By Mitt Romney
If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.
As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are “laboratories of democracy.” They should be free to experiment.
By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another. Of course, the ultimate goal is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health-care costs. But since an outright repeal would take time, an executive order is the first step in returning power to the states.
March 22, 2011 8:20 P.M. National Review Online / The Corner
As Mitt Romney continues to hone his message about the Health Care reform issue, a hurdle political prognosticator insist he needs to overcome should he decide on 2012 presidential candidacy, other possible GOP contenders need to seriously consider how they would address their own problematic issues.
In a National Review Online statement posted on March 22, Romney says he would use an Executive Order to provide states a waiver to avoid participating in ObamaCare. While recognizing this is not a cure all, Romney is showing how he would address the battle, until full reform could be adopted and signed.
Ever since President Obama passed his health care reform law, pundits have been writing Romney’s political obituary, citing the similarities between ObamaCare and Commonwealth Care, the plan Romney signed into law as Governor of Massachusetts in 2006. Seems everyone across a wide political swath, has been sounding off, giving advice or demanding apologies from the near certain 2012 Presidential candidate.
Obama tried to be uber-slick in his overt tainting of Romney. Mike Huckabee, still smarting and sour over the 2008 campaign, trashed Romney in his latest book. Then Haley Barbour, Paul Ryan, Rick “Someone please pay attention to me” Santorum, the recently shunned Mike Steele and eventually Rudy “Florida” Giuliani, all got into the act.
Romney to his credit remained relatively silent, opting not to take the bait of answering each and every charge directly. Such actions only prolong a negative story and create a perception of desperation and adolescent retribution. Rather, he has maintained a steadfast position since 2007, insisting the states of this great nation have the right to choose for themselves and enact health care reforms crafted for their own particular needs. Choosing when and where to address the issue, Romney has outlined solutions in his book ‘No Apology’ published in 2010. He recently spoke about reform during a speech at the Lincoln Day Dinner in
And in reality why shouldn’t he be?
As has been stated before, many times, he helped create a plan in a very liberal state, which has lowered the number of uninsured residents, provided people with the ability to purchase their own private health insurance and is currently supported by 84% of the populace. Even in
This most essential of conservative positions seems to be serving Romney quite well, as he continues to remain a top line polling leader and is improving his favorability amongst the GOP and the very conservative. This statement at National Review Online is Romney at his most efficient and effective best. It nails the issue on several points and offers a solution to what could be a legislative morass come 2012.
Critics of Romney remain unconvinced of his intentions repeal or in his ability to persuade voters to look past his role in health care reform and the perceived similarities to ObamaCare, in order to win the 2012 GOP nomination. Deciding Romney is unacceptable; these Conservative-Libertarians continue to search for a new candidate to lead them. Unfortunately for them, no candidate is ever perfect and all carry some degree of political baggage. How each handles their own liabilities raises many questions about their own political minefields..
What will eventually be tougher to explain to voters – a controversial policy decision, a controversial personal moral imbroglio, a controversial penchant for paroling violent criminals or a controversial decision to abandon one’s elected office mid-term?
Romney detractors suggest he’ll have a devil of a time addressing concerns about MassCare with primary voters, asserting he has no effective answer to placate conservative concerns about the similarities to ObamaCare. And yet candidates who would hope to benefit by seeing Romney trapped in a swamp of explanation, might very well find themselves mired in a defensive quagmire of their very own.
Exactly how resonant will be Newt Gingrich’s flaccid accounting of being “too patriotic” to remain faithful to his terminally ill, cancer ravaged wife? Will Mike Huckabee be able to deflect concerns about his flabby resolve in keeping criminals incarcerated? Equally challenging will be the wilted defense of her resignation by Sarah Palin, a fighting Mama Grizzly, gamely proffering an “everybody was picking on me” alibi.
Given Gingrich’s palatable sleaze factor, Huckabee’s snarky and subliminal “I’m not as nice as I seem” demeanor and Palin’s rhetorical challenges in providing succinct, easily comprehensible answers, Romney’s “State’s Rights” riffs suddenly seem strong, well thought and very much in-tune with the smaller government attitudes likely to be prevalent among Republican voters in 2012.
Perhaps that is why this “anti-RomneyCare” bandwagon seems so overloaded of late.