Substance!

Holy crap! These health care questions are so substantive and well-informed ... it's bizarre. They even put an expert on who briefly-but-accurately explained the problem with the conservative fetish for individualized health care. Rudy Giuliani's response was, basically, to say "socialism" a lot. John McCain appears to be suggesting that we can't provide people with health insurance because when people get insurance from the government they're lazy and deliberately contract diabetes. McCain also seems to think that Canada is in Europe.

Romney, by contrast, talks about the plan he signed in Massachusetts and its virtues. Then he turns around and says "we don't need Hillarycare" even though Clinton's plan is, fundamentally, pretty similar to what Romney signed in Massachusetts. It's a little sad to see Romney refusing to characterize his own record accurately when, at the end of the day, the record reflects pretty well on him.

UPDATE: Now Romney's explicitly going in to the case for health care mandates. Good for him. He seems to have decided to be a bit less fake.

Comments

My thoughts exactly. Who knew Charlie Gibson was the man to ask real questions?

Posted by d | January 5, 2008 7:59 PM

For those who aren't aware, and who don't have TV, you can watch the debate online, just google WMUR.

Posted by minderbender | January 5, 2008 8:01 PM

Romney's miscalculation (thinking he could out bible-thump an actual bible-thumper) is going to be one of the great stories of this campaign, because he is such an ego maniac he will ruefully explain it for the rest of his life.

Posted by Andruw | January 5, 2008 8:02 PM

I could possibly see myself voting for technocratic Mitt. He exudes competence.

Posted by JFD | January 5, 2008 8:04 PM

Fred Thompson is an empty suit. He has said nothing of substance in this first hour. He just chuckles and harrumphs in that baritone of his and tries to sound like a "leader." Sad.

Posted by Unreal Veal | January 5, 2008 8:05 PM

I think Ron Paul should have proved his nuttiness to even Andrew Sullivan. His answer, from an actual doctor, to healthcare is: Inflation is too high. Abolish the Fed.

Posted by d | January 5, 2008 8:08 PM

Geez they call Hillary cold and calculating. Romney is really a piece of work.

Posted by Ryan | January 5, 2008 8:19 PM

Rudy Giuliani's response was, basically, to say "socialism" a lot.

Huh. That's exactly what my dad does.

Posted by hum | January 5, 2008 8:20 PM

The nice thing about the socialism line is you can use it in response to pretty much any thing the government does or could do. So you don't even need to pay attention to the question being asked...

Posted by DJ | January 5, 2008 8:38 PM

"we don't need Hillarycare"

She looses in Iowa, is down in the polls in New Hampshire and still the GOP talks about her. The GOP thinks about her too much. If I talked about her as much as Romney does, people think I'm a stalker! This brings an interesting question: what will the right do without Clinton as the opponent. I know they can smear anyone but it looks like their strategy is based on Clinton being the nominee.

Posted by Peter | January 5, 2008 8:58 PM

"Then he turns around and says "we don't need Hillarycare" even though Clinton's plan is, fundamentally, pretty similar to what Romney signed in Massachusetts"

Matt,

Just for clarification: Romney's stated point of differentiation here is that he would allow each state to come up with its own plan to provide universal health coverage, not impose one federal plan. Would Hillary allow the same diversity of approaches at the state level?

The health care discussion reflected well on Romney. Great points about the costs imposed by free-riders on everyone else and MA's discovery that 25% of its uninsured population had incomes of $75k+. Overall, he had a strong performance tonight.

Posted by Fred | January 5, 2008 9:25 PM

Before Fredney starts doing his little dance, Ezra's piece on the flaws of state-by-state implementations addresses this:

Alas, Massachusetts may be the exception that proves the rule, for several reasons. First, it has one of the lowest uninsured populations in the country: 10 percent compared to the nationwide average of 16 percent. Second, a relatively large portion of that 10 percent can afford to buy insurance without government subsidy, thanks to the fact that the state is one of the nation’s wealthiest, with a median household income of about $8,000 above the national average. That leaves Massachusetts with a reasonably small number of citizens who need government support to purchase health insurance. And in that regard, Massachusetts has a third advantage: a ready-made funding source. In 1988, then Governor Michael Dukakis signed a pay-or-play universal health care bill into law. Like similar laws enacted in other states, it failed, and most of its provisions were repealed a year later by his successor. But portions of it remained, including revenue streams—totaling $540 million—dedicated to reimbursing hospitals who care for the uninsured. That’s $540 million that can now go to covering the uninsured. It’s also money most other states don’t have just lying around.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 5, 2008 9:33 PM

Canada's not in Europe? Then why do they speak French?

Posted by Spike | January 6, 2008 12:10 AM

Ultimately, this is where public health care goes:

UK to smokers: drop dead

Boy, I can't wait for the loving arms of my new masters who give me free health care. They'll end up telling me what I can and can't eat, eventually.

Posted by James Robertson | January 6, 2008 12:14 AM

Re: They'll end up telling me what I can and can't eat, eventually.

We already have a nanny state, including, among other things, indoor smoking bans. And many free market types seem to think it would be a good idea to let insurers charge high premiums for smokers, the obese etc, or exclude them outright, so I fail to see the difference

Posted by JonF | January 6, 2008 8:28 AM