One of the most interesting questions surrounding Romney's flip-flopping on health care is what he would do if actually in office. Republicans tend to write off Mitt's health care heresies as something that happened in the past. But would he repeal the law so closely modeled after his Massachusetts reforms, which he once called a model for the nation?
Romney has defused the issue in the debates by repeating the line that he would "issue a waiver for all 50 states." In a column in the National Review, Romney repeats the pledge in more detail:
If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.
As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are “laboratories of democracy.” They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another. Of course, the ultimate goal is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health-care costs. But since an outright repeal would take time, an executive order is the first step in returning power to the states.
Interestingly, this policy prescription has seemed to satisfy conservatives. But wait a second - a waiver isn't repeal, it's a choice to opt out.
Doesn't such an approach imply - guarantee, even - the continuation of the Affordable Care Act in a large part of the country? Presumably blue states would be free to implement the Act - quite soon, in fact, given that it's set to start the year after Romney would take office. Funding for the law would remain intact.
In an article entitled "Why I Doubt Romney Would Appeal Obamacare," conservative Philip Klein makes a similar argument:
During his presidential campaign, Romney has said he supports the repeal of the law and would issue an executive order to waive Obamacare for 50 states. That's a fine talking point for a debate answer, but it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. As president, Romney could direct his administration not to implement some regulatory aspects of the law, but a future Democratic president could quickly reinstate them. Furthermore, he couldn't, through executive order, eliminate most of the major spending provisions in the law.
For that to happen, we'd need to see a repeal bill passed through both chambers of Congress. Given the unlikelihood that Republicans would gain a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate, this would have to be done through the reconciliation process. Though some people have argued to me that a GOP Congress would obviously pass a repeal of Obamacare and Romney would be forced to sign it, there's no reason to believe that Congressional leaders would pursue a sure to be acrimonious reconciliation process unless the president were willing to stake political capital on it.
...
So this raises the question of whether I think Romney has the resolve to see something like this through, to which I'd respond: are you kidding me?
The choice of language, combined with Romney's past role in health care reform, has to make you wonder as to his actual motives here. And it would seem like an easy line of attack for the rest of the Republican field, but, strangely, one that hardly anyone has picked up on yet.