Mitt V Mitt on Romneycare

By Tiffany Harbridge

The MA mandated Health Insurance Law was enacted as Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006. Signed on April 12, 2006 by then Governor Romney is a compass indicator for the style of governance that Mr. Romney advocates.  There can be no doubt when one hears and believes the way that he defends and speaks about this, his “greatest achievement”.

The Massachusetts Mandated Health Insurance Law

St. 2006, c.58. An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care. Added MGL c.111M and amended many other sections. Key provisions of the law include subsidized health insurance for residents earning less than 300% of the Federal Poverty Level, and low-cost insurance for all other residents who are not eligible for insurance through their employers.

When presenting his case to the Heritage Foundation in January of 2006, Mr. Romney stated this “But once we put in place the reforms I am describing, with new affordable products as well as a subsidized product, where your premium can be as low as $2.30 a week, now everybody can get insurance.” I am a resident of MA. I can assure you that NOBODY who purchases Health Insurance in MA has a premium that is $2.30 a week. If that person exists, I challenge them to come forward and prove it. As someone who has had the occasion to shop the premiums available I can tell you that the cost cannot be found for lower than roughly $200.00 per week for a family of four. That is to purchase the cut-rate stuff that does little more than pay for a yearly physical for a general doctor. If you’re looking to receive a little more than that for your $200.00 per week, you are actually going to be paying closer to $300.00 per week to obtain close to decent coverage. That rate climbs minute by minute. According to reliable news sources the increased cost of subsidized insurance offset the reduction in “free care”, while insurance premiums increased faster than the national average and became the highest in the country. All of this just to get a reduction in uninsured citizens in MA down from about 6% of the population to about 4% of the population (as of 2010-the most recent available DFHCP report at the MA Governments Health and Human Services web-site).

One may ask, well, what about the subsidized products? Good question, I cannot speak to the cost as I am not eligible for any subsidies due to my income level. I can tell you this, which may come to a surprise to many citizens of this Nation; The ‘subsidies’ that are provided to the people who are at or under 300% of the national poverty level are bought and paid for by the tax-payers in MA along with the tax-payers in remaining 49 states in the Nation. You read that right. You and your family and neighbors and everyone who pays taxes in this country are subsidizing the current and rising and costs for health insurance for anyone in Massachusetts who earns less than 300% of the federal poverty rate. For a family of four that currently equals $67,056.00 per year.

In researching this article I read through several of the reports available through the MA Governments Health and Human Services web-site. I found the most chilling report by far to be the Analysis in Brief: Hospital Resource Use on End-of-Life Patients Varies (July 2006) (PDF) The report goes into great detail about the expenses and resources that are gobbled up by what they refer to as EOL patients (End of Life). Such innocuous wording used by way of stripping the humanity from what is in all honesty your and my mother, grandmother, aunt, uncle, grandfather, father, sister, brother, niece, nephew, cousin, child or grandchild, who is dying. In other words – a human being. Living, breathing people reduced to “EOL Patients” by the State. How long before they reduce the use of ‘EOL recources’ through rationing and outlawing certain procedures and measures to reduce outrageous cost increases we are already experiencing? There is plenty of evidence to indicate that this is already happening here in Massachusetts. I will get to that in a future article.

During the CNN debate in Mesa, Arizona, Feb. 22, 2012 CNN’s John King, moderator brought up the fact that in 2005, then Gov. Romney reluctantly supported a law requiring all hospitals in the state — including Catholic ones — to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. Mr. Romney denied this with a bald-faced lie: “There was no requirement in Massachusetts for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims,” Romney said. “That was entirely voluntary on their part. There was no such requirement. Likewise in Massachusetts’ health care bill. There’s a provision in Massachusetts general laws that says people don’t have to have coverage for contraceptives or other type of medical devices, which are contrary to their religious teachings.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Romney, facts can be tricky things; According to the Boston Globe article published in December 2005: ~

“Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds. Romney had initially supported that interpretation, but he said yesterday that he had changed direction after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute that says private hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception. ”And on that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,” Romney said at the State House after signing a bill on capital gains taxes.”

