BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate

[Greenbeard]

Romney supports states doing healthcare insurance the way their voters want it, but not at a national level where the FEDs get involved with healthcare.

End of debate.

I often find the right's philosophy on this point pretty muddled. For instance, Romney's website proposed some degree of additional federal insurance regulation along the lines of HIPAA (which the right doesn't seem to mind all that much): "Correct common failures in the insurance market: Ensure that individuals with pre-existing conditions who are continuously covered for a specified period may not be denied coverage."

Much more importantly, Romney says "Eliminate counterproductive federal constraints: Remove barriers to the sale of insurance across state lines." Those barriers, of course, lie at the state level and are a natural consequence of allowing states complete autonomy over their insurance markets. The approach Republicans generally advocate--and the one Romney is apparently clumsily and inaccurately trying to invoke here--is to pass federal legislation stripping states of autonomy over their insurance markets and limiting their ability to regulate products sold within their borders. Say what you will about that approach's alleged merits, it's hardly about "states doing healthcare insurance the way their voters want it."

The cognitive dissonance is even more pronounced on the tort reform side. As I've pointed out before, half of the Republican party supports federal tort reform legislation and the other half thinks that's a violate of states' rights and the Tenth Amendment.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Romney has taken both sides of the argument: "Reduce the influence of lawsuits on medical practice and costs: Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits [federalizing tort law]; Innovation grants for state reforms: health courts, alternative dispute resolution, etc.[incentivizing state-level tort reform]." The federal reform law notably took the latter approach, offering incentives to states to reform their own tort laws.

Anyway, the notion that Romney and others are philosophically against federalizing certain aspects of health care law/regulation is obviously false. It really just depends on when it suits them.

 

[JoeB131]

And the question was

So why do you want more government control in your life? Do not answer that it's already known by some that you are a full blown liberal.

I thought I answered the question pretty well.

Government would bring down costs, and make sure that I got the service I was promised.

It's not a matter of "more control" in my life, it's a matter of making sure that my insurance provider actually does what they promised.

Last job I was at, I ran up a lot of medical bills in 2007. Oddly enough, when the recession hit, the first people they let go were the ones who ran up medical bills.

Making CORPORATIONS do what they promised to do by providing a bigger club is in my interest.

Because, politics should be about enlightened self-interest, not ideaology...

Too bad you are too stupid to realize that... but you think Ron Paul is sane.

You gave an answer only a liberal would give.

No, I gave an answer a sensible person would give.

I was lucky in that when my insurance company essentially told my employer they had to fire me, I was past the medical treatment phase.

This notion that we should only treat people as long as a big greedy insurance company makes a profit, otherwise fuck them and let them die? That's just batshit crazy and evil.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I thought I answered the question pretty well.

Government would bring down costs, and make sure that I got the service I was promised.

It's not a matter of "more control" in my life, it's a matter of making sure that my insurance provider actually does what they promised.

Last job I was at, I ran up a lot of medical bills in 2007. Oddly enough, when the recession hit, the first people they let go were the ones who ran up medical bills.

Making CORPORATIONS do what they promised to do by providing a bigger club is in my interest.

Because, politics should be about enlightened self-interest, not ideaology...

Too bad you are too stupid to realize that... but you think Ron Paul is sane.

You gave an answer only a liberal would give.

No, I gave an answer a sensible person would give.

I was lucky in that when my insurance company essentially told my employer they had to fire me, I was past the medical treatment phase.

This notion that we should only treat people as long as a big greedy insurance company makes a profit, otherwise fuck them and let them die? That's just batshit crazy and evil.

Liberal.

 

[JoeB131]

There is nothing wrong with a state Govt making it mandatory for everyone to get some form of health insurance for emergency care. If you want to pay more for more medical serivces then do it.

It is UnAmerican to walk into an emergency room expecting everyone else in the place to pay for your medical bills.

Well, I call that being a compassionate humane society.

I think the fact that ER's are the doctor of first resort for people is putting a horrible strain on the system, but if you have 46 million uninsured, that's what you are going to get.

A sensible system would cover everyone, and the ER is actually there for emergencies. Everything else goes to a routine doctor's office.

 

[Rocko]

Romney supports states doing healthcare insurance the way their voters want it, but not at a national level where the FEDs get involved with healthcare.

End of debate.

If a state can force you to own car insurance to drive on the streets then they should have the right to force you to pay for health insurance for emergency medical care since hospitals by law have to treat you when you walk into the emergency room.

You don't have the right to force me to pay for your medical bills because you think it is your right to spend that money on a PS3, booze, etc. You should be denied medical care if you don't want to pay something for healthcare.....you can just die with your PS3 in your hands.

