TPM LiveWire

Obama: My Health Care Bill Is Just Like Romney's (VIDEO)


President Barack Obama

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

President Obama pointed out today that despite the many criticisms of the health care bill by Republicans, it's a lot like the plan former GOP Gov. Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts.

This puts a slight damper in Romney's efforts to distance himself from the bill, which he has called "an unconscionable abuse of power," as he gears up for a possible presidential run in 2012.

Romney has been making the rounds, calling for the bill's repeal, and slamming Obama for "succumb[ing] to the lowest denominator of incumbent power: justifying the means by extolling the ends."

As Greg Sargent pointed out earlier, on Today this morning, Obama set back Romney's efforts just a bit.

The President first criticized Republicans for their unanimous opposition to the health care bill, calling it "a calculated decision, a political decision."

He continued:

I think that's unfortunate because when you actually look at the bill itself, it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas. I mean a lot of commentators have said, you know, this is sort of similar to the bill that Mitt Romney, the Republican Governor and now presidential candidate, passed in Massachusetts.

Here's the video. Romney talk starts at about 5:25:

(h/t Greg Sargent)

Comments (25) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

March 30, 2010 12:23 PM   

Man, I like this guy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 12:35 PM    in reply to Roma Victors

Me too....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 12:28 PM   

That's Obama's opening jab in Round 2. Mitt was wide open for a body blow and Obama stung him. Ouch! That's is going to leave a mark!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 12:34 PM    in reply to Brownbagger

The rope a dope.......if anyone thinks this guy doesn't know what he's doing is badly mistaken...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 12:43 PM   

Obama didn't land a body blow on Mittens.

He's holding the Mittster in front of the TeaNuts and letting them land the body blows!

Hee hee! This is sweeeet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 12:57 PM   

tell me again who the pseudo-conservatives have to run against this guy???

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 1:21 PM   

The voice of reason v. the hysterics. Pass the popcorn.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 1:31 PM   

Obama: My plan is just like Romney's for the economy, and just like Bush's for the wars and lies. And after starving Iranian children, I will privatize Social Security.

Obama-bots: We love our liberal president!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 5:29 PM    in reply to Why oh why

No shit!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 2:20 PM   

Obama says ObamaCare just like RomneyCare. Yes, it is, only bigger and more costly and less beneficial than RomneyCare.

"In 2006, then GOP Governor Mitt Romney brought about a universal insurance plan that bears an uncanny resemblance to ObamaCare—and a meticulous new study confirms that the result has been high costs in return for minimal benefits.

Using the Census Bureau's current population survey, University of Kentucky economist Aaron Yelowitz and Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute studied RomneyCare between 2005 and 2008—that is, two years on either side of its passage. The share of uninsured residents did fall to 5.4% in 2008 from 9.8% in 2005 (though the authors argue this reduction is overstated).
But Messrs. Yelowitz and Cannon show that most of the new coverage was concentrated among people earning under 300% of the federal poverty level, or about $66,000 for a family of four. Those happen to be the same people who qualify for subsidies in the heavily regulated insurance "connector," the prototype for the "exchanges" that Democrats were contemplating before Mr. Brown so rudely interrupted.

Coverage for adults in this group increased by 14.2 percentage points—which merely proves that "universal" coverage isn't much of a problem if health care is cheap for consumers. But another way of thinking about it is that the subsidies amount to a taxpayer-funded insurance discount. The same increase in coverage might be achievable if health care were less expensive. But rather than deregulate and reform the private market to lower costs, Mr. Romney and Democrats defaulted to the same public transfer payments that define ObamaCare.
The program's costs have since exploded and compounded the Bay State's budget burdens, even though the feds pay a large share of RomneyCare's costs via Medicaid. One reason for this spending boom, say Messrs. Yelowitz and Cannon, is that subsidized coverage has tended to crowd out private insurance: Among adults eligible for subsidies, unsubsidized coverage fell by 6.2 percentage points even as overall coverage increased statewide and in neighboring New England. The authors also point out that the true costs are, conservatively, 57% higher than what the government spends if unfunded private sector mandates are included—or about $1 billion total in 2008.

Meanwhile, although Mr. Romney promised that his plan would lower costs, the liberal Commonwealth Fund reports that Massachusetts insurance costs have climbed anywhere from 21% to 46% faster than the U.S. average since 2005. Employer-sponsored premiums are now the highest in the nation." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013080421218008.html

RomneyCare gives us a real life preview of ObamaCare, just as California and Michigan (under years of liberal domination) give us real life previews of the U.S. in a few years if current liberal domination is not drasticly reversed. Even with a Republican House, Senate, and White House in 2012, it will be an extremely difficult task as Democrats fight to the death to demogogue "change" that we need.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 2:28 PM    in reply to acriticalthinker

More food for thought for liberals to dismiss out of hand, ignore, and fly into a rage about:

"There are many similarities between it [RomneyCare]and the ObamaCare loathed by conservative voters.
Both have an individual mandate requiring most residents to have health insurance or pay a penalty. Most businesses are required to participate or pay a fine. Both rely on government-designed purchasing exchanges that also provide a platform to control private health insurance. Many of the uninsured are covered through Medicaid expansion and others receive subsidies for highly-prescriptive policies. And the apparatus requires a plethora of new government boards and agencies.
While it's true that the liberal Massachusetts legislature did turn Mr. Romney's plan to the left, his claims that his plan is "entirely different" will not stand up to the intense scrutiny of a presidential campaign, especially a primary challenge.

While Mr. Romney insisted that everyone should pay something for coverage, that is not the way his plan has turned out. More than half of the 408,000 newly insured residents pay nothing, according to a February 2010 report by the Massachusetts Health Connector, the state's insurance exchange.
Another 140,000 remained uninsured in 2008 and were either assessed a penalty or exempted from the individual mandate because the state deemed they couldn't afford the premiums.

Mr. Romney's promise that getting everyone covered would force costs down also is far from being realized. One third of state residents polled by Harvard researchers in a study published in "Health Affairs" in 2008 said that their health costs had gone up as a result of the 2006 reforms. A typical family of four today faces total annual health costs of nearly $13,788, the highest in the country. Per capita spending is 27% higher than the national average.

Further, insurance companies are required to sell "just-in-time" policies even if people wait until they are sick to buy coverage. That's just like the Obama plan. There is growing evidence that many people are gaming the system by purchasing health insurance when they need surgery or other expensive medical care, then dropping it a few months later.
Some Massachusetts safety-net hospitals that treat a disproportionate number of lower-income and uninsured patients are threatening bankruptcy. They still are treating a large number of people without health insurance, but the payments they receive for uncompensated care have been cut under the reform deal.
The Bay State is also suffering from what the Massachusetts Medical Society calls a "critical shortage" of primary-care physicians. As one would expect, expanded insurance has caused an increase in demand for medical services. But there hasn't been a corresponding increase in the number of doctors. As a result, many patients are insured in name only: They have health coverage but can't find a doctor.
Fifty-six percent of Massachusetts internal medicine physicians no longer are accepting new patients, according to a 2009 physician work-force study conducted by the Massachusetts Medical Society. For new patients who do get an appointment with a primary-care doctor, the average waiting time is 44 days, the Medical Society found.
As Dr. Sandra Schneider, the vice president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, told the Boston Globe last April, "Just because you have insurance doesn't mean there's a [primary care] physician who can see you."

Faced with soaring medical expenses, Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Romney's successor, wants to cap insurance rate increases at 4.8%, not the 8% to 32% increases the companies have requested for April 1. Three of the four major health insurers in Massachusetts showed operating losses for 2009. If their rates are capped, they say they'll be forced to cut payments to health providers, putting further pressure on doctors and fragile hospitals."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575115691871093652.html

Yeah, ObamaCare WILL be just like RomneyCare---only worse.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 4:30 PM    in reply to acriticalthinker

More food for thought for liberals to dismiss out of hand, ignore, and fly into a rage about

Not sure why we should fly into a rage, since many of us share the exact same concerns highlighted in that WSJ article, which is why we support single payer.

