We're all used to a certain level of dishonesty from politicians, but the sheer volume and depth of duplicity coming from Mitt Romney lately on health care reform is nothing short of staggering.

In recent public appearances, he's been railing against President Obama's proposal as "a big government takeover of health care" and an entirely ineffective approach. It's not that he's alone, it's that just a few years ago Romney supported and signed into law an extremely similar health care bill for his state as governor of Massachusetts.

Like President Obama's plan now, the Romney plan relied solely on private insurers to cover the uninsured. Both comprise a threefold combination of insurance regulations to prevent the exclusion or denial of care to sick people, subsidies for low-income individuals and an individual mandate to bring younger and healthier people into the risk pool. Both are conservative, market-based ideas that don't expand government-run health insurance.

Don't take my word for it. The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board proclaimed that "commonwealth's 2006 program" -- as "championed by former GOP Governor Mitt Romney" -- "closely resembles what Democrats are trying to do in Washington." Still not convinced? Here's the conservative/libertarian Cato Institute: "In 2006, the Bay State enacted a slate of reforms that almost perfectly mirror the plan of Obama and congressional Democrats."

Yet Romney hailed his bill as the "ultimate conservative plan" that's "working well" on Fox News Sunday, while insisting the difference between his and Obama's plan was "the difference between a racehorse and a donkey." It would be one thing for Romney to admit he changed stances and denounce his 2006 bill as he's now denouncing Obama's, but instead he's pretending that's not the case --

....Probed by Fox's Chris Wallace, Romney claimed the "big difference" is that Obama's plan is on a federal level while his was on a state level. This clearly manufactured gripe might even have a little more sway if Romney's plan was a state-funded endeavor. It's not -- it has relied on millions of federal dollars.....

obviusly you didnt not read the title of the Cato instetute report

The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain



so you have now cited;; in youre blind hatred for repubricins;; a report about how a govement run hellth plan in taxachussetts is jest like youre presOdents plan

;;;;exceptin you didnt not realize the report you cite talks about what a suckass programme that is


thank you 71fan for AGIN making the point govement run hellth plans SUCK

Louie? Oh, Louie? Where are you, Louie?

Come on, Louie! Come on and make some comments about the source of Tinner's "news". Sure, it's an opinion piece written by some marxist socialist hack, but come on! Fear mongering from some leftwing social website should be gettin the hairs on the back of yer neck all standin straight up, and all!



This post made a proud member of the Party of No. Proudly saying NO to any and all socialist lawmakers wanting me to pony up more tax money for yet another socialist entitlement program that is bound to cost triple what the socialists will have you believe, as the federal government is even more fiscally inept than labor unions.

It's the Huffington post. You summed it up just fine.

Really? I was pointing out the hypocrisy of politicians. Specifically a Republican politician.