Apparently Mitt Romney wants to replace Obamacare with Obamacare

[occupied]

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.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

content of article edited out, click the link[/COLOR].

Actually nitroz you are being misled by the daily kos and that source does have a liberal leaning bias. Here is Romney's actual replacement plan http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care



Restore State Leadership and Flexibility

Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the approaches best suited to their own citizens.
•Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
•Limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage
•Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies
•Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment
•Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution

Promote Free Markets and Fair Competition

Competition drives improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, offering consumers higher quality goods and services at lower cost. It can have the same effect in the health care system, if given the chance to work.

•Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
•Empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools
•Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage
•Facilitate IT interoperability

Empower Consumer Choice

For markets to work, consumers must have the information and the power to make decisions about their own care. Placing the patient at the center of the process will drive quality up and cost down while ensuring that services are designed to provide what Americans actually want.
•End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance
•Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines
•Unshackle HSAs by allowing funds to be used for insurance premiums
•Promote "co-insurance" products
•Promote alternatives to "fee for service"
•Encourage "Consumer Reports"-type ratings of alternative insurance plans

 

[bodecea]

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.

And we know why the Republicans in Congress didn't vote for it....they told us why, the day after Obama was sworn in.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

But, is that not where medicare supoose to kick in?

Tort Reform and selling across state lines can only be accomplished by creating a uniform policy of selling insurance at the Federal level....But that would undermine state rights which, in this case, is very important due to the difference in the local environment of each state.

Of course it is not for coverage of the unisnured, but, hopefully, it could lower insurance prices so that more uninsured could buy insurance thus reducing the number of the uninsured.

Of course, that is the general theory behind their proposal.

 

[occupied]

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.

 

[AceRothstein]

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.

Don't forget to fund 2 trillion to the military that they aren't asking for while leaving Medicare as is. Is Romney still the GOP nominee?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Yep, The pubpots hated hated Medicare when it first became law and there were huge problems with it. It now works extremely well for the people.

And, yes, I know there were no teepots back then but there were certainly ignorant radical right wingers. Same kind of idiots who carried signs at teepot rallies that read, "KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE".

Please excuse my correct spelling - I'm not a teepotter.

As for ObamaCare, it won't get repealed because there are too many people who, like me, are enjoying the benefits of it. As much as the GObP/pubpots would like to be able to just put their hands in our pockets, they can't. Not yet. Obviously, if RobMe and LyinRyan are elected, that will change.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

content of article edited out, click the link[/COLOR].

Actually nitroz you are being misled by the daily kos and that source does have a liberal leaning bias. Here is Romney's actual replacement plan http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care



Restore State Leadership and Flexibility

Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the approaches best suited to their own citizens.
•Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
•Limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage
•Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies
•Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment
•Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution

Promote Free Markets and Fair Competition

Competition drives improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, offering consumers higher quality goods and services at lower cost. It can have the same effect in the health care system, if given the chance to work.

•Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
•Empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools
•Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage
•Facilitate IT interoperability

Empower Consumer Choice

For markets to work, consumers must have the information and the power to make decisions about their own care. Placing the patient at the center of the process will drive quality up and cost down while ensuring that services are designed to provide what Americans actually want.
•End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance
•Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines
•Unshackle HSAs by allowing funds to be used for insurance premiums
•Promote "co-insurance" products
•Promote alternatives to "fee for service"
•Encourage "Consumer Reports"-type ratings of alternative insurance plans

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?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

 

[occupied]

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.

Yes, it is pretty odd how those self-described individualists want to put an arbitrary value (a very low one no doubt) on how much your loved ones are worth in a civil court.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

content of article edited out, click the link[/COLOR].

Actually nitroz you are being misled by the daily kos and that source does have a liberal leaning bias. Here is Romney's actual replacement plan http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care



Restore State Leadership and Flexibility

Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the approaches best suited to their own citizens.
•Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
•Limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage
•Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies
•Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment
•Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution

Promote Free Markets and Fair Competition

Competition drives improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, offering consumers higher quality goods and services at lower cost. It can have the same effect in the health care system, if given the chance to work.

•Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
•Empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools
•Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage
•Facilitate IT interoperability

Empower Consumer Choice

For markets to work, consumers must have the information and the power to make decisions about their own care. Placing the patient at the center of the process will drive quality up and cost down while ensuring that services are designed to provide what Americans actually want.
•End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance
•Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines
•Unshackle HSAs by allowing funds to be used for insurance premiums
•Promote "co-insurance" products
•Promote alternatives to "fee for service"
•Encourage "Consumer Reports"-type ratings of alternative insurance plans

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?

I'm not a pub and I didn't say I want lower taxes for the "1%" I want lower taxes for the 100%.

My tax burden has not been reduced under obama and I make a 5 figure income, i'm still paying the bush tax rate which is an effective rate of 8% for someone making 5 figures like me. (romney pays a much higher effective rate than the majority of Americans would you like [URL="http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/18/news/economy/Romney_effective_tax_rate/index.htm"]proof?

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)

And you said romney lied

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

"Some sort of act/law."

Yes, what could that possibly look like? The last time Romney sat down to figure that, he discovered exactly what it has to look like: Obamacare. Or, as they called it back in those days, Chapter 58 of the Laws of 2006 of the Massachusetts General Court: AN ACT PROVIDING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE, QUALITY, ACCOUNTABLE HEALTH CARE.

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)

The point of a block grant is reduce federal support for state health insurance programs for low-income people. The idea is that states get less money under them than they do under the current matching system. In other words, it's a way of shifting costs from the feds to the states.

Here is Romney's actual replacement plan Health Care | Mitt Romney for President

Virtually all of that is exactly what's happening right now. Except for a few items that are self-contradictory (federalizing tort law is antithetical to state flexibility) or that simply don't work, in theory or in practice.

Yet another endorsement by Romney of the President's health care agenda?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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"?

Republicans TORN!​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxoMqs7iGqk]Shining bar scene: Words of wisdom Lloyd - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[SniperFire]

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.

Quoted for truth.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Just one thing that is different;

Romney's plan apparently would work like this on Pre-Existing Conditions: If your employer changes insurance companies and you have a PEC, they can't reject you. If you're new in the insurance market, you can be denied with a PEC.

 

[candycorn]

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?

 

[SniperFire]

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?

LOL

Project much?

Democrats are the Kings of Quid Pro Quo.

Romney camp turns to new message: Obama cronyism

Romney camp turns to new message: Obama cronyism – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs