Apparently Mitt Romney wants to replace Obamacare with Obamacare

Discussion in 'Politics' started by nitroz, Oct 5, 2012.

  1. nitroz
    Offline

    nitroz INDEPENDENTly ruthless

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,421
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Merritt Island, FL
    Ratings:
    +457
    Daily Kos: Apparently Mitt Romney wants to replace Obamacare with Obamacare

    Purely based on the substance, this was one of the more interesting moments of last night's debate. It started with President Obama raising Mitt Romney's promise to repeal Obamacare. "Governor Romney says we should replace it," the president said. But, he said, there's a problem.

    OBAMA: The problem is, he hasn't described what exactly we'd replace it with, other than saying we're going to leave it to the states.

    But the fact of the matter is that some of the prescriptions that he's offered, like letting you buy insurance across state lines, there's no indication that that somehow is going to help somebody who's got a pre-existing condition be able to finally buy insurance.

    Romney, pressed by Jim Lehrer to explain how he'd replace Obamacare, responded:

    ROMNEY: Well, actually it's — it's — it's a lengthy description. But, number one, preexisting conditions are covered under my plan. Number two, young people are able to stay on their family plan. That's already offered in the private marketplace. You don't have to have the government mandate that for that to occur.

    That response—just five sentences long—amounts to a hat trick of deception, and it was clearly designed to blur the differences between Romney and the president on health care.

    First, instead of actually saying what his plan is, Romney resorted to the old "it would take too long to explain it" dodge. But that's not true—to the extent he has previously articulated a plan for replacing Obamacare, it's been focused almost entirely on allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines and expanding tax deductions to the individual market. That doesn't take long to explain, but there's a problem: Romney's plan wouldn't deliver any of the benefits of Obamacare, and as the rest of Romney's answer showed, he wants to promise those very same benefits.

    For example, Romney's second claim was that his plan covers people with pre-existing conditions. That probably sounded great to the debate audience, but the truth is that he has never released a health care plan that actually covers pre-existing conditions. In fact, earlier this year on Jay Leno's show, Romney said that his plan didn't cover them. Moreover, after the debate, his own top adviser conceded that President Obama was right: Romney would leave pre-existing conditions up to the states.

    Pressed by TPM’s Evan McMorris-Santoro, Fehrnstrom said those who currently lack coverage because they have pre-existing conditions would need their states to implement their own laws — like Romney’s own Massachusetts health care law — that ban insurance company from discriminating against sick people.

    “We’d like to see states do what Massachusetts did,” Fehrnstrom said. “In Massachusetts we have a ban on pre-existing conditions.”

    So, if they'd like to see states do what Massachusetts did ... then why repeal Obamacare, which is modeled after what Massachusetts did? It makes no sense—and Romney knows it. That's why, during the debate, he flip-flopped and took the Obamacare position on preexisting conditions. And the reason he won't explain how he'd do that is because the only way he can do that is by leaving Obamacare in place. If he implements the plan he's proposed, preexisting conditions simply wouldn't be covered. And even his own campaign couldn't say otherwise.

    The third and final element to Romney's answer was his statement that under his plan, "young people are able to stay on their family plan." To really appreciate Romney's brass, you have to take another look at his explanation for why that's would be the case. "That's already offered in the private marketplace," he said. "You don't have to have the government mandate that for that to occur."

    To the extent that statement is true, Obamacare is the reason. The ability of young people to stay on their family plans isn't something that spontaneously started being "offered in the private marketplace." Instead, it became an option for young people because Obamacare requires it. In other words, Mitt Romney is either lying—because repealing Obamacare would eliminate that requirement—or he's saying that he doesn't want to repeal one of the central features of Obamacare.

    To recap:

    Romney dodged explaining his health care plan by saying it was too "lengthy" to describe, which just isn't true.
    Romney, despite refusing to detail his plan, said it covered pre-existing conditions just like Obamacare even though he has previously taken the opposite position and even though his own campaign did not stand by his claim.
    Romney says his plan wouldn't kick young people of their family plans because he says young people are already able to get coverage through their parents. But Obamacare is what makes that possible, and if his plan is to continue that policy, he's endorsing a key element of Obamacare.

