Is Obamacare just like Romneycare?
bob
2012/03/15 21:37:09
|
|
|||||
|
28 votes
|
|
40% | ||
|
16 votes
|
|
23% | ||
|
16 votes
|
|
23% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
4% | ||
|
4 votes
|
|
6% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
4% | ||
It is commonly perceived that ObamaCare was modeled after RomneyCare, but there are significant differences between the two:
1) The bill called "ObamaCare" is 2700 pages long, and RomneyCare was only 70 pages in 2006. So there are 2,630 more pages of differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare.
2) RomneyCare was uniquely designed for Massachusetts, but ObamaCare is a one-size-fits-all mandate imposed upon all states, regardless of each state's needs and economic conditions.
3) ObamaCare expands the size and power of federal government beyond the "few and defined" powers delegated by the Constitution, thus diminishing State powers; in contrast, RomneyCare invokes "numerous and indefinite" powers to require that citizens be insured, thus preventing some from "gaming the system" — where free-riders were formerly getting government to pay for medical bills when they could afford to buy insurance in the first place.
4) $1.8 Trillion Dollars is required to fund ObamaCare — 1 trillion in higher taxes and 800 Billion borrowed from Medicare. In comparison, taxes were not increased to fund RomneyCare, nor were any funds borrowed from Medicare.
5) RomneyCare was enacted only after Mitt Romney balanced the state budget;...
It is commonly perceived that ObamaCare was modeled after RomneyCare, but there are significant differences between the two:
1) The bill called "ObamaCare" is 2700 pages long, and RomneyCare was only 70 pages in 2006. So there are 2,630 more pages of differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare.
2) RomneyCare was uniquely designed for Massachusetts, but ObamaCare is a one-size-fits-all mandate imposed upon all states, regardless of each state's needs and economic conditions.
3) ObamaCare expands the size and power of federal government beyond the "few and defined" powers delegated by the Constitution, thus diminishing State powers; in contrast, RomneyCare invokes "numerous and indefinite" powers to require that citizens be insured, thus preventing some from "gaming the system" — where free-riders were formerly getting government to pay for medical bills when they could afford to buy insurance in the first place.
4) $1.8 Trillion Dollars is required to fund ObamaCare — 1 trillion in higher taxes and 800 Billion borrowed from Medicare. In comparison, taxes were not increased to fund RomneyCare, nor were any funds borrowed from Medicare.
5) RomneyCare was enacted only after Mitt Romney balanced the state budget; whereas, ObamaCare was enacted during a time when Barack Obama and a Democrat-dominant Congress didn't even try to balance a budget and didn't even propose a budget, but engaged in massive federal spending, unprecedented in the history of the United States.
6) RomneyCare is constitutional by virtue of the "numerous and indefinite" powers reserved to the States via the 10th Amendment to the Constitution; ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it overreaches the limited federal powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
7) In a June 2011 GOP Presidential Debate sponsored by CNN, Mitt Romney said that "if people don't like it in our state, they can change it." In contrast, Barack Obama has consistently resisted the repeal of his healthcare bill, even when the majority of Americans want to repeal ObamaCare.
8) Mitt Romney passed Massachusetts Healthcare with bipartisan input and support; in contrast, Barack Obama imposed Obama-Care upon the American People using a partisan approach that largely excluded input from Republican Senators and Congressmen — and continues to exclude input from "We the People."
9) While the majority of Americans don't want Obama-Care, the majority of citizens in Massachusetts support RomneyCare. According to a 2011 survey by Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe, 63% of Massachusetts residents support the 2006 health law, while 21% say they oppose it.
And for the Liberals who try to claim that the CBO estimates are lower that previous need to read the Actual CBO Report in it entirety. Please use a pencil and paper to do your Math... ; )
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/...
Besides health care is not a federal Government issue.
That is the thing about the state systems, in any subject, they can be used as experiments. Find out what works. Washington loves to say we can't have 50 different systems, but that will never occur. The systems that are poorly designed or operated will fail and no one will use it. A successful system will grow. With the Feds it is their way or "Too bad, So sad".
