posted by Kyle Hampton | 3:25 PM |
permalink
There's some Mitt-bashing over at the AmSpec blog (
Philip Klein,
Jennifer Rubin,
Philip Klein again,
Jennifer Rubin again, and
Shawn Macomber). Nothing unusual about that, but I did want to address the point being made: that Mitt's Massachusetts healthcare plan is the source of all healthcare evils these days. Certainly the Massachusetts plan is not perfect. Beyond the portions that the Massachusetts legislature passed over Mitt's veto, two basic provisions, the individual mandate and the "connector", have riled the ire of many conservative think-tanks and commentators. I think Mitt himself would agree that his plan is not perfect. Klein and Rubin especially seem to blame Mitt for even trying and thus encouraging less enlightened Democrats on the feasibility of passing such a plan.
Klein and Rubin seem to believe that Mitt's plan has done nothing to the national healthcare debate except cede ground to liberals. They forget that Mitt's plan has moved the debate on healthcare to the right of where it was. It has discredited the idea that only a single-payer system can work. It also made insurance more consumer oriented and less tied to employer choices. Mostly, I think that all the negativity directed at Mitt is misguided to say the least because of a single word, which has been at the forefront of Mitt's approach to healthcare: federalism. By federalism, I refer to the principle of states as labs of experimentation. All the debate has provided ample argument for other states to learn from and correct the flaws that are in the Massachusetts plan. Mitt's plan as a presidential candidate encourages such disagreement and experimentation. Mitt has embraced the seemingly novel, at least to AmSpec, principle of federalism whereby different ideas can be tested in the states.
Labels: healthcare
| 3 CommentsPost a Comment