Mr. Romney has flip-flopped over the years on his stance on abortion. Mr. Romney is now touting his very pro-life attitude and policy position to woo the base. On February 22, 2012 at a Townhall in Michigan Mr. Romney stated “”I’m pro-life. I’m in favor of protecting the sanctity of life. I will cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.” Mr. Romney says he opposes abortions except in cases of rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in danger.

 I only have one question to ask on that-if Mr. Romney is so firmly a believer in Pro-life positions, why are my tax dollars (and yours) assisting to subsidize abortion to the residents of Massachusetts?


If you watch just one video this week, please let it be the one posted at this link:  Elitist, statist wannabe king that Mr. Romney is, he flat-out states that the people who seek medical treatment will pay ‘us’. One way or another.  What I find most interesting is Mr. Romney’s references to just who is the ‘them’ and who is the ‘us’.  Mr. Romney leaves no ambiguity about his adherence, not to the Massachusetts Constitution, but instead to the statist legislature and the manipulative, insatiable insurance companies. He goes so far as to state that there will be sanctions such as the State refusing citizens a Driver’s License if they fail to provide proof of Health Insurance coverage.  Let me repeat that so it is very clear- You as an individual, must purchase health insurance and if you do not purchase it, your tax penalty will be attached to you as you file your state income tax return and will be remanded to the STATE either through loss of your personal tax exemption on State Income Tax return, wage garnishment, seizing of any Federal Refund that you may be entitled to, and if all else fails-the STATE will refuse you the ‘privilege’ of allowing you to drive your car! This is so far beyond onerous, words cannot truly express. I am truly astonished that this type of tyrannical elitism has not inspired pitchforks and torch carrying folks to set out from across the land to tar and feather every last one of the despots that came up with this overreaching and duplicitous enactment designed to turn freemen into serfs and lawbreakers. In Mr. Romney’s view we are nothing other than a revenue stream and peons, dependent on the ruling class to determine what is best for us.


About sswimp

I am not an "African-American'. I am a proud American, who happens to be of African descent. I am Christian. My personal relationship with Jesus Christ and the Word of God shapes my concepts of what it means to be a conservative. I am Pro Life. Devoted to the principles of free enterprise, limited government,and individual responsibility. I believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman.
This entry was posted in Election News, Free Enterprise and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Mitt V Mitt on Romneycare

  1. ritati says:

    Good to know…SCARY…but good to know!

  2. irishsignora says:

    Thank you for pointing out the condescension in Gov. Romeny’s attitude towards the “ordinary people” and our ability to apply logic and reason. There’s a reason I never miss one of your posts.

  3. Stacy: Excellent piece – especially that cartoon pick of yours!

    My wife was from Mass. and she has nothing good to say how Romney administered the RomneyCare. She always recounts how those who were poor were jerked off the existing care that they had been provided.

    Personally, I think that Romney is all over the place. He’ll say anything to make himself look and sound presentable. Also, he is too apt to be led around by Country Club establishment Republican elites.

    Furthermore, would the American people really want this type of individual to lead America? We already have a fanatic in the White House. Talk about creepy:

    “The Romney Family Converted Romney’s Father-In-Law – After He Died:”

    Finally, I would not vote for Romney based upon what I think is his poor character:

    If Mitt Romney has no compassion for his pet dog, how will he ever have compassion for the American people, as president?

    So far, Romney hasn’t had the media spotlight many of his negatives. I can only assume that as more voters get to know the real Mitt Romney, they will not vote for him, – especially, many animal / pet owners.

    I think it is appropriate to question Romney’s character as a candidate for US president based upon the sad and pathetic manner in which Romney treated his pet dog. If he treated his dog this way, how would he treat the American people as president? Worse than Obama?

    Romney’s rude and crude treatment of his pet dog reminds me of the following Biblical Scripture:

    “Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.” [Proverbs 12:10 – ESV]

    I can only conclude that Mitt hates mutts. I don’t want that type of bigotry presiding from the White House.–abc-news.html

  4. Pingback: Meet The Real Mittrack Obamney |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s