Confirmed: Romneycare = Obamacare

[Stephanie]

links in article at site.

Snip:

By Michelle Malkin • January 26, 2012 10:32 AM




Jim Pethokoukis spotlights a new Health Affairs study on how Romneycare laid the foundation for Obamacare, and what it portends for the federal health insurance scene. In short: Expanded government coverage, higher taxpayer costs. Read here for details and analysis. His conclusion:


The authors conclude that based on the Romneycare experience, Obamacare will improve coverage and not kill employer-based insurance, but containing costs will be a “considerable challenge.” That is probably the avenue Romney should use to a) attack Obamacare and b) present his own national health reform. But this study will perpetuate the meme that Romneycare was the prototype for Obamacare. Santorum hammered Romney on this point at the last debate more effectively than any other candidate throughout this campaign season, probably because he understands the issue better than his rivals. We’ll see if he or Gingrich follows up tonight.

No surprises, of course. We already heard from Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber in October:


The Obama administration may have relied much more heavily on Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare legislation as a blueprint for Obamacare than was previously believed.

White House visitor logs obtained by NBC News revealed that three of Romney’s healthcare advisers had up to a dozen meetings with senior administration officials, including one in the Oval Office presided over by President Barack Obama.

“They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model,” MIT economist and Romney healthcare adviser Jon Gruber told NBC.

And back in September, I noted the analysis by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute showing the depths of the economic damage that Romneycare did in the Bay State.

Flashback:


Romney’s baggage. It is so heavy:

read it all with comments..
Michelle Malkin » Confirmed: Romneycare = Obamacare

 

[California Girl]

They conveniently ignore the major difference. A state is not the nation.

It's bullshit.

 

[Truthmatters]

its a great idea.

I give Romney credit for placing Americans over party

 

[Amelia]

I continue to be dismayed by people on the right who discount the states' rights versus federal rights argument. That is the key constitutional principle Obama has violated.

Liberal Massachusetts had the right to do this if that's what they chose as a state.

All 50 states have a right to do this or not.


Obama's bungles are the violation of the commerce clause and a violation of logic. Even if a national program was a good idea to pursue then at a minimum the nation should wait for the results from a number of state-level experiments and not try to impose one state's solution on our massive country, much less impose that state's solution before the verdict was in about how well that solution had worked and what parts of the state's program might need to be tweaked or abandoned.

 

[Sarah G]

links in article at site.

Snip:

By Michelle Malkin • January 26, 2012 10:32 AM




Jim Pethokoukis spotlights a new Health Affairs study on how Romneycare laid the foundation for Obamacare, and what it portends for the federal health insurance scene. In short: Expanded government coverage, higher taxpayer costs. Read here for details and analysis. His conclusion:


The authors conclude that based on the Romneycare experience, Obamacare will improve coverage and not kill employer-based insurance, but containing costs will be a “considerable challenge.” That is probably the avenue Romney should use to a) attack Obamacare and b) present his own national health reform. But this study will perpetuate the meme that Romneycare was the prototype for Obamacare. Santorum hammered Romney on this point at the last debate more effectively than any other candidate throughout this campaign season, probably because he understands the issue better than his rivals. We’ll see if he or Gingrich follows up tonight.

No surprises, of course. We already heard from Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber in October:


The Obama administration may have relied much more heavily on Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare legislation as a blueprint for Obamacare than was previously believed.

White House visitor logs obtained by NBC News revealed that three of Romney’s healthcare advisers had up to a dozen meetings with senior administration officials, including one in the Oval Office presided over by President Barack Obama.

“They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model,” MIT economist and Romney healthcare adviser Jon Gruber told NBC.

And back in September, I noted the analysis by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute showing the depths of the economic damage that Romneycare did in the Bay State.

Flashback:


Romney’s baggage. It is so heavy:

read it all with comments..
Michelle Malkin » Confirmed: Romneycare = Obamacare

Michelle Malkin You love all the crazyass wingers.

 

[Stephanie]

The article states ObamaCare was copied from RomneyCare and what RomneyCare is doing to the state of Massachusetts and possible what we all will get to look forward to..


I don't know what the rest of you are talking about.

 

[Stephanie]

links in article at site.

