Speaking on Fox News Sunday, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said that the bipartisan health care reforms he helped instituted in the state are “saving lives” because “people who otherwise could have lost their lives are now able to get the kind of care they deserve.” But host Chris Wallace pressed Romney by pointing out the many similarities between the bill he crafted in Massachusetts and the one currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate, which he staunchly opposes.
“A big difference. state plan versus a federal plan,” Romney insisted. “No new taxes, unlike [Obama's] plan. No cut in Medicare, unlike his plan and no controls over insurance premiums, price controls, cost controls like his plan.”
ThinkProgress fact-checked some of Romney’s other statements in the interview — and even included a helpful chart to compare the state and federal bills. But the basic takeaway is that the main difference the former governor is emphasizing between the two is that, unlike the reform currently stalled in Congress, the Massachusetts legislation didn’t call for cuts to Medicare. The fact that a state cannot reduce federal Medicare funding notwithstanding, it’s going to be a hard battle for Romney to deflect charges that he’s flip-flopping on the issue — especially now that the government option has been stripped from the senate bill.
Towards the end of the interview, Romney sprung an anecdote to help personalize the issue:
One of the members of my administration told me two days ago, after she left our administration, she was diagnosed with brain cancer. And that had she not been in Massachusetts, she would not have been able to receive the insurance that she needed and the specialist care that has now saved her life. That is the biggest reason for helping people get insurance.