You do realize that the state IS a government?
"get the "free riders" ( people who did not carry insurance, using ER's for their medical needs ) off the backs of the hard working, self reliant citizens". Only it doesn't, it spreads the cost across all users and REQUIRES that everyone pay for the exact same services.
The IRS IS in the punishment business but why should we make that their actual primary duty?
"It will take some kind of incentive to break them away from free ER medical care." Competition!
If the free riders have to pay their own premiums, how does that spread the cost to those who have their own insurance? And since the free riders are allowed to shop for insurance that suits them, they will not be getting the exact same services unless that's what they prefer.
You cannot compete with something that is being provided free!! That's why they call them free riders, they are getting medical care FREE by just going to ER's.
Tell me how any business can "compete" with FREE services.
"f the free riders have to pay their own premiums, how does that spread the cost to those who have their own insurance?" First of all insurance works by spreading the risk around. ObamaCare requires that all plans meets the specifications established by the Government. Meaning the Government decides what has to be covered and how much can be charged for said coverage. Meaning you and I would have to pay for pregnancy & well baby coverage. I am sure you can think of other types of coverage you do not need, but Government insurance will not allow a tailored plan for anyone.
I think in the grand scheme of things, a few cents more on April 15th is worth it to me. If it will help a poor pregnant woman, or prevent illness in her baby I don't begrudge them that.
"private insurance companies are required to abide by governmnet regulations also." And the number of regulations continues to increase each year.
All of those cents are not the Governments money. It is OURS and we deserve to KEEP it. Currently the Government has far exceeded its mandate, as listed in the Constitution, and needs to be returned to that mandate.
My Senators are a 50/50 proposition. But one is retiring.
What's your take on the Obamacare and the Supreme Court?
Have you read the health care bill?
http://housedocs.house.gov/ru...
but the CBO says that they feel the plan will cost twice as much at 1.5 trillion bucks
http://www.weeklystandard.com...
Obama Care (National Health Care Act) is a piece of Federal legislation the people of the country had no say in and have no way of adjusting or not participating in. They are two totally different things.
The biggest problem stems from them keeping the middle and low class from actually trying to make it. Simple get them jobs that pay well and they will get off the system as you want.
But trying to cut each program off completely makes no sense in the fact that real honest and hard working people need it at times to get by. Others simply can't for whatever reasons but nonetheless good ones.
I say weed out the bad apples and work hard to keep the good ones where they can get back on their feet again. The lifers are nothing but leeches.
Jobs lost leads to housing crisis leads to very bad economy. No one person can be blamed for this not even obama or romney or anyone.
On the Glen Beck's show he spoke of individual mandate as "the ultimate conservatism."
At a GOP primary debate in Iowa, August of 2007 he said, 'We have to have our citizens insured, and we're not going to do that by tax exemptions, because the people that don't have insurance aren't paying taxes. What you have to do is what we did in Massachusetts. Is it perfect? No. But we say, let's rely on personal responsibility, help people buy their own private insurance, get our citizens insured, not with a government takeover, not with new taxes needed, but instead with a free market based system that gets all of our citizens in the system. No more free rides. it works.A 2007 Romney mailer said "The Romney Plan" would "Stop the Free Riders and enforce"personal responsibility." His official platform described his national health care plan in the same terms. " Stop the Free Riders"
I think the issue is that the Obama Plan does NOTHING to actually fix the problems in our healthcare system, it only creates another systems that has flaws. in the mean time the current system is on life support. So The Obama Plan is really a temporary plan this will wait for the current system to Fail, then the Obama plan will take over as a full 100% Government ran health care plan that will be like all the other plans worldwide that are failing now, costing too much and providing a poor level of care. You know what I am talking about if you have ever dealt with Medicaid, Medicare or Tricare. this is a complex issue and
can't be solved with another complex system. I with the Congress would have passed the Republican plan that was offered in 2009 to Obama (he did not look at it and dropped it in the trash when leaving the Baltimore Republican conference) It had real healthcare reform, actual plans to fix some of the problems with the current system. But once again OUR President went the Ideological route....Depressing.