The Truth About RomneyCare

Why is it that Mitt won’t talk about the whole story on RomneyCare. Keep in mind that this is the policy he refuses to walk away from… price controls and all…..

PJ Media Paul Hsieh, MD:

Now that Mitt Romney has shown himself politically vulnerable after Iowa, more people are taking a closer look at his claims about the “RomneyCare” health care plan he helped create as Massachusetts governor. In this interview from April 2010 which recently recirculated last month, Romney attempts to draw some distinctions (as well as acknowledge similarities) between his RomneyCare plan and the national ObamaCare plan. One of the alleged virtues of RomneyCare over ObamaCare is that Romney’s plan does not contain “price controls,” whereas ObamaCare does. But how does this stack up against reality?

Romney’s claim may have been technically true at the time the plan was enacted. But according to the New York Times, this was a deliberate choice on the part of Romney and the Massachusetts lawmakers when they passed the law in 2006. They aimed for “universal coverage” first, and decided to worry about controlling costs later. In other words, they knew that costs would be a problem but chose to kick the can down the road. It’s like borrowing money from a loan shark then saying, “At least I don’t owe him any money right now!”

But even before Romney’s 2010 claims, the state had already implemented some price controls. As Michael Tennant notes, “Requiring insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions at the same rates as healthy individuals –  another feature of the Massachusetts law that Romney praises — surely qualifies as a price control.”

Similarly, requiring insurance companies to provide numerous mandatory benefits (including lay midwives, orthotics, and drug-abuse treatment) and then denying insurers’ requests for rate increases to cover their increased costs is another form of price control.

Yet another price control considered (but ultimately not implemented) was a proposal to compel doctors to accept patients covered by the state’s “Affordable Health Plans” at government-set payment rates or else lose their state medical licenses.

And because costs continue to rise faster in Massachusetts than in the rest of the country….

Read the rest HERE.

CBS: Romney not polling well with Tea Party, low income men, independents.

Translation – the parts of the GOP base that want/need/demand policy results don’t trust Mitt Romney to deliver. As Romney supporters Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham said; the more that Romney is pressured and the closer he gets to the general election the more to the left he will go.

CBS:

Tea Partiers Can’t Stand Him

To this point, though, the Tea Party movement has wanted nothing to do with Romney. Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, endorsed Newt Gingrich. The Tea Party Fund created a website – NotMittRomney.com – to inform voter’s of his liberal positions on key issues. And, Karen Martin, South Carolina Tea Party organizer said on National Public Radio recently that “no Tea Partier that I talk to in the state or nationally would want to promote Romney.”

In the Iowa caucuses, Romney finished tied for fourth among strong supporters of the Tea Party movement, 14 points back of Rick Santorum. In New Hampshire, although he won a plurality of the vote among Republicans who strongly back the movement, he received noticeably less support than he did from Republicans who were less supportive of the movement.

Low Income Men Can’t Relate to Him

Low income, white men have long been an important part of the Republican base. Romney, though, has alienated many of them with comments during the campaign that were perceived as being insensitive. At a debate last month in Iowa, he tried to make a $10,000 wager with Rick Perry over how his health care plan was characterized in his book. This past week, he commented that he liked to “fire people” that provide services to him.

These gaffes are showing their impact at the polls. In the past two contests, Romney has done poorly among low income, white men. In the Iowa caucuses, he received less than 15 percent of their support. In the supposedly friendly confines of New Hampshire he did not fare much better. He received only 27 percent of the vote from low income, white men in New Hampshire, trailing Ron Paul by 11 points.

Independents Don’t Support Him

Self-identified independents are a key swing group in presidential elections. Winning their support doesn’t ensure electoral success, but losing it by a wide margin almost guarantees defeat. In 2008, Barack Obama defeated John McCain among independents 52 percent to 44 percent on his way to winning the presidency.

Despite all his success in the nomination campaign, Romney has been unable to attract much support from independents. In Iowa, Paul crushed Romney among self-identified independents, besting him 43 percent to 19 percent. Things improved in New Hampshire, but on a night, in which Romney won most demographic groups, he managed to lose independents again. Paul beat Romney 32 percent to 29 percent.

