If it wasn’t for the great health care debate of ‘09, I bet Romney would be the GOP frontrunner for 2012 (however dubious a title that may be in 2009). But since we have been debating health care “reform”, it’s inevitable to look at what Massachusetts did a few years ago under then-Gov. Romney.

So now, if Obamacare passes, Romney will be left telling angry primary voters that the only real difference between the two plans is that he implemented his policies at the state level, while Obama did it through the federal government. Sure, it’s clearly worse if the federal government is implementing bad policies, but it’s hard to see how such an argument would pass muster with anybody but those who are already ardent Romney supporters. It’s sort of like saying, “As governor, I raised state income taxes, but the thought of raising federal income taxes — that’s an outrage!”

A Romney spokesman counters:

There are some similarities. For instance, the concept of the “exchange” where people can shop for affordable health plans was pioneered in Massachachusetts. But Mitt’s Romney’s health care reforms are different in several important respects. First, the bill signed by Governor Romney did not raise taxes. Second, its focus was on strengthening the private insurance market, and I don’t think anyone believes that Democrats have given up on their dream of a public option. And finally, Governor Romney believes states should be free to come up with their own approach instead of having Washington create a “one-size-fits-all” solution for the entire country.

I think Romney gets unfairly blamed for some aspects that were done by the legislature or his successor. But when its become known as RomneyCare, that’s how politics rolls.

Regardless how HCR ends in Congress, it’s a debate that’s going to stick around for quite a while.


Continue reading at the original source →