Health Care Remains a Stumbling Block for Romney ; ANALYSIS

Article excerpt

LOS ANGELES - Mitt Romney may know more about health care than any other presidential nominee in memory. As governor of Massachusetts, he dove deeply into the subject while creating the most far-reaching state health plan in the country. As president, he would bring an unusual degree of nuance to any discussion of health insurance.

In theory, that should thrill Republicans, who have been eager to run against an incumbent who unwittingly gave his name to a health- care plan, "Obamacare," that has engendered more opposition than support.

So why has explaining his position on health care been such an ordeal for Romney?

He may have made some headway in the first presidential debate, despite some misstatements of facts. As he has throughout his campaign, he promised that, if elected, he would repeal and replace the 2010 health-care law. However, he has rarely spoken specifically about how he would replace it, and until recently rarely talked about his signature accomplishment in Massachusetts - the health plan that came to serve as a model for President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

He also, over the course of the campaign, has come out with statements about health care that have left even some ardent supporters scratching their heads.

On a trip to Jerusalem this summer, he praised Israel for providing good health care while keeping costs lower than in the United States. He did not mention that those achievements are the fruit of a nationalized health-care system of the sort that Romney, along with most Americans, adamantly opposes.

Asked on CBS' "60 Minutes" what he would do about Americans who lack health insurance, Romney replied that the country already has a system in place for them: emergency rooms. "We pick them up in an ambulance and take them to the hospital and give them care," he said.

That answer flew in the face of universally accepted wisdom that ERs are the most expensive places to provide routine care, and also contradicted Romney's own statements. Two years ago, he said in another televised interview: "Look, it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to have millions and millions of people who have no health insurance and yet who can go to the emergency room and get entirely free care, for which they have no responsibility."

Either of those might be dismissed as slips of the tongue, or perhaps defended as statements of fact that Romney didn't intend as road maps of policy. What has been more difficult for Romney has been crafting a message about the national health law that doesn't implicitly disavow his own plan in Massachusetts, which has inevitably come to be known as "Romneycare."

"I think in his heart, he thinks he did a good job in Massachusetts," said Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow with the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute who specializes in health care. "And he doesn't want to say anything about it, and he hasn't really sat down and studied anything else because he doesn't see the need for an alternative."

Romney has, in fact, proposed alternatives, and has won praise for them in some conservative circles (along with complaints that he hasn't been sufficiently specific). He proposes a system in which consumers would have "portable" insurance plans, subsidized through tax deductions, that they could take from job to job. He also would partially privatize Medicare, the government health plan for seniors (but only for future recipients), and would give states flexibility about how they spend on Medicaid, the program for the poor. …