Many would argue, and I agree, that conservative ideals are timeless. The principles that underpin the conservative ideology were as correct at the foundation of this nation as they are in the presidential race of 2012. If one could categorize and itemize each point of conservative thought it would be clear that there would be the proper application to each and every problem regardless of the time period. We each yearn for the politician that can clearly and succinctly make such application whether in word or deed. We yearn for evidence of such application.
So if Romney Care was conservative in 2006, why is it not conservative now? Either the application of conservative principles were wrong then or they are wrong now. Scratch that, I've made a False Dilemma argument. This falacy is often repeated in conservative opinion across the spectrum. It is not the application of conservative principles that was wrong then or now, rather it is the perception and perspective that has changed.
Lets back up a little. I need to address the contention that Romney Care was never conservative.
In a June 2011 Boston Globe editorial Scott Lehigh argues:
Back when Romney settled on his plan, the individual mandate, with its emphasis on personal responsibility, was a distinctly conservative idea. As part of a mid-1990s GOP proposal, it had been backed by Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley, and 16 other GOP senators.
In 1989 the Heritage Foundation postulated the idea of mandated premiums for health insurance. It was argued that the additional costs (individual as well as collective) of the mandate would be offset by greater savings attributable to better health management, less emergency procedures, and an overall increase in public health and well-being.
Certain individuals from Heritage Foundation now say that they "toyed" with the idea but abandoned it well before the passing of Massachusetts Healh Plan (MHP) in 2006. Yet despite that white washing at least two heritage fellows made public appearances and advocated for various aspects of the legislation in the year of its passing. Certainly prominent individuals of the preeminent conservative think tank considered MHP a conservative victory at that time.
The Boston Globe editorial details:
Several Heritage health care experts defended the approach during the Bay State debate in 2005 and 2006. When Romney signed the bill in April of 2006, one of them, Robert Moffit, spoke at the ceremony. (This week, Moffit told me he attended because he supported the insurance exchange.) After the law was signed, Ed Haislmaier, the other Heritage expert, promoted it as a model for other states.
Not only did Heritage Foundation advance the idea of the individual mandate, scholars at the American Enterprise institute advanced the same position.
Mark V. Pauly, an Adjunct Scholar at AEI wrote in a policy paper in 2007:
No one should be allowed to free-ride; there is a limit to altruism. But a minimum level of insurance coverage is necessary to ensure that everyone can obtain an acceptable level of access to care.
The meme that an individual mandate was a conservative principle of personal responsibility was repeated here. But now, the idea of a mandate screams Orwellian totalitarianism. The revulsion of ObamaCare has obfuscated past conservative policy ideas.
And the Massachusetts Health Plan as a model for other states (not for the Nation) was promulgated in the AEI policy paper:
The essential features of the Massachusetts plan are praiseworthy. ... The pro-regulatory politics that have historically characterized Massachusetts suggest that the vision of a transparent and dispassionate market, offering a wide variety of insurance coverages options chosen by people on the basis of preference, remains only a vision—in Massachusetts today and in would-be imitators tomorrow. ...
... the plan ... will offer lessons from the “laboratory of democracy” which may be of considerable value to other states [emphasis is mine, ed.]
It would seem that Romney's argument that the Massachusetts Health Plan was a state solution and not intended as a national solution was supported by at least one conservative scholar.
Finally, the New York Times weighed-in with a 2006 editoral:
The Massachusetts plan has unusually strong bipartisan support and includes elements drawn from both liberal and conservative playbooks. Although Mitt Romney, the Republican governor, has vetoed several elements of the plan, including a fee on businesses that refuse to participate, he is almost certain to be overridden by the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature.
What has changed?
For one, the idea was adopted and then pushed and passed by a liberal congress (all Democrats) and the liberal ideologue we call President Obama. The brute force passage of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) offended every conservative, most independents and even a few democrats.
A second change has been the maturation of the health care debate among policymakers and the general public. Heritage Foundation abandoned the concept and competing ideas gained strength. Peter Ferrara gave a history of the birth and death of the individual mandate among conservative and Republican lawmakers in a December 2011 article at The American Spectator.
Also, the various Tea Party events held a year long discussion of the imperative of limited government sparked by the Stimulus I and Stimulus II bills. The passage of ObamaCare fit nicely into the narrative as the Tea Party Movement had strong libertarian influence. Obamacare epitomized every hateful thing about the government that Tea Partiers loathed.
Another problem of perception is that Romney is viewed as the architect of the Massachusetts Health Plan. A Health Plan for reducing the number of uninsured in Massachusetts was going to pass the legislature whether or not Governor Romney supported it. In reality he co-opted liberal proposals and negotiated a bill that was far more conservative and fiscally responsible than would otherwise have been passed.
Governor Romney vetoed eight items in the Massachusetts Health Plan. Each item was viewed unfavorably by conservatives. The heavily Democratic legislature overrode all eight vetoes.
I perceive that Romney was as conservative as practically possible in regards to the Massachusetts Health Plan in 2005-2006. I believe that the Governor has the same perception. Unfortunately conservative views have changed dramatically vis a vis healthcare legislation in the ensuing 5 years. Mitt has not adjusted to that reality.
