Romney’s attack on Clinton: an unacceptable argument against health care reform

I live in Massachusetts, USA—presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s home state, and I work in the health care industry. So when I heard that Mitt Romney spoke out against Hillary Clinton’s proposals for a more coherent health care system, I paid attention:

Hillary Clinton just gave a speech the other day about her view on the economy. She said we have been an on-your-own society. She said it’s time to get rid of that and replace that with shared responsibility and we’re-in-it-together society…. That’s out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx….

That’s a bit of a leap, don’t you think? Is advocating a pullout of Iraq “out with Churchill and in with Neville Chamberlain”? My friends, Hillary Clinton is no Marxist! Anyway…

The right answer is not a government takeover, it’s not socialized medicine. It’s not Hillarycare.

I’m not a supporter of Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney, but here I think that Romney is looking desperately for a way to demonize Clinton. In Massachusetts, Romney has indeed advocated shared responsibility, creating legislation that mandates that all residents be enrolled in a health care plan, with a state subsidy helping out those who can’t afford it. While all residents will have to pay a portion of the cost of their own enrollment, this describes “shared responsibility” and “we’re in it together” rather well, in my opinion.

It appears to me that Romney is appealing to American pride for political gain—but what an awful way to do it. Along with Iraq, by far the #1 issue the people of the U.S. are concerned with is health care. Whether you are right wing, left wing, blue state, red state, gay, straight, male, female, or any ethnicity you can think of, it’s very likely you would want good health care. Besides, most Americans have relatives that are or will soon be elderly. Darn right we need to “share responsibility” and be “in it together.” If that’s socialized medicine, why not?

I think the fact that Romney is trying to get elected using these empty arguments points to something else that is wrong with American culture. One of the biggest weaknesses of this great country we call the United States is the collective thinking that we can do everything “on our own,” and that we don’t need to “share responsibility.” We can eat whatever foods we want—it’s a free country. We can invade Iraq, U.N. or no U.N. We know what’s best for Afghans, Palestinians, and Iraqis—and we’ve got the firepower to prove it. We can boycott international conventions like the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and the World Conference on Racism. We’re a superpower. These colors don’t run.

In some situations this attitude is admirable, but the fate of a “superpower” historically is either to adapt and change, like Great Britain and Spain have done, or crash and burn, like the USSR and the Roman Empire did. America, which one will it be? We certainly can’t pretend we can do it “on our own” any more.

We all very much share worldwide responsibility; after all the U.S. has been one of the greatest supporters of globalization. Whoever runs for president should keep in mind that in most developed and developing countries, health care is either a right or it will soon become one.

I might add: even with the big-government operation known as Social Security at risk of running dry, do you hear anyone saying we should privatize it? Mr. Romney, do you care to speak to that?

July 23rd, 2007 Posted by Michaell at 01:06pm | Debate and News | no comments