You can say that all you want, the point is that when he wrote this Op-Ed, when the mandates were being decided on, he DID support the idea of mandates on a national level.

Facts are facts. And we are simply quoting the man's own words here.

Facts are facts, and you're not entitled to your own facts. He did not write that he was in favor of a federal mandate, period.

 

[JoeB131]

You gave an answer only a liberal would give.

No, I gave an answer a sensible person would give.

I was lucky in that when my insurance company essentially told my employer they had to fire me, I was past the medical treatment phase.

This notion that we should only treat people as long as a big greedy insurance company makes a profit, otherwise fuck them and let them die? That's just batshit crazy and evil.

Liberal.

Retard...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Romney supports states doing healthcare insurance the way their voters want it, but not at a national level where the FEDs get involved with healthcare.

End of debate.

If a state can force you to own car insurance to drive on the streets then they should have the right to force you to pay for health insurance for emergency medical care since hospitals by law have to treat you when you walk into the emergency room.

You don't have the right to force me to pay for your medical bills because you think it is your right to spend that money on a PS3, booze, etc. You should be denied medical care if you don't want to pay something for healthcare.....you can just die with your PS3 in your hands.

You can say that all you want, the point is that when he wrote this Op-Ed, when the mandates were being decided on, he DID support the idea of mandates on a national level.

Facts are facts. And we are simply quoting the man's own words here.

Facts are facts, and you're not entitled to your own facts. He did not write that he was in favor of a federal mandate, period.

But he is in favor of a mandate, and plans not to attempt to repeal the obama mandate none the less, is this statement correct?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, I gave an answer a sensible person would give.

I was lucky in that when my insurance company essentially told my employer they had to fire me, I was past the medical treatment phase.

This notion that we should only treat people as long as a big greedy insurance company makes a profit, otherwise fuck them and let them die? That's just batshit crazy and evil.

Liberal.

Retard...

I know you are because anyone posing as something they aren't are retarded.

 

[Rocko]

You can say that all you want, the point is that when he wrote this Op-Ed, when the mandates were being decided on, he DID support the idea of mandates on a national level.

Facts are facts. And we are simply quoting the man's own words here.

Facts are facts, and you're not entitled to your own facts. He did not write that he was in favor of a federal mandate, period.

But he is in favor of a mandate, and plans not to attempt to repeal the obama mandate none the less, is this statement correct?

He's in favor of state mandates and says he wants to repeal obamacare.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Facts are facts, and you're not entitled to your own facts. He did not write that he was in favor of a federal mandate, period.

But he is in favor of a mandate, and plans not to attempt to repeal the obama mandate none the less, is this statement correct?

He's in favor of state mandates and says he wants to repeal obamacare.

Has he denounced the comment made by his advisers that he will not make any attempt to repealing the mandate if he is elected as president?

 

[Rocko]

But he is in favor of a mandate, and plans not to attempt to repeal the obama mandate none the less, is this statement correct?

He's in favor of state mandates and says he wants to repeal obamacare.

Has he denounced the comment made by his advisers that he will not make any attempt to repealing the mandate if he is elected as president?

link?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BREAKING

This is hardly ‘breaking,’ the ACA and IM are republican plans from the early 90s. Everyone knows rightist opposition to the ACA is partisan, having nothing to do with the IM, and everything to do with a democratic president.

 

[dblack]

BREAKING

This is hardly ‘breaking,’ the ACA and IM are republican plans from the early 90s. Everyone knows rightist opposition to the ACA is partisan, having nothing to do with the IM, and everything to do with a democratic president.

True enough. Broad, public opposition to the mandate isn't partisan though.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He's in favor of state mandates and says he wants to repeal obamacare.

Has he denounced the comment made by his advisers that he will not make any attempt to repealing the mandate if he is elected as president?

link?

Norm Coleman, an advisor to Romney, went on record saying:

“We’re not going to do repeal. You’re not going to repeal Obamacare… It’s not a total repeal… You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president… You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.”
Will Mitt Romney Repeal Obamacare?

 

[BreezeWood]

He's in favor of state mandates and says he wants to repeal obamacare.

Will Mitt Romney Repeal Obamacare?

But aside from that, in the remote possibility that Republicans were able to win substantial majorities in both Houses along with a Romney presidency, what would a Romney Administration replace Obamacare with? Wouldn’t we just wind up with fifty state-run Romneycare’s?