The difference is that most liberals prefer Romneycare/Obamacare to doing nothing (the alternative we were presented with, thanks to Republican obstructionism and Democratic timidity) in hopes that the flaws in the system can be fixed over time.

At a minimum, it will now be considerably harder for any future Republican administration and/or Republican Congress to deal with the cost issue by throwing the poor and/or uninsured to the wolves. In a country as rich as this one, that's worth something.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 5:18 PM    in reply to Peter Principle

Congratulations! Finally a liberal who is willing to engage in a discussion rather than merely dismiss dissent from liberal orthodoxy with name calling, profanity, and demands to "go away."

Be of good cheer, unless it is repealed ObamaCare will by design lead to the destruction of private insurance and the "necessity" of single payer, government run, nationalized and socialized health care. So much for competition, "you can keep your doctor if you like him/her", and "you can keep your insurance if you like it."

Obviously, I don't agree that single payer is the answer. Nationalized health care is great as long as you don't need medical care that is more complex than a check up.

Also, consider this:

When Medicare was first established, it was estimated it would cost $3 Billion annually, with a projected figure of $12 Billion by the year 1990. To show how far off our Federal Government's projected figures were, the actually cost in 1990 was a whopping $107 Billion! That's an 800% increase over the projected cost! According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost for 2009 is $484 Billion and by 2018 the projected cost will be $885.1 Billion, an unsustainable amount of money.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2097555/government_healthcare_medicare.html?cat=5

A 2007 GAO report ( http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/d071261r.pdf ) stated, in a large headline “Federal Fiscal Policy Remains Unsustainable”. This is obvious to all but those who think that federal resources are unlimited (i.e. most Obama voters and most of those who comment here). Page 2 of the report says “Although Social Security is a major part of the fiscal challenge, it is far from our biggest challenge. Spending on the major federal health programs (i.e. Medicare and Medicaid) represents a much larger, faster growing, and more immediate problem.” Page 5 of the report states: “The growth in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt dwarfs the growth in all other spending.” Charts in the GAO report show that by 2030 (actually earlier) Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt will COMPLETELY crowd out any other spending. BOOM!!! The entitlement bomb will explode.

The entire GAO report should be a wake up call to those who see no problem with the growth and expansion of “compassionate” entitlement programs. Continue to believe Democrats’ projections and CBO projections based on phony gimmicks designed to mislead the public, and that single payer is the real solution if you wish, but at least consider the GAO report as well. But liberalism is based upon fantasies, good intentions, and wishful thinking. I fear that there are not many here who have the courage to face the truth about ObamaCare and other entitlements.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 10:25 PM    in reply to acriticalthinker

Actually I wish you would go away. You know enough to blather on at length, but not enough to actually contribute to a meaningful discussion of the problem -- a common affliction on the right, unfortunately.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 31, 2010 9:10 AM    in reply to acriticalthinker

You were bitch slapped by peterprinciple. lol.......

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 31, 2010 11:56 AM    in reply to lousgirl84

Yeah, I was positively DAZZLED by the SUBSTANCE of his response to my FACTS. Basically: "go away, don't confuse me with facts or disturb my utopian fantasy with reality." "I wish you would go away" and a dismissive "You know enough to blather on at length, but not enough to actually contribute to a meaningful discussion of the problem" without addressing a SINGLE thing in my comment, to educate either me or anyone else here.

THAT is what qualifies as a "bitch slap"? I would be much more impressed by a factual refutation of what I wrote. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that, though.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 10:29 PM    in reply to acriticalthinker

How does "deregulating" health insurance do anything? There's a reason why insurance is regulated--''cos insurance companies don't like to pay claims... on anything... and they like to drop customers. Deregulating insurance companies would lead to much higher prices when you get sick, 'cos the companies will deny every claim they can with impunity. So, you wind up paying lower premiums, but get no coverage. It's a crock!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 31, 2010 12:08 PM    in reply to Lord Mike

No one is talking about totally deregulating insurance. Insurance is regulated plenty at both the state and federal level. The deregulation that is most often referred to is the state regulation that sets minimum coverage requirements for policies that can be sold in a state. Sure, it is great to have a policy that covers almost everything under the sun, including hysterectomies, but what if you are a man, who will never need a hysterectomy. What if someone wants only an affordable catastrophic hospitalization policy but can only buy a much broader coverage (which he or she does not want or need) at a much higher price?

