Mitt Romney's meth labs of democracy

[ProSense]

Mitt Romney's meth labs of democracy

by Jon Perr aka Avenging Angel

Few phrases pepper the rhetoric of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney more frequently than variations of Justice Brandeis' famous quote that the states may "serve as a laboratory" for the rest of the nation. "Before imposing a one-size-fits-all federal program," Romney wrote in 2009, "Let the states serve as 'the laboratories of democracy.'" Two years later, he reminder readers that "under our federalist system, the states are 'laboratories of democracy.'" And in June, the GOP White House hopeful renewed his attack on the Affordable Care Act, proclaiming "I believe in the 10th Amendment. I believe the states have responsibility to care for their people in the way they feel best."

But Mitt Romney has often acknowledged "what works in one state may not be the answer for another," he seems to have inverted Brandeis' point about states undertaking "social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." Because on health care, taxes, union rights, immigration, abortion and a host of other issues, Mitt Romney is championing some of the most extreme and often dangerously unsuccessful policy prescriptions Republicans in the states have been able to cook up.

For a preview of how President Romney would govern in Washington, D.C., here's a brief tour of some of Mitt's meth labs of democracy* in the states.

Health Care: Mississippi. Once upon a time, Mitt Romney touted his signature health care law in Massachusetts as a "model" for the nation. And with good reason. Back in the Bay State, Governor Romney's 2006 legislation is very popular, having reduced the ranks of the uninsured to a national low of two percent, all while improving residents' health.

But that great achievement was a liability among Republican primary voters. So, Romney disowned what MIT's Jonathan Gruber later called "the same f**king bill" as President Obama's Affordable Care, the law Romney now pledges to repeal. Instead, Mitt has repackaged George W. Bush's prescription of tax deductions, health savings accounts and tort reform, adopted Paul Ryan's Medicare voucher program, and called for Medicaid to be drastically cut and handed over to the states as block grants. As he explained earlier this year:

What I would do is keep--as we have today--state responsibility for those that are uninsured...And states will learn from each other, and some will have good experiences and others will not. That's happening even today and states are learning and trying new ways to care for the uninsured. It's important for us in my view to make sure that every American has access to good health care.

But Romney's scheme wouldn't just leave as many as 48 million more Americans without health insurance. His block grant proposal, one long supported by former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, will have predictably dire results. As Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic warned:

That's not to say plenty of governors wouldn't take advantage of block grant status to change their Medicaid programs in ways they cannot now. They surely would--by capping enrollment, thinning benefits, increasing co-payments, and so on.

As the Washington Post explained, that dystopian future is Mississippi's nightmare present:

Mississippi provides some of the lowest Medicaid benefits to working adults in the nation. A parent who isn't working can qualify only if annual family income is less than 24 percent of the poverty line. Working parents qualify only if they make no more than 44 percent of the federal poverty level. Seniors and people with disabilities are eligible with income at 80 percent of the poverty line...

Translated from the federal poverty guidelines, that means a working Mississippi couple with one child could earn no more than $8,150 a year and still qualify for Medicaid, seniors and people with disabilities could earn no more than $8,700, and a pregnant woman could earn no more than $20,000 a year.

- more -

* Credit to Jon Stewart of the Daily Show for the term "meth lab of democracy."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/29/1114363/-Mitt-Romney-s-meth-labs-of-democracy

Great title!

Health care reminder (though I'm sure Mitt doesn't want one)

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[20] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[21] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[22] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Legislation

Obama Calls Health Care Decision ‘A Victory,’ Romney Vows Repeal
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/health-care-supreme-court-obama-romney-decision-mandate.php

Mitt is a flip-flopping, opportunistic, rudderless, unprincipled jerk. It's time to separate Mitt from the Mass health care bill. He didn't want it, and he's now running away from it. Respect his wishes.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Well, I'm confused.

Her you write:

"Mississippi provides some of the lowest Medicaid benefits to working adults in the nation. A parent who isn't working can qualify only if annual family income is less than 24 percent of the poverty line. Working parents qualify only if they make no more than 44 percent of the federal poverty level."

Yet, you recently schooled me that:

"If people meet the poverty thresholds, they qualify for Medicaid. So your question doesn't really make sense. In fact, it appears to be a non sequitur."

I'm having trouble reconciling those two statements. Do they qualify if they meet the poverty thresholds, or if they meet some criteria set by the state?

[ProSense]

2. More

"Yet, you recently schooled me that:"


...schooling: One statement refers to current Mississipi law, the other refers to the health care law once fully implemented.

Clear?

On edit, I didn't write the main piece in the OP, just to be clear.

[ProSense]

3. Kick! n/t