... Wouldn’t we just wind up with fifty state-run Romneycare’s?

if Republicans believe this would be more cost effective, the ACA does not specifically prevent States from incorporating their own programs - if they were all Romnycare as Romney supports then there would be a universal Mandate - so Romney is not against a national mandate, just one adopted by the present Administration sponsored by Democrats and only for political reasons suited not for monetary considerations but for his own ambitions.

 

[Immanuel]

The reason for the health insurance mandate is obvious - it should be embraced or at least understood by everyone and not used as a football by Republicans.

Why on earth would anyone embrace higher costs and government interference in our lives?

That makes about as much sense as sticking a two pronged fork into an electrical outlet and hanging on to see if you get shocked.

Immie

Dumbass, most of the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care, lower costs, they live longer and have lower infant mortality rates.

The costs are going up because the usual rules of supply and demand don't apply here. With no one controlling costs, there simply is nothing to stop the medical industry from running them up. Pay our costs, or die.

The thing is, the current system only continues because of government supports. Less government would collapse the system faster.

The Problem with Obama/RomneyCare is that they are both big wet sloppy kisses to the insurance industry, forcing people to subsidize them by compelling mandates, and infusing lots more government cash.

What they need to do is get rid of the overhead of unnecessary tests, torts, huge salaries for executives, etc. And some hard decisions will have to be made, such as not spending the 11% that we spend extending the lives of the terminally ill for a few more days.

Idiot, look at the rest of the world. Why on earth do you want to imitate them? That is the problem with the liberals in America. Starting about 30 years ago they all thought the grass was greener on the socialist side of the world and now look at the low point they have drug us to. Worse yet, they want to drag us down even further.

Immie

 

[GWV5903]

LoneLaugher sig line...
"If you applied the yearly increases in the cost of health insurance over the past 20 years to the price of gasoline.....what do you think the price per gallon would be?"

It all makes sense now, you're oblivious to the fact that medicine has advanced 100 fold in the last 20 years and gas is still gas bravo...

I bet you can roll over too...

 

[paulitician]

Forcing Citizens to purchase Health Insurance by way of threats of Fine & Imprisonment, is as Un-American as it gets. The mandate is wrong. Hopefully the Supreme Court will agree with me on that.

 

[GoneBezerk]

....and you're full of shit.

Republicans like Romney believe if a state wants to mandate health insurance for adults, then it is legal. He doesn't believe in the Feds meddling in the business of states and individuals.

Also, a system where health insurance across state lines would decrease premiums because the risk could be further spread across more people just like auto insurance.

Throw in reforming tort law where liberals support lawyers sueing for billions of dollars over minor medical mistakes, even over the top for serious mistakes. Hospitals just pass on the cost to us while lawyers and their client rake in the money.

But liberals like you want to protect lawyers and don't want insurance sold across state lines because you want the entire system to collapse to inact socialism through medicine. It's an easy sales pitch to ghetto trash that them rich people are responsible for their miserable lives and lack of access to affordable healthcare, not the liberals like you fucking up the system for real.

Romney supports states doing healthcare insurance the way their voters want it, but not at a national level where the FEDs get involved with healthcare.

End of debate.

I often find the right's philosophy on this point pretty muddled. For instance, Romney's website proposed some degree of additional federal insurance regulation along the lines of HIPAA (which the right doesn't seem to mind all that much): "Correct common failures in the insurance market: Ensure that individuals with pre-existing conditions who are continuously covered for a specified period may not be denied coverage."

Much more importantly, Romney says "Eliminate counterproductive federal constraints: Remove barriers to the sale of insurance across state lines." Those barriers, of course, lie at the state level and are a natural consequence of allowing states complete autonomy over their insurance markets. The approach Republicans generally advocate--and the one Romney is apparently clumsily and inaccurately trying to invoke here--is to pass federal legislation stripping states of autonomy over their insurance markets and limiting their ability to regulate products sold within their borders. Say what you will about that approach's alleged merits, it's hardly about "states doing healthcare insurance the way their voters want it."

The cognitive dissonance is even more pronounced on the tort reform side. As I've pointed out before, half of the Republican party supports federal tort reform legislation and the other half thinks that's a violate of states' rights and the Tenth Amendment.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Romney has taken both sides of the argument: "Reduce the influence of lawsuits on medical practice and costs: Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits [federalizing tort law]; Innovation grants for state reforms: health courts, alternative dispute resolution, etc.[incentivizing state-level tort reform]." The federal reform law notably took the latter approach, offering incentives to states to reform their own tort laws.

Anyway, the notion that Romney and others are philosophically against federalizing certain aspects of health care law/regulation is obviously false. It really just depends on when it suits them.

 

[paulitician]

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are wrong. The Mandate is Un-Constitutional.