The EFM Feature

Read the comments page of virtually any article about Mitt on a conservative site and you’ll see an avalanche of vitriol. You’ll see some of this same vitriol if you read at least one prominent conservative paper. I see the vitriol, but I don’t see many commenters, pundits, or critics with answers to the following, elementary questions:

  1. What were Mitt Romney’s realistic options in 2006, when he faced veto-proof majorities in the Massachusetts House and Senate?
  2. Did Mitt Romney reject a better (realistic) Massachusetts reform option in favor of Romneycare? And by “realistic,” I mean a reform option that could have passed the Democratic legislaure.
  3. What are the differences between, say, income and the rate of uninsured in various states?
  4. Can’t a political leader look at those differences (and the many, many other differences between states) and say that solutions designed for one place may not work elsewhere?
  5. Do you have a realistic reform idea that is better than the Romney federalism model?
  6. Are you aware of the history of Romneycare, that it was designed in part with the assistance of leading conservatives and in close consultation with leading conservatives?

The bottom line is that Obama’s one-size-fits-all national monstrosity was never part of the Romney plan for health care. Federalism has always been the Romney model, and it’s the only model that works in a nation with fifty (quite diverse) states with fifty (quite diverse) economies.

Comments and Discussion

Evangelicals for Mitt provides comments as a way to engage in a public and respectiful discussion about articles and issues. Any comment may be removed by the editors for violating common decency or tempting flames.

Comments are closed.