Managers would notice two kind of employees: "positive" and "negative". The "negative" employees would repeat over and over of how bad the problem was, and how nothing could be done to fix the problem just leave it alone. The "positive" employees would "not" see the problem but an exciting challenge where "new" ideas, proposals, and solutions would work best. "Negative" employees had "no" solutions, while "Positive" employees had many solutions. America deserves both Democrats and Republicans to be "positive" employees to get things done.
      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.