Romney's government health care disaster

I haven't had time to digest all the feedback and commentary on yesterday's Republican candidates debate, but from many accounts it sounds like Mitt Romney did the best, or at least looked and sounded presidential. I think Romney is a polished politician and very professional and so far sounds like he is running a smart campaign. As an Independent I won't be participating in the primary, but if I was I would not be voting for him, nor will I vote for him for President. And one of those reasons is because I am very uncomfortable with his eager embrace of government controlled health care.

This morning Cato-at-Liberty reminds us of some of the elements of Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts:

Imposes an unprecedented individual mandate, requiring everyone in Massachusetts to purchase a government-designated insurance product or face thousands of dollars in tax penalties.

Significantly increased Medicaid eligibility and provided taxpayer-funded subsidies for a family of four earning as much as $62,000 year, effectively extending welfare well into the middle class.

Creates a Hillary Clinton managed-competition-style regulatory authority called the Massachusetts Health Care Connector. This new regulatory body has already mandated that every health care policy sold in the state must cover prescription drugs and has outlawed policies with deductibles of more than $2,000.

Imposes a penalty on businesses that do not provide health insurance to their employees (although in fairness, this provision was enacted over Governor Romney’s veto.)

Greatly expands the state’s health care bureaucracy, creating at least 10 new boards, commissions, and other institutions to study and regulate health care.

The folks at Cato-at-Liberty have a lot more on Romney-care here, here, and here. There is a health care problem in this country, but universal, government sponsored or controlled health care is not the answer.