Deregulation that would give consumers real choice concerning the kind of coverage they want and can afford is what most Republicans are talking about----NOT total deregulation.

I am not in the insurance business, but I understand enough to know that it IS a business and not a welfare operation that can pay out more than it brings it. Unlike the government, premiums must bear some relation to the risks of insuring people and the total medical benefits (costs) paid out. Do you know that Medicare denies more benefits that insurers do? Probably not.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 31, 2010 12:50 PM    in reply to Lord Mike

"Deregulating insurance companies would lead to much higher prices when you get sick, 'cos the companies will deny every claim they can with impunity. So, you wind up paying lower premiums, but get no coverage."

Allowing lower coverage policies that are approved in one state to be sold in another state ("selling across state lines") would at least lower premiums for those who are willing and able to buy them. Liberal nannies want to DICTATE that everyone buy higher premium, higher coverage policies because liberals know BEST what is good for everyone. Never mind that some can't afford the higher premium, higher coverage policy. It is like forcing everyone to buy a Volvo because they are "better" and "safer" cars when many people want, and can only afford, a Honda Civic.

Insurance is the same way. You get what you pay for and what you pay for is based upon insurance companies real life experience as to the expenses they have to pay when a particular array of benefits are included in a policy. More benefits covered, higher expenses paid out, higher premiums need to cover those expenses. It is really not that hard to understand, unless you think that insurance companies have unlimited piles of money and they decline to pay for benefits that are not covered in a policy just because they are mean bastards.

"Denying claims with impunity"? Yeah, that is a sure fire strategy for selling insurance and keeping customers. Come on, now----THINK at least a little bit. That company would be out of business in short order. But when ObamaCare is (as it is designed to be in 10 years or less), where will you go when the single payer government denies YOUR claim with impunity? Just wondering....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 5:27 PM   

Why are we celebrating the fact that this guy is proud to have passed a Republican bill after we sent him to Washington to bring change? It's disgusting. It isn't clever and it's not good for the country. It's a sad thing to see so many Democrats line up behind this bad bill because "our side" proposed it. It sucks that we elected a man as a Democrat who has chosen to rule as a Republican. That's nothing to applaud.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 10:31 PM    in reply to oleeb

Why are we celebrating the fact that this guy is proud to have passed a Republican bill after we sent him to Washington to bring change?

I grant you, campaigning against Republican ideas, and then turning around and boasting about passing a HCR bill chock full of Republican ideas, is neither consistent nor coherent.

But it's inevitable, given the way things turned out. Making political lemonaid out of a policy lemon, so to speak.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 6:08 PM   

Of course.

David Axelrod already said that Ob-omneyCare was their, "template". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvEuBtiBw6M

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 30, 2010 8:59 PM   

Ummm. The Massachusetts health plan has bombed, and bombed HARD. I don't think this is a good argument for Obama (def not a good thing for Romney).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 31, 2010 12:14 PM    in reply to RobbyLove

"The Massachusetts health plan has bombed, and bombed HARD."

Oh oh....another "heretic"? If so, begone!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 17, 2010 4:44 AM   

Congratulations! Finally a liberal who is willing to engage in a discussion rather than merely dismiss dissent from liberal orthodoxy with name calling, profanity, and demands to "go away."

Be of good cheer, unless it is repealed ObamaCare will by design lead to the destruction of private insurance and the "necessity" of single payer, government run, nationalized and socialized health care. So much for competition, "you can keep your doctor if you like him/her", and "you can keep your insurance if you like it."

Obviously, I don't agree that single payer is the answer. Nationalized health care is great as long as you don't need medical care that is more complex than a check up.

kamagra viagra

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on