Snip:

By Michelle Malkin • January 26, 2012 10:32 AM




Jim Pethokoukis spotlights a new Health Affairs study on how Romneycare laid the foundation for Obamacare, and what it portends for the federal health insurance scene. In short: Expanded government coverage, higher taxpayer costs. Read here for details and analysis. His conclusion:


The authors conclude that based on the Romneycare experience, Obamacare will improve coverage and not kill employer-based insurance, but containing costs will be a “considerable challenge.” That is probably the avenue Romney should use to a) attack Obamacare and b) present his own national health reform. But this study will perpetuate the meme that Romneycare was the prototype for Obamacare. Santorum hammered Romney on this point at the last debate more effectively than any other candidate throughout this campaign season, probably because he understands the issue better than his rivals. We’ll see if he or Gingrich follows up tonight.

No surprises, of course. We already heard from Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber in October:


The Obama administration may have relied much more heavily on Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare legislation as a blueprint for Obamacare than was previously believed.

White House visitor logs obtained by NBC News revealed that three of Romney’s healthcare advisers had up to a dozen meetings with senior administration officials, including one in the Oval Office presided over by President Barack Obama.

“They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model,” MIT economist and Romney healthcare adviser Jon Gruber told NBC.

And back in September, I noted the analysis by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute showing the depths of the economic damage that Romneycare did in the Bay State.

Flashback:


Romney’s baggage. It is so heavy:

read it all with comments..
Michelle Malkin » Confirmed: Romneycare = Obamacare

Michelle Malkin You love all the crazyass wingers.

you don't have to read it dear...I don't with hufferpost, thinkprogess, etc etc.

 

[Amelia]

The article states ObamaCare was copied from RomneyCare and what RomneyCare is doing to the state of Massachusetts and possible what we all will get to look forward to..


I don't know what the rest of you are talking about.

What we're talking about is that Massachusetts had the right to do that to themselves.

Obama did not have the right to do it to us.

There is a HUGE difference.



Individual states have the right to be liberal or socialistic or whatever. They can do things that the federal government doesn't have the power to do.

The 10th amendment. Remember that one?

 

[Stephanie]

The article states ObamaCare was copied from RomneyCare and what RomneyCare is doing to the state of Massachusetts and possible what we all will get to look forward to..


I don't know what the rest of you are talking about.

What we're talking about is that Massachusetts had the right to do that to themselves.

Obama did not have the right to do it to us.

There is a HUGE difference.



Individual states have the right to be liberal or socialistic or whatever. They can do things that the federal government doesn't have the power to do.

The 10th amendment. Remember that one?

yes, I understand all that..I'm not arguing against what you said...
Malkin is just pointing out that RomneyCare is the model for ObamaCare...so you think he is going to be against ObamaCare?

 

[Amelia]

The article states ObamaCare was copied from RomneyCare and what RomneyCare is doing to the state of Massachusetts and possible what we all will get to look forward to..


I don't know what the rest of you are talking about.

What we're talking about is that Massachusetts had the right to do that to themselves.

Obama did not have the right to do it to us.

There is a HUGE difference.



Individual states have the right to be liberal or socialistic or whatever. They can do things that the federal government doesn't have the power to do.

The 10th amendment. Remember that one?

yes, I understand all that..I'm not arguing against what you said...
Malkin is just pointing out that RomneyCare is the model for ObamaCare...so you think he is going to be against ObamaCare?

You think he has a lesser understanding of the 10th amendment than we do?


Or that he lacks the power to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the Massachusetts program now that a few years have gone by?

 

[Stephanie]

What we're talking about is that Massachusetts had the right to do that to themselves.

Obama did not have the right to do it to us.

There is a HUGE difference.



Individual states have the right to be liberal or socialistic or whatever. They can do things that the federal government doesn't have the power to do.

The 10th amendment. Remember that one?

yes, I understand all that..I'm not arguing against what you said...
Malkin is just pointing out that RomneyCare is the model for ObamaCare...so you think he is going to be against ObamaCare?

You think he has a lesser understanding of the 10th amendment than we do?




Or that he lacks the power to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the Massachusetts program now that a few years have gone by?

Just something to think about dear if you are for Romney.

 

[uptownlivin90]

I continue to be dismayed by people on the right who discount the states' rights versus federal rights argument. That is the key constitutional principle Obama has violated.

Liberal Massachusetts had the right to do this if that's what they chose as a state.
All 50 states have a right to do this or not.


Obama's bungles are the violation of the commerce clause and a violation of logic. Even if a national program was a good idea to pursue then at a minimum the nation should wait for the results from a number of state-level experiments and not try to impose one state's solution on our massive country, much less impose that state's solution before the verdict was in about how well that solution had worked and what parts of the state's program might need to be tweaked or abandoned.

