Yesterday I had a debate with one of those "anyone but Mitt" people about "Romneycare." His issues with it proved that he did not understand the argument or the legislation. Mitt has had to explain it in almost every debate and press conference he has had in the last few years and yet some still don't seem to understand, so I have written up an amateur "dummy" explanation.
The following is an analogy, not based on an actual event. I would hope a real life principal wouldn't be so foolish. And I would like to say up front that I am not an expert on anything, as my writing will prove. This is the situation as I understand it and hopefully it will help others understand it better as well.
I have a friend who teaches elementary school. As a third grade teacher, one of her greatest responsibilities is to make sure the kids can read before they go on to fourth grade, because it's been proven that if they leave the third grade without being able to read they won't learn, they'll get left behind. In one particular class she found that midway through the year, four or five kids (out of thirty) were really struggling and it was slowing down the entire class. The teacher came up with a specific plan to help those that were slowing down by giving them special attention without taking away too much attention from the rest of the students progress. It works, the lagging students were able to catch up, and every single student was able to read.
The next year the principal decided to apply that third grade teachers principle to the whole school. The same drills, practices and methods were used in all classes from kindergarten to sixth grade in hopes to improve literacy school-wide. The problem with this implementation was that the program had been designed specifically for the third grade. Lower grades were not prepared to take on that material so naturally their other subjects suffered. The higher grade levels suffered as well because they already KNEW how to read. The LESSON was that the teaching plan designed to help the third grade was not meant to be applied to the whole school, it was designed by a specific teacher for a specific class to solve a specific problem they had. (ironic that in this analogy Texas is first or second graders, with their 25% uninsured. ha ha ha)
I think this analogy for the most part SHOULD speak for itself, but for clarification purposes I'll explain. In many states medical costs for uninsured are a hefty expense. Ever since the EMTALA, Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed in 1986, emergency rooms are required to provide service to anyone needing treatment regardless of citizenship, insurance, or ability to pay. With no reimbursement provisions in the act, quality of care in emergency rooms and hospitals suffer and economy suffers as well. (see Institute of Medicine research at institute of medicine reports and key findings and recommendations) Thus a way of cutting down the number of uninsured would be beneficial to the economy, to the actual "care" in healthcare, and to the tax-payers that were footing the bills for "free-loaders." Now I do not mean to compare children that have trouble reading to "free-riders" but I think we can agree that unemployed americans or illegal immigrants not being able to get or pay for health insurance is similar situation to children that cannot keep up in class. No one is at fault, and if there is a way to improve their situation, it should be done.
In 2004, lawmakers in massachusetts decided to take on the problem. I am not going to go into the individual tenets of that plan because I'm not an expert on healthcare and I think Mitt has explained that enough. But Mitt, with a gigantic panel of experts and several lawmakers in Massachusetts determined exactly what Massachusetts problem was and came up with a specific plan to fight it. That plan was endorsed by the very conservative heritage foundation and has since been endorsed by gubernatorial candidates from both parties because it took on the problem without raising taxes. Mitt has quoted polls stating that 66 percent of everyone in massachusetts support the plan today. In 2010, the Urban Institute released a study revealing the 98.1 percent of Massachusetts citizens are insured, and children and seniors are at 99.8 and 99.6 percent respectively. Healthcare became incredibly accessible and Massachusetts Secretary of health and Human Services Dr. Judyann Bigby said "Massachusetts' achievements in health care reform have been nothing short of extraordinary. With employers, government and individuals all sharing the responsibility of reform, we continue to have the highest insurance rate in the nation."
President Obama, in reforming the healthcare system of the United States, took the tenets from Romneys plan to get the uninsured 8% insured and applied it to the entire United States. First, this violates the tenth amendment that gives states the right to legislate that which is not expressed in the constitution. Healthcare, like many other issues, should not be treated as a federal nation-wide issue because every state has a different situation, and a "one sized fits all plan" as Mitt has called it is not effecient. For example, Massachusetts had about 92 percent of it's citizens insured before passing reform. The plan affects 8 percent, making it less costly than a state like Texas, that only has 75 percent of its citizens insured. Thus healthcare should be dealt with on a state by state basis, with each state government implementing its own ideas for it's own problems, experimenting and learning as they go. President Obama raised taxes by $500 billion and cut Medicare by $500 billion, only causing more injury to a bleeding economy.
I would not suggest, however, that the Massachusetts healthcare plan was perfect, and neither would Mitt. He has said repeatedly that there are things that he would change if he could do it all over again, and even when it passed there were parts that he did not support or approve of that the legislature overruled. But overall it was a good plan that accomplished a specific purpose, and if that is your reason to not vote for Mitt in 2012, you clearly do not understand the issue and you need to reevaluate your desire to unseat President Obama, because according to the polls, the debates, and COMMON SENSE, Mitt is the only candidate that can beat President Obama.
