Since this is the week that the Supreme Court saved the Affordable Care Act from the ravenous jaws of the right (who would have replaced it with what, exactly? Throwing millions off insurance, raising prescription drug prices for seniors in the donut hole, allowing preexisting conditions to once again serve as death warrants?), this week's installment of the week's biggest Romney has to focus on health care.
Fortunately, Gov. Romney responded to the Supreme Court ruling--and, since his lips were moving, the lies were flying from them.
"Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt," he said. If that was the case, then Romneycare would presumably have added at least millions, if not billions, to the debt of the state of Massachussetts, where he implemented essentially the same program. But it hasn't, and the Congressional Budget Office and other independent analysts have determined that the ACA will CUT the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars.
"Obamacare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep," he said. False, Mitt, and you know it--under the law you can keep your insurance if you like it.
"Obamacare cuts Medicare, cuts Medicare, by approximately $500 billion," he said. False, Mitt, and you know that too. The ACA cuts Medicare Advantage, which costs a lot and provides little.
"With Obamacare fully installed, government will reach fully half of the economy," he said. Nonsense, Mitt. His campaign tries to back up this lie with "statistics," but they're way, way off base.
These are things he claims are facts, but they're made-up facts. AKA lies. Still, he is entitled to his own opinions, if not his own facts. Here's an opinion he offered: "Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today."
Of course, it was based on his own Romneycare policy, so if the ACA is bad policy, so is the one he fought for as Governor. And when the Supreme Court declared the ACA constitutional, as it did--and specified that the mandate is only constitutional because it's a tax--they were saying the same about Romneycare, since that mandate functions the same way. One has to wonder what his response would have been if the SCOTUS ruling had gone the other way, and his signature achievement as governor--insuring most citizens of his state--had been thrown out. Would he have cheered?