Can Mitt Romney save healthcare, or is he cashing in on his image for 2012?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 63dot, Sep 6, 2009.

  1. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #1
    By now, I am sure many of you have heard about the bickering between the Democrats and Republicans over universal health care. Does the often brought up successful model of Mitt Romney's Massachusetts stand a chance?

    Is this "model" of universal health care in that state, with some liberals applauding it, something that can help the rest of the country, or Mitt Romney's popularity, or both?

    Just how "successful" is Mitt Romney's idea of forcing all to have to purchase health care, even at reduced subsidized rates, giving financial incentives and breaks to hospitals and insurance companies, and penalizing non buyers?

    With Sarah Palin pretty much out of the running and with little or no credibility, even if she ever had it at all, is the GOP banking on Romney for 2012? In most polls, Rasmussen and others, GOP Governor Jindal is the closest rival but still 20 points behind Romney as a potential 2012 GOP hopeful among likely voters.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #2
    I don't see how it would not be labeled as "socialism" which would not help him with the GOP.
     
  3. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #3
    His "forcing" people to buy or else, "incentives" to big insurance and health care, is not socialism, it's capitalism. He's not giving something away for free. He's creating a product that has to be bought, and thus a much larger customer base for many for profit organizations.

    Just like Clinton ran on the slogan of it's the economy, stupid and Obama ran on his hope message, Romney can be the health care guy. Bush Sr. was the education president in name only imho, and this label was a crock. It helped him though some saw through this label. Some say the hope Obama promised is just another clever slogan as his popularity has fallen over the last few months.
     
  4. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #4
    I guess I should further explain my comment. I do not see how the republicans would not call this "socialism" as it varies little to any of the other plans. I don't think it will help him, as I doubt that he will end up getting the nomination.
     
  5. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #5
    I am very scared of Romney getting the nomination. He came close in '08. Though I am a Christian and respect those who have a faith, I don't like the idea of anybody, whether it's the obviously religious Romney, or Rev. Huckabee, and any other very religious candidate who may use religion as a political tool. I believe religion should be a personal relationship with one's higher power, not a legislative agenda, as republican Colin Powell says in his book.

    Romney is actually somebody who could win and open up the already blurred line between church and state. What side do you think a Mormon will take? Look at Orrin Hatch. Before Hatch, I really didn't see politics and religion being so intertwined. Conservatives will try and get every Mormon, fundamentalist Protestant, and conservative Catholic vote they can in 2012 running on "family" values. At the end of the day, religious voters who are conservative will go with a religious GOP candidate over a secular democrat. And if any democrat tries to play the religion card, it would disrupt the base of democratic voters.

    Whatever happens, any GOP religious candidate can and will give Obama a hard fight in 2012.

    Though I hope Obama wins in 2012, a Romney-Jindal ticket can pull off a win. Outside of those two right now, I don't see any GOP names with brand name gravitas. McCain, who has that gravitas, shot himself in the foot by picking an unknown former mayor of a small Alaska town. Palin may have been governor, but her mayorship was mentioned far more often. She may have had a better chance helping McCain had she been the town dog catcher. :)
     
  6. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #6
    Weren't there some similar arguments against JFK and wondering whether he'd be answering to the American people or the Pope?
     
  7. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #7
    Kennedy did not use religion as a tool the way today's GOP does.

    As much as I did not like Nixon, at least I agree with how he was appalled at how the GOP used it in the 90s. The GOP lost its compass when they stopped being the party for American industry. The republicans will have to rebuild on their original principles if they want to get their credibility back. There are so many Christians who finally saw a disconnect between what W was saying and what he was doing. I truly believe the GOP overstepped their bounds and lost enough religious votes in key states to lose 2008. Guess what, religious folk also have to pay bills, send their kids to school, and worry about whether there will be a social security when they get old, too.
     