    President Obama rebutted Romney's first and second points during the debate, with particular emphasis on Romney's recurring pattern of refusing to say how he'd achieve his promises. And he did make it clear that the way to achieve the promises made by Romney would be to keep Obamacare in place. But he didn't go for Romney's jugular and point out that Mitt Romney was essentially endorsing Obamacare in substance, if not name.

    In the end, Romney's answer sounded good, but a key part of the reason that it sounded good is that he claimed President Obama's positions as his own—and didn't get called out for it. That might have been enough to give him a "win" last night, but last night was just one night. And as long as President Obama and his campaign are ready and willing to fight back and point out the gap between what Romney said last night and what he's said throughout the campaign, I don't think it's a victory that can be sustained.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Obamanation
    Offline

    Obamanation Silver Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2012
    Messages:
    1,857
    Thanks Received:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +245
    The funny thing to me was how Obama stopped himself short in the debate saying that Romney wanted to keep the GOOD things in Obamacare --- even though he didn;t finish his satement -- It was QUITE obvious that Obama knows there is a bunch of BAD in it...
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  3. ecinicola
    Offline

    ecinicola Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2012
    Messages:
    551
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +77
    As long as he replaces obamacare i will be happy. This obamacare has got to go.
     
  4. Imnukingfutz
    Offline

    Imnukingfutz Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    157
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Location:
    Kingdom of Nigh
    Ratings:
    +28
    There is a lot good in Obamacare, there are also a lot of bad things as we are all aware of and still more good and bad yet to come with the "As to be determined by the HHS" all over the bill.

    I dont like it when bills become laws when all the bills specifics arent written before it is passed...as is the case with Obamacare.

    Clean it up, remove the "to be determined by" portions of the law, remove some of the penalties (taxes) especially to the handicapped in the bill, the 3.5% tax on the profits of selling your home (why that is in there is beyond me), remove the 15 member "Death Panel" and quite a few other things and actually make it about healthcare reform and we might have something.

    The law adds 10 million people to the healthcare rolls and adds 15,000 more IRS agents but does nothing with adding any more healthcare professionals. No incentives on tuition breaks, no incentives on training.

    We have millions of people on government assistance programs and millions more out of work, why not a program to train those people to fill the jobs in the much needed medical profession?
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  5. spectrumc01
    Offline

    spectrumc01 I give you....the TRUTH

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,823
    Thanks Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The United States
    Ratings:
    +260
    Just like every bill that becomes law there are unintended results. The law needs tweeking now that we are seeing the unintended results. This means the law has good and bad points to it. Obamacare is not the answer to our problems but it is a start, now we need to build on it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    From the official Congression Research Service summary of the legislation:


     
  7. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,938
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,678
    Excuse me sir that's "RomneyCare".
     
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,466
    Thanks Received:
    5,410
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,305
    Yes, Romney is definately for-against RomneyCare ObamaCare. Now we have settled that, let's cut 5 trillion from government income and pay down the deficit. Right after we walk on water.
     
  9. Dreamy
    Offline

    Dreamy Silver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,629
    Thanks Received:
    430
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +430
    The difference beside the obvious (Obamacare is at the Fed level and Romneycare is at the state level)was the bi-partisan support of Romneycare. It passed the state legislature by a vote of 154-2. The state Senate passed the bill 37-0.


    Link

    Romneycare actually reflected the demographic make-up of Mass.. Romney worked with everyone, cons, libs and independents.

    Obamacare does not reflect the will of the people. People in states like Texas would likely never support a Romneycare in their state. Also Obamacare was a behind closed door deal. Romneycare was not.

    I did not and do not support Romneycare but I do support the rights of state legislatures to address their own voters at a state level.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  10. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    Anyone who compares a federally run healthcare plan with no bi partisan support with a state run healthcare plan with true bipartisan support is simply not paying attention.

    FYI....if one is not happy with a state run anything, they are more than welcome to move to another state without having to give up their citizenship and their right to live in America.

    If one is not happy with a federally run anything, and do not want to be a part of it, they are forced to leave this country....or as in the case of the Affordable Care law....forced to pay a tax.

    A law with no bi partisan support at the state level is bad enough....but one that includes a mandate at the federal level?

    That is scary stuff.
     

Share This Page