What do Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton have in common? Both have been tarred with the brush of being advocates of socialized medicine. Admittedly, Romney hasn’t got to the point where he gets his own “Hillarycare” style moniker, but he’s being pummeled by his presidential primary opponents because of the health bill he signed into law while governor of Massachusetts. They’re decrying it as a flash of communism – which is baffling, because what both candidates have come up with is the antithesis of socialized medicine. It’s mandatory private insurance.
The Massachusetts law, which comes into effect on Dec. 31, says that all residents of the state have signed up for a private insurance plan or lose their state income tax personnel exemption. By comparison to Hillary’s proposals (which would give tax credits for insurance premiums and allow the uninsured to buy into Medicaid or the same private programs that are open to federal employees), Romney’s old plan actually has a more aggressive “big government” spin. Well, aggressive like a frisky Chihuahua.
It opens one small state agency, the Commonwealth Connector, which links residents with insurers. His new plan, out on the campaign trail, actually calls for further deregulation to allow more competition for insurance premiums. And everyone knows how well deregulated financial markets have worked out for the mortgages, electricity markets, etc., etc., etc. Meanwhile, over in California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been godfather to another mandatory insurance scheme, but he’s managed to avoid the accusations of “nanny statesmanship” by saying he’d pay for it by leasing the state lottery.
How any of this fits in with the traditional socialized medicine model of universal health care paid for by taxation, with no co-pay, no “out of system” restrictions, and no denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions is a mystery to all.
This article appears in November 16 • 2007.