  8. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #8
    The MA. system of health insurance reform is exactly what I am afraid will end up passing Congress. A mandate to purchase health insurance does nothing to fix any problems when the only insurers to choose from are for-profit corporations. They are the cause of the problem, and we need another choice besides them if any serious reform is to happen.
     
  9. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #9
    I'm wondering if anyone has any stats on the quality of healthcare in MA vs. other states?
     
  10. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #10
    I was curious about this too... after some time, I feel like I as an American don't have a great idea of what the impact of the Massachusetts plan has been.

    The Boston Globe offered some numbers in this op-ed...

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...9/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/

    I didn't have a lot of luck finding anything really in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in terms of outcome studies on the Massachusetts plan. But then this blog post this weekend...

    http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/who-will-care-for-the-newly-insured/

    That in turn pointed to this:

    http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template....NTENTID=23165&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

    Which mostly speaks to the fact that less people are uninsured but more people are facing scheduling/cost problems in obtaining care.

    The state of Mass also provides some data...

    http://www.mhqp.org/quality/clinical/cqMASumm.asp?nav=032400

    Which claims that their physician functional quality according to a number of metrics is around the 90th %ile nationally. This data spans back to 2004/2005, so it should also be possible to see how it compares with their own pre-implementation status, but OTOH it seems like these numbers all deal with the quality of services to people who receive them, and not things like the rates of untreated disease (where treatment is indicated) of various kinds in the state or specific-cause mortality or morbidity rates, which one would hope would have gone down as a result of the changes they made.
     
  11. jb1280 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    #11
    I think you are pretty much off base. The likes of Huckabee and Palin are the religious Republicans who would win off of the backs of rural, populist, Christian conservatives.

    Romney is the "rich, white, sob, but competent Republican." Similar to GHWB.

    No way does Romney coopt the religious Right - these protestants are the people who think that Catholics aren't Christian and are some sort of cult. How would they dare vote a Mormon into office?
     
  12. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #12
    Half of my family are mormons, they are nice people but they put catholics to shame in the nutball department when it comes to religion, almost on par with Scientology.
     
  13. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #13
    That concern was "Will JFK answer to the Pope's commands", this person's concern(and its one I share) is Mittens' use of religion to win votes. Although he's Mormon, which isn't the most popular of demoninations(as far an America goes)..so I'm not sure how much he'd play it up(or at least keep it general "God" stuff)
     
  14. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #14
    agreed.
    You can push the private thing all you want, the bottom line is, no health insurance company will "do the right thing" when profits are at stake... It goes against all capitalist theologies.
     
  15. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #15
    Spending much of my life as a fundamentalist, when push comes to shove, most of us vote, like atheists and agnostics, for one of two major parties.

    There is no way, if given a choice, that "right" wing Christians are going to vote for any Democrat over Republican Mitt Romney, or even let's say, a totally non religious Republican.

    If you want to talk about a subset of people who will go with the GOP, the right wing of the fundamentalists will go with Romney even though they have problems with Mormonism. At least Romney believes in God and uses that belief over a Democratic candidate who would consider God talk political suicide. I wouldn't exactly call Reagan or Bush Sr. raving theists, but the conservative Christians voted for them over then sitting (left wing Christian Jimmy Carter), neutral or non-religious Mondale and Dukakis.

    If down the line a minister who is a liberal Democrat runs, I still think for now the Christian fundamentalists will vote GOP, even if that GOP person claims no religion or claims to be an agnostic.

    I am a Democrat, and probably only like about a third of Christians in the US, but unless you have been a Christian evangelical or fundamentalist, you have no idea how strong the GOP label holds for them in politics, and blinds most Christians to think the GOP is the default party to vote for. It's both stunning and sad. That being said, I wouldn't want Christians to think the Democrats are the default party, either. Religion is a private matter separate from the polling booth. That explains why Billy Graham is a Democrat and his son is a Republican, yet both hold the same vision of Christianity.
     

Share This Page