Yes and I have a right not to vote for the liberal governor of the liberal Massachusetts.

I completely understand the difference between Obamacare and Romneycare. I don't see any merits in either system regardless, I think both were horrible ideas regardless if they were on the state or federal level. I won't vote for someone who implemented a horrible idea in his state... that's MY right.

 

[Amelia]

yes, I understand all that..I'm not arguing against what you said...
Malkin is just pointing out that RomneyCare is the model for ObamaCare...so you think he is going to be against ObamaCare?

You think he has a lesser understanding of the 10th amendment than we do?




Or that he lacks the power to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the Massachusetts program now that a few years have gone by?

Just something to think about dear if you are for Romney.

Well, thank you, but I think that he does understand the 10th amendment, and I think that conservatives would pay more attention to the constitution and less to the red herring of Obamacare being patterned after the Massachusetts' plan.

 

[Luissa]

Hasn't Newt said something's about mandating health care?
Must google for quotes.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Hasn't Newt said something's about mandating health care?
Must google for quotes.

Yes. Many times.

 

[Greenbeard]

He should embrace it. That Health Affairs paper puts some feathers in his cap.

In 2010 Massachusetts adults reported sustained gains in health care access and use relative to 2006 (Exhibit 2; additional measures can be found in Appendix Exhibit 2; simple [unadjusted] estimates are in Appendix Exhibit 6).9 For example, in 2010 compared to 2006, nonelderly adults were more likely to have a usual place to go when they were sick or needed advice about their health (up 4.7 percentage points), and were more likely to have had a preventive care visit (up 5.9 percentage points), a specialist visit (up 3.7 percentage points), multiple doctor visits (up 5.0 percentage points; Appendix Exhibit 2),9 and a dental care visit (up 5.0 percentage points; Appendix Exhibit 2).9

In addition to examining health care use, it is important to consider barriers to obtaining needed care. Nonelderly adults in Massachusetts were less likely to report that they did not get some of the types of care they needed in 2010, compared to 2006 (Appendix Exhibit 3; simple [unadjusted] estimates in Appendix Exhibit 7).9 The share of adults reporting that they did not get needed care was down for doctor care, medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, and preventive care over this five-year period.

The share of nonelderly adults who reported high levels of out-of-pocket health care spending (10 percent or more of family income) was lower in 2010 (6.1 percent) than in 2006 (9.8 percent). Consistent with the lower burden of out-of-pocket expenses, the share of adults reporting unmet need for care because of cost was down in 2010 relative to 2006 for all of the types of care examined except prescription drugs and dental care (Appendix Exhibit 4).9

Health insurance coverage and improved access to care are interim goals of the 2006 reform initiative; the ultimate goal is improved health for the population in Massachusetts. The survey used for this study had a single question about health status: “In general, would you say that your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” Although self-reported health status has limitations, it is often used as a proxy for clinical measures of health when such measures are not available, as was the case here. We found strong and sustained gains in the share of nonelderly adults in Massachusetts who reported their health as very good or excellent, with an increase from 59.7 percent in 2006 to 64.9 percent in 2010 (data not shown).7

 

[Amelia]

Hasn't Newt said something's about mandating health care?
Must google for quotes.

Newt was for a federal mandate from 1993 to 2009, right up until the Democrats decided to have one. Then he realized it would be a bad thing.

 

[Luissa]

Hasn't Newt said something's about mandating health care?
Must google for quotes.

Newt was for a federal mandate from 1993 to 2009, right up until the Democrats decided to have one.

That is what I thought..

 

[DaGoose]

Bottom line:

If the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional this summer it will be a non-issue.

If the SCOTUS rules it constitutional this summer there will be one hell of a fight.

Obama was SMART to get the "good parts" to kick in before the 2012 election. It will make it an easier sell in November.

 

[JoeB131]

They conveniently ignore the major difference. A state is not the nation.

It's bullshit.

Mitt Romney " I promise not to unleash my totally awesome plan on the entire Country, even though Obama already did that."

Operationally, not seeing a difference. If you are being forced to buy a product you feel you don't need under penalty of law, how is it any less of an imposition on your freedoms if it's a federal law or a state law.

The problem with ObamneyCare is that it doesn't address the real problem- the explosion of medical inflation compared to regular inflation, and the fact that corporate and individual revenues can't keep up with the climbing price. All it does is spread the misery around a bit by getting people who don't really need it to pay for it whether they want to or not, and making the government subsidize those who can't afford it.