Confirmed: Romneycare = Obamacare

[JoeB131]

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.

Actually, nomintating Romney effectively nullifies this issue regardless of how the SCOTUS rules on it. What's Romney really going to say?

Romney's only pretending to be for repeal until he gets the nomination, then he'll never talk about it again.

 

[francoHFW]

Every part of it is a good part. What do the dupes have against guaranteed, affordable care for all, saving money, ending 45k deaths/year and 750k bankruptcies, and making us competitive globally? Brainwashed twits!

 

[JoeB131]

Every part of it is a good part. What do the dupes have against guaranteed, affordable care for all, saving money, ending 45k deaths/year and 750k bankruptcies, and making us competitive globally? Brainwashed twits!

and if ObamaCare did any of that, I'd be the first one singing its praises. It really doesn't do any of those things.

Let's take bankruptcies. Yes, 62% of bankruptcies occur every year because of a medical issue. But 75% of those people had insurance. Insurance wasn't the problem. Their inability to continue to bring in any income while raking up bills was.

Now, we could control costs by going to a Canada style system. But that's a trade-off as well. That means long waits, refused treatments if you're terminal, or to expensive to cure. So everything's sort of a Hobson's choice, when you get down to it.

 

[Yurt]

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

It's bullshit.

this

 

[Yurt]

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.

read a document called "the us constitution" to get the answer to your question....

 

[Toro]

Romneycare = Obamacare = Heritage Foundation proposal.

 

[J.E.D]

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

It's bullshit.

And the right continues to ignore that states are still allowed to enact their own health care laws - as long as they achieve the same goals as the ACA (what the right calls Obamacare).

Obama Health Care Law | Obama endorses key change to healthcare law - Los Angeles Times

Washington — President Obama endorsed a significant change to his health reform law Monday, signing on to bipartisan legislation that would allow states to opt out of federal requirements -- including the individual mandate -- three years earlier than scheduled.

The announcement came during a meeting with the nation's governors at the White House, in which Obama said he was responding to state leaders' requests for greater flexibility in meeting the requirements of the landmark 2010 legislation.

Under the original health reform law, states would be allowed to opt out of the requirements of the federal proposal in 2017 if they implemented their own health reforms. To obtain a waiver, states need to demonstrate that their own reforms meet the goals of the federal law, including extending coverage to as many citizens as would be available through the exchanges in the federal law, lowering overall costs and not adding to the federal deficits.

So, what are you waiting for, Republicans? Come up with your own plans. Obama already gave you the green light.

 

[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.

read a document called "the us constitution" to get the answer to your question....

So it's okay for the states to send you to jail, make you buy a product you don't want, fine you, etc. Because you have some weird fetish that it isn't in the federal constitution, that's what makes it wrong?

 

[dblack]

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

It's bullshit.

That's only pertinent to the constitutionality question. It might not be unconstitutional at the state level, but it's just as wrong. I'd sure be looking to get the hell out of Mass if I was unfortunate enough to live there. Either that or I'd game the system if I could figure out a decent angle.

 

[dblack]

Every part of it is a good part. What do the dupes have against guaranteed, affordable care for all, saving money, ending 45k deaths/year and 750k bankruptcies, and making us competitive globally? Brainwashed twits!

and if ObamaCare did any of that, I'd be the first one singing its praises. It really doesn't do any of those things.

Let's take bankruptcies. Yes, 62% of bankruptcies occur every year because of a medical issue. But 75% of those people had insurance. Insurance wasn't the problem. Their inability to continue to bring in any income while raking up bills was.

Now, we could control costs by going to a Canada style system. But that's a trade-off as well. That means long waits, refused treatments