Mitt Romney deflects Huckabee's criticism of Massachusetts health care law

Mitt Romney speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, Friday, Feb. 11, 2011.

/ AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has yet to officially enter the 2012 presidential contest, but he's offering a preview of how he would defend the statewide health care reforms he implemented in Massachusetts, which were said to have inspired President Obama's health care package.

"Mitt Romney is proud of what he accomplished for Massachusetts in getting everyone covered," Romney's spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, told the Boston Globe in response to criticism of Romney's reforms. "What's important now is to return to the states the power to determine their own health care solutions by repealing Obamacare. A one-size-fits-all plan for the entire nation just doesn't work."

The comparisons between so-called "Romneycare" and "Obamacare" will present a considerable challenge to Romney when and if he enters the presidential race.

One of his potential Republican primary rivals, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, lays out the argument against Romney's plan in his new book "A Simple Government."

"It could be argued that if RomneyCare were a patient, the prognosis would be dismal," Huckabee writes. "Any critical assessment of this program will show that it failed... and yet the Obama administration decided to emulate it in its pursuit of a national health-care program."

Romney seemed to take note of the problems his health care reforms could create when he released the paperback version of his book, "No Apology." In that version, as the Boston Phoenix reported at the time, Romney made some changes to the portion of the book dedicated to health care reform.

In the original version, Romney laid out the nuances between the Massachusetts law and the a nationwide plan. In the second version released last year, he blamed the state legislature and the new Democratic governor, Deval Patrick, for botching the plan's implementation. He also pushed back harder against Mr. Obama's health care plan, calling for its repeal.

Huckabee's criticisms of Romney's health care reforms are in the spotlight this week as Huckabee promotes his book and mulls over his own possible presidential bid. In an interview with John Dickerson this week on CBSNews.com's "Washington Unplugged," Huckabee said that he decides to run again, "I don't want to lose. I've got to believe I can win."

Huckabee added that he will not be basing his decision on who else enters the race.

A Gallup poll released this week showed this week that Republicans and Republican-leaning voters have no clear favorite out of the potential 2012 nominees, but that Huckabee and Romney are at the top of the pack. Huckabee won the most support with 18 percent, followed by Romney with 16 percent. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin also garnered 16 percent, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich received support from 9 percent.

In a subsequent poll, Gallup asked Republican and Republican leaning voters which issues were most important to them. Given four choices, 35 percent said "government spending and power" was the most important issue. Another 31 percent named "business and the economy." Seventeen percent chose "social and moral values," while 15 percent chose "national security and foreign policy."

Among those interested in "government spending and power," 18 percent said Huckabee was the best possible candidate, while 17 percent chose Romney.

Those focused on the economy mostly favor Romney (20 percent) or Palin (17 percent), while Republicans who say social and moral values are most important favor Huckabee (28 percent) or Palin (19 percent).

Palin received the most support (22 percent) among those interested in national security and foreign policy, followed by Huckabee at 20 percent.

14 Photos

2012 Contenders: Strengths and Weaknesses

[jimbom121]

My question is simple fir those against the individual mandate:

Do you believe that it is acceptable for someone who is insured to pay for the health services of one who is not.

Simple question. That is the basis of the law.

[JEdHill]

Too bad most people don't follow the facts too closely nor recall their high school government class. After the liberal issues of the Original Obamacare couldn't fly with the general public and the democrat congressmen's electorate. So, somebody got the brilliant idea to use anybody's healthcare program or for that matter any type of healthcare plan......it really would not matter much anyway. Why?----->>>> Because it was a Federal Government POWER GRAB in the first place. Once it was ensconced in our federal system and the power was in the hands of the power seekers it could be changed any which way! It just would not matter any more at that point. Power seekers go where the big power IS. And it isn't with a puny state government!!!! Besides, anything small (like state size) can be altered much more easily...or dismantled.

The ongoing battle between proponents of states rights and proponents of centralizing power with the Federal government crops up periodically in our history. The liberal/socialists have always relished the power of one big central government and the money, the reach, the strength over the little guy and his liberty is consuming! They have been trying to weaken the conflict with the power of the states and the Central government since the establishment of the republic. Any kind of healthcare program centralized with the Federal Government is their goal. And of course all that money and control would allow one party to get control and KEEP CONTROL. Can anyone guess which party that would be??

The Democrats are and always have been the ones to seek for control: they buy votes from the poor and anyone that they can buyout. Some republicans as of late feel they have to do it just to keep the power they have. They HAVEN"T BELIEVED that something like the Tea Party and other motivated conservatives could rally as has taken place. And what caused it was the CLEAR AND PRESENT danger of the lose of liberties via a liberal power grab by the DEMOCRAT PARTY. The Federal healthcare plan was/is the vehicle. MA healthcare preserved the private sector. It did not make the Doctors employees of the government nor did it eliminate the insurance industry. Which the federal power grab has the potential to do. The potential END PRODUCT is that the party in power who thirsts most for power will seize it and keep it. And with the subsequent seizure and subsequent laws they can pass that puts them in dominance over the other party, our liberties and all the rest of our citizenry.

Our personal lives are so tied to our health we can be leveraged to do what politicans want us to do through bureaucratic laws, rules and proceedures. Under pressure it will be too easy for many to bend to the subtle will of those in power. Further under this skeem the liberty based conservatives will continue to loose their control and votes as people are bought and pressured in their personal lives by a central controlling mentality.