Romney’s weakness among independents appears to stem from views about how to solve the federal budget deficit, likely to be a major issue in the fall campaign. Among independent voters in the New Hampshire GOP primary who thought the deficit was the most important issue, they supported Paul over Romney by a whopping 48 percent to 23 percent margin.

American Spectator: RINO Romney Is the Least Electable

American Spectator:

Long History of Rejecting Conservatism

Romney assured Massachusetts voters when he was running for the Senate in 1994 that he did not want to go back to Reaganomics. He said during that campaign, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

Romney was also one of the few Republicans in 1994 to refuse to sign on to Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. He said during that campaign, “In my view, it is not a good idea to go into a contract, like what was organized by the Republican Party in Washington, laying out a whole series of things that the party says ‘these are the things we are going to do.’ I think that’s a mistake.” That mistake led to an historic Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. But Romney was one of the few Republicans to lose that year.

True to form, even today Romney is effectively promising not to take America back to pro-growth Reaganomics. Cowed by President Obama’s class warfare rhetoric, Romney promises to eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends, but only for middle income Americans. He says he would do that because they, not the wealthy, were the ones most hurt by the recession.

But effective tax policy does not distribute tax cuts based on who “needs” a tax cut the most. That is Obama neo-socialist class rhetoric. Effective tax policy enacts tax cuts that will do the most to promote economic growth and prosperity.

That is what Reagan did in cutting tax rates across the board for everybody, including the wealthy who have the most resources to invest. That is what the middle class and working people actually need most, cutting tax rates that will promote their jobs, higher wages, and personal prosperity.

 

Read the rest HERE.

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Lies About Giffords Shooting

Washington Examiner:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., speaking in New Hampshire this morning, reminded her audience of the tragic Tucson shooting last year — and also insinuated that the Tea Party, which she said regards political opponents as “the enemy,” has enhanced divisiveness in Congress and had something to do with the shooting, at least indirectly.

“We need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago, where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords — who is doing really well, by the way, — [was shot],” Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chair said during a “Politics and Eggs” forum this morning. “The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular . . . has really changed, I’ll tell you. I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.”

Having brought up the Giffords attack as a political cudgel, Wasserman Schultz doubled down on that attack. “You had town hall meetings that they tried to take over, and you saw some their conduct at those tea party meetings,” Wasserman Schultz said today. “When they come and disagree with you, you’re not just wrong, you’re the enemy.”

Warming to that theme, she added that “when they disagree with you on an issue, you’re not just wrong, you’re a liar.”

The problem is Debbie, that you most certainly ARE a liar

This is the Same Debbie Wasserman that routinely calls Republicans every name in the book such as –  racists that want the USA to return to Jim Crow, hate children, want old people to die, want to poison school children etc.

Of course what Wasserman leaves out is that the shooter was a dedicated leftist, an avowed Bush hater who  proudly displayed his affection for John Kerry, and was a part of an honors academic program for leftist students similar to IB [All of which is detailed HERE].

The shooter, Jared Loughner, was also an untreated paranoid schizophrenic who had multiple run ins with the sheriff’s department and other police. The sheriff, a partisan Democrat who at first blamed Rush Limbaugh for the shooting, knew about Loughner’s . The shooter’s mother works for the County and had used that position to help keep Loughner out of serious police trouble.

Of course, since the shooter was so incredibly mentally ill, not even Giffords herself blames Loughner or anyone else for the shooting, except for the scores of people who knew how sick he was and made sure that he went untreaded.

Gabby Giffords & Mark Kelly: If Loughner received treatment, this probably never would have happened

TEA Party events have been peaceful in spite of constant elite media lies about them. In fact not one TEA Party participant has ever been arrested at an event and that included the large D.C. events where well over a million people gathered.  On the other hand, the OWS protests sponsored by Democrats and other leftists have been more cases of violence, vandalism, rapes, sexual assaults, battery and theft than can be counted. Even though the OWS protests have been small by TEA Party standards, the number of arrests of OWS protesters is measured in many thousands.