Impressed by his long record of conservative policy accomplishments (tax cuts, balanced budgets, school choice, weakening government unions, etc.) I was eagerly awaiting Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels entrance into the presidential race. But earlier this month, Daniels announced he would not be running. I can now honestly say I have no idea whom I will vote for next March in the Virginia presidential primary.
A friend recently asked me if I would be willing to vote for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. I would be. But first Mitt will have to admit that, like Obamacare, Romneycare is not good public policy.
In one sense, Romneycare has been a spectacular success: more Bay Staters now have health insurance than ever before. By this metric, Obamacare is also set to be a great success: If it is not repealed, or defunded, more Americans will be covered by health insurance policies than ever before.
This is because Obamacare and Romneycare are essentially the same plan. Both force individuals to obtain health insurance. Both force health insurance companies to insure everyone at virtually the same price. Both provide tax-paid subsidies to individuals to help pay for health insurance. And both expand Medicaid to provide health insurance for those who still can’t afford it after the subsidies.
But health insurance is no guarantee of better of health. In fact, while the relationship between health insurance and better health outcomes is mixed, there is a strong relation between higher education levels and better health outcomes. The best thing any health care reform plan could do, therefore, is both decrease government health spending and free people to spend their money on other priorities. Obamacare and Romneycare do the exact opposite.
Under Romneycare, government health spending in Massachusetts has exploded to 40 percent of the state budget. The state now only spends only 21 percent of its tax dollars on education. The Bay State’s private citizens are feeling the pinch too; the median health insurance premium for a policyholder in Massachusetts jumped 21 percent between 2005 and 2009.
Thanks to President Obama, the same is now set to happen to the rest of the country. Before Obama became president, government health spending was already expected to increase far faster than inflation. Obamacare will make that problem worse. Under the new law, government health spending is now set to increase by an extra $874 billion by 2019. And that’s a very conservative estimate, because it assumes that Obamacare will cut Medicare spending by $500 billion before 2019. In all likelihood, Congress will undo those cuts, lest even more doctors stop taking Medicare patients.
As the former governor of Massachusetts, Romney is uniquely qualified to explain to the American people why Romneycare is not working in the Bay State and why it will not work as Obamacare for the rest of the nation.
None of this means Romney needs to apologize for Romneycare. In fact, he shouldn’t. Not all business ventures work out. When an entrepreneur takes a risk and it fails, he doesn’t need apologize. He just learns from his mistake and tries again. That’s what Romney needs to do on health care.
John McCain eventually won the Republican nomination in 2008 after supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants in 2007. But before he won the nomination, McCain first had to admit that his old, amnesty-first, approach to immigration reform wouldn’t work. If McCain had not abandoned amnesty then he would have never gotten the nomination. The same applies to Romney and Romneycare this year.
