You know it; I know it; probably a stranded Martian hiding under a rock in Somalia knows it: Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare reforms were the intellectual underpinning for the policy Republicans now deride as “Obamacare.” It’s been the albatross around the former governor’s neck ever since he entered the 2012 race, with even President Obama acknowledging its origins.
The GOP frontrunner has put up a valiant effort to claim there are major differences. That hasn’t always prompted a happy reaction from the less partisan advisers who helped him craft the law he’s now running away from.
Foremost among that group of disgruntled wonks is MIT professor Jonathan Gruber. He’s come out in the past saying it’s “sad” that Romney is running from his signature achievement, but now he’s turned things up to eleven.
In an interview with Capital New York, a “frustrated” Gruber vents about the possibility of the bill’s key component - the so-called individual mandate - being ripped out of it by the Supreme Court.
The interview is worth reading in full, but here’s the key passage regarding Romney:
He credited Mitt Romney for not totally disavowing the Massachusetts bill during his presidential campaign, but said Romney’s attempt to distinguish between Obama’s bill and his own is disingenuous.“The problem is there is no way to say that,” Gruber said. “Because they’re the same fucking bill. He just can’t have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it’s the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he’s just lying.”
Gruber is a passionate defender of the bill he helped create, even going to the extent of writing a graphic novel to help dispel the misconceptions that sprang up even before Sarah Palin uttered the fateful words, “death panel.” In the interview he doubts the good intentions of those trying to dismantle the bill, saying, “Look, if this succeeds, then Obama becomes F.D.R.” So if it does wind up being gutted it will be “on purely political grounds.”
Thomas Lane
Thomas Lane is an associate editor at Talking Points Memo. He previously produced and reported for the BBC from its UN Bureau in New York. He is a dual citizen of the US and the UK.
@truth-spin Can we have more truth and less spin, please, sir? The ACA is actually NOT a one-size-fits-all bill. There is plenty of flexibility for the states-Vermont is developing single payer under the ACA. The states fighting it are not planning to develop innovative solutions of their own-if they were they would come to the feds with proposals and get waivers. In fact, they are GOP-led states, whose plan if ACA is overturned is to do absolutely NOTHING.
Same fucking bill, and same fucking Republicans, opposing everything that a Democratic president accomplishes, world without end, amen. In a way it's appropriate that Newt is leading in the polls, since he practically invented the late 20th century version of this typically Republican form of assholery.
How can you tell when ANY political candidate is lying? His/her lips are moving. The entire lot of GOP runners are a pack of liars and thieves save for maybe one who may have a modicum of brains. This story while fun to read is no surprise.
Whoaaa, now . . . Before Mittens there was the Heritage Foundation and a slew of GOP-baggers that were pushing their health care reform in opposition to Hillary Clinton's efforts. And they were 100% IN FAVOR of an insurance mandate.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/20/how-a-...
Rick Shreiner Well, of course -- because the operative words are "in opposition." It's become indisputably clear over the past few decades that the whole point of such exercises is so the GOP can say "look! we have a plan, too! just cheaper, simpler, and smaller-government-y!" And they get the media to talk up their "very thoughtful alternative" and get the Village Wurlitzer pumping for "compromise." Same thing on cap-and-trade, another originally Republican, "market-oriented" solution proposed as an alternative to simply taxing the production of CO2. Yet somehow cap-and-trade became the evil spawn of the far-left party of the socialist-fascist-Muslim-atheist-Kenyan in the White House.
Just occasionally, a Republican or two is actually acting in good faith (see Chafee, John, on health care in the 1990s, and son Lincoln, no longer a Republican, in the aughts). But for virtually the entirety of the modern Republican party, and the movement-conservative "think tanks" that churn out this stuff, it's just a delaying maneuver to avoid any government action. So when the Democrats, who really do want government to work, decide that one of these ideas might be effective and would be better than nothing and move to compromise so they can actually accomplish something, the idea in question is suddenly too far left (and the media dutifully report it as such), and the goalposts move. And here we are.
Because the "conservative" mission, in all these cases, is to draw out debate long enough that nothing gets done. Because if something gets done, then that means government is effective. And we can't have that.
rj
Could not have been stated better.
Refreshing.
If Medicare is LEGAL and Mandatory then it follows that the ACA Act mandate is constitutionally LEGAL AS WELL!
That said Mr. romney is running on frayed flip flops and dangerous assertions about starting a WAR WITH IRAN... People may think he is smart but none of his colleagues from the Street like him or trust him! He is scripted and a wax figure with versatile convictions! He has nothing but the fact that 70% of the party he wants to lead DOES NOT WANT HIM!
Mitt would have us believe that this bill is a great thing for Massachusetts but absolutely terrible for the other 49 states. But why? Is it a matter of the climate in Massachusetts, the level of education of the population, the ethnic makeup? What explains this puzzling situation.
radicalrealist It's the water.
peterprincipleradicalrealist Love that dirty water!
radicalrealist Yes, that's it. Massachusetters wear better makeup.
obama has the THE GOPERS twisted into pretzels over the ACA..........they wanted a GOPER president to pass it and they could take credit for it....THEY LOVE IT and BIG INSURANCE LOVES IT (MANDATE)
jlover What a huge pile.
Ahhhhhhhhhh, finally!
Someone just came out and said it: "He's just lying."
Now if only more people who are interviewed would just put it plainly whenever they recognize a politician's bald-faced...and, yeah, fucking...lie.
What a huge F-bomb on the headline. It's reminiscent of TPM's reader blog days.
The Obama campaign should be careful though because once Mitt secures the GOP nomination he will shamelessly pivot to embracing "Romneycare" exploiting short comings of "Obamacare" to claim he best positioned to tweak the law for the good of everyone. It just might work.
Yeah, except for the fact that it would either light the fire under the Rapture Party to run a 3rd party candidate, or extinguish all enthusiasm and gotv efforts by conservatives and teabaggers.
Mr.E. I don't see any way that a third party candidate can be avoided.
And I like that.
It took Romney way too long to come to his current position that the Mass law is a good bill for Mass and that other state by state approaches would be better than a federal one-size-fits-all system that destroys innovation and flexibility. You'd think that someone running for so long would have gotten there much faster...
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like