Politics will become less and less LOCAL as it becomes more and more centerally managed at an impersonal level far, far away (DC).

Part of the essence of federalism is personally knowing your LOCAL representatives and giving them feedback and allowing LOCALS who care and who we know and trust to be our LOCAL agents. FAR, FAR away administrators don't have a personal touch or caring or concern or a MUTUAL STAKE in our LOCAL community. Federalism is LOCAL POLITICS (all politics are local but only in a federalist system). That's what MR. Romney is against when he speaks out against a one sized fits all insensitive, far distant mentality, selfishly and arrogantly knowing what's best for the little guy, remotely controlling us.

Wait until Romney starts to talk about Federalism like you've never thought you heard it before......because you forgot your high school government class discussions. This will fuel the republican governors like you've never seen. These governors have ".... not yet begun to fight". What do you think the meetings with NJ Gov. Christee and Mr. Romney were about a few weeks ago?

If Mike Huckabee really understood states rights = federalism and the difference between Mitt Romney's original healthcare proposal which IS states rights based versus Obamacare's Strong Central government power grab Mike would have kept his lips sealed. He's actually painted himself into one of those "ignorance corners"! Hense a new name for a new Huckabee show Mike Huckabee's "Ignorance Corner".

[jimbom121]

And Republicans don't want control???? Pactriot Act, Terri Schiavo case Are just 2 examples.

[nearl451]

The problem is that because it ISN'T Socialism or Govt control or single payer or at LEAST a public option,there is not true cost control. Both programs= the same.

That is the problem with both programs: they are forced membership in private corporations....whose goal is PROFIT,not any type of cost control.

The issue isn't whether its Socalist or Capatilist or Corpratist;the issue is that it is not effective in controlling cost.

[poyman-2009]

Sorry, but I'm not buying... The problem with Obamacare is that it forces all citizens in all states to buy minimum level insurance...1)According to the 10th Amendment, the Feds can't mandate anything; and 2) What works for MA my not work for TX, or FL, or WA, etc. Healthcare rules can't work as effectively in all states (some states don't have problems with abuses (where people choose not to be insured and then the taxpayer ends up paying for their medical care).... One size does not fit all...

And, as far as cost control is concerned (having run insurance for 3 Fortune 500 companies), the individual needs to have a group of competitive companies to pick from based on needs and cost compared to life style... PPOs or HMOs might work for some if they don't travel much and don't have to worry about being covered out of their area or network.... If a family is young and only needs protection against catastrophic injuries or illnesses a high deductable might work, but wouldn't for older folks who are in need of constant care.... In short there are a hundred moving parts that an individual can choose from to control costs.... Public Options aren't needed.... If people want protection in group plans, they can join coops...

[jimbom121]

Poyman

It also reauires insurance companies to cover everyone. If they are required to cover everyone, shouldn't citizens do their part also? Or should those that are insured continue to pay for those who are not.

[poyman-2009]

The Hypocracy of this whole thing is that Huck doesn't understand Healthcare at all and he thinks that he has a stick to beat Romney with.... It aint gonna happen.... Romney will kill him with facts (something that Huck is not very good with).....

I use to think that Huck was a quick witted, effective politician.... Today I think that he is a snake that would bit his own handler if he had a chance and he thought that would help him.... I have also come to understand that he is a "one trick pony" on Social issues.... On the Economy, Healthcare, Energy, Foreign Affairs, and the Military the guy doesn't have a clue.... His jokes are even boring now days... His best moment is when he is playing Base for the "little Rockers"...

I wouldn't vote for Huck today if he was the only one running.

[meboard]

by MarineVet64 February 25, 2011 3:42 PM EST
It's covered if he slipped and fell on it in an airport men's room while tap dancing.
---
Wow MarineVet, its all about bathrooms with you today...

[raflin1]

Hey jimbom? You're just jealous. A Democrat actually thought thst a Republican GOT SOMETHING CORRECT, for a change. But now, it's a "bad" concept, because the Democrats agreed that it was a good idea to Republicans in Massachusetts.

Typical Republicans......they don't want GOOD ideas for the American people, they ONLY want what's best for the RICH......

[jimbom121]

Who's jealous? If someone has a good idea, why run from it. People like you are the problem. Who says that a good idea has to come from either a Dem or Repub. Both have good ideas and both have bad ideas.

That was whole point of the Obama trying to bring Repubs to the table. To incorporate their good ideas. They chose not to.

[brian_norwood]

Would someone please help Mitt get that wooden stick out of his wazoo!

[brian_norwood]

P.S. Is that covered under the Massachusetts health care law?

[poyman-2009]

He would have to have someone get it out of your's, Brian's or Huck's first.... But then it's so far up there it might be better going through your mouth to get it.

[babooph]

How is healthcare handled on the other Mormon planets ,by the other mormon gods?

[poyman-2009]

It doesn't matter.... It wouldn't apply to you down there in hell.

[raflin1]

Anybody want to project just how many of the GOP candidates will turn out to have been employed as commentators by FauxNews?

I'm guessing 75%!!!

[raflin1]

<rubbing hands in glee> Watching the GOP fight each other will be SO MUCH FUN!! I sure hope Palin joins the fray! I'd LOVE to see and Gingrich go at each other :-)