Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
What Romney wants matters not, congressional republicans just want to repeal it with little thought given to any replacement other than tort reform and selling across state lines, neither of which does jack shit to address the uninsured.
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.
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.
Tort reform is useless and selling across state lines would have the same effect as allowing credit card companies to operate across state lines did, all of them relocate to the most permissive state and the rest of the states are all but powerless to regulate them.
Tort reform is useless and selling across state lines would have the same effect as allowing credit card companies to operate across state lines did, all of them relocate to the most permissive state and the rest of the states are all but powerless to regulate them.
And, tort reform really has only one goal - screw over the little guy.
That's why pubpots love it.
All your posts about giving authroity at the state level ignore one important fact -
The states don't have the money to do all that you (and the GObP/pubpots) want to shove onto the backs of tax payers.
Ya wanna just take a wild guess at where that ADDITIONAL TAX MONEY will come from?
Every single pub says he wants to lower taxes for the 1% and up until debate night, Robber Baron, Mittens said the same thing.
So, if you rw's get your way our taxes will go up A LOT at the federal, state and local level.
Now, I've been enjoying the lower taxes since Obama was elected. I've liked having more money for my business and for health insurance. WHY would I want to end that, pay A WHOLE FUCKING LOT MORE taxes and not get even one fucking thing for it?
Romeny wants to repealk thos whole thing but get congress together to put in place some sort of act/law that eliminates pre existing conditions, tort reform and some other items.
All your posts about giving authroity at the state level ignore one important fact -
The states don't have the money to do all that you (and the GObP/pubpots) want to shove onto the backs of tax payers.
Please google what "Block-Grant" means before you respond to me in an ignorant fasion again, thanks in advance. (for anyone else basically the block grant is giving federal money to the states to handle it themselves instead of having the feds oversee how they spend the money on their poor)
Here is Romney's actual replacement plan Health Care | Mitt Romney for President
As long as he replaces obamacare i will be happy. This obamacare has got to go.
October 7, 2012
"Perhaps no other election has posed such a difficult personal decision for some conservatives: How do you vote if you're ideologically conservative, but you're benefiting, or stand to benefit, from the Affordable Care Act, often referred to as "Obamacare"?
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.
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 responsejust five sentences longamounts 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 trueto 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 TPMs 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 Romneys own Massachusetts health care law that ban insurance company from discriminating against sick people.
Wed 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 senseand 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 lyingbecause repealing Obamacare would eliminate that requirementor 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 ownand 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.
Romney would be Bush's 3rd term. The hundreds of millions of dollars donated to him have to be paid back through his deeds as President. Republicans are fond of saying, "You can't get something for nothing." Apparently this doesn't apply to campaign contributions; Adelson, Trump and the Koch brothers are apparently happy to give Romney something for nothing; right?