Once upon a time, Mitt Romney did a very brave thing. The year was 2006. Romney was governor of Massachusetts, which is, of course, a brave thing for a Republican to do all by itself.
Massachusetts was trying to tackle the problem of health care reform. And Romney, as governor, was a key player in that fight. Which Romney won — sort of.
He couldn’t have known at the time that Barack Obama would someday be president. He couldn’t have known that Obama would get passed into law what has become known in some circles as Obamacare. And he definitely couldn’t have known the new law would be universally unpopular among Republicans or that it would be very much like what is now being called Romneycare.
We want our politicians to be bold and forthright and to stand up for what they believe.
And so we couldn’t have enjoyed the sad sight last week of Romney, who wants to be our next president, defending Romneycare while at the same time blasting Obamacare. It was a brave thing — or a desperate thing — or maybe just an impossible thing to pull off.
Romney has gone for a new image this go-round. He is tie-less, which is meant to show him as less stuffy. And he’s trying to shake the accusation that he flip-flops on issues. He must wish he could flip-flop on Romneycare the way that, say, Tim Pawlenty has apologized for once supporting cap-and-trade.
The problem for Romney is that his signature health-care reform so closely resembles the plan passed by the man he wants to replace and repeal. Both plans come close to universal coverage. They both have insurance exchanges with subsidies for those who can’t afford the insurance. And they both have the individual mandate requiring everyone to buy insurance or pay a fine.
Romney defends the mandate this way: “We told people either pay for your insurance or we’re going to charge you for the fact that the state will have to pay for your care.”
For those who favor the mandate, it was as if Romney had spoken magic words. But the magic didn’t seem to convert many Republicans.
It was a difficult task at best. Romney had to argue that his plan, including the mandate, was good on a state level — but not on a national level. Not that he could explain why. In fact, the more he tried, the less lucid he sounded. It’s hard to make the case that Massachusetts is unique or why Romneycare fits better there than, say, in Colorado or in any and all of the 50 states.
We have consistently voiced our concerns about the Affordable Care Act in that it didn’t go far enough in making health care more affordable. But Romney had to explain how he could say Massachusetts had adopted a state-specific solution, but that Obama’s plan “was a power grab by the federal government to put in place a one-size-fits-all plan across the nation.”
Even before the speech, the Wall Street Journal editorialized that Romney should “try to knock off Joe Biden and get on the Obama ticket.” Afterwards, the National Review called the speech his “illogical, terrible health-care address.”
The best reviews came from the White House, where praise for Romeycare is universal. Romney wishes Obama, of all people, would stop boldly saying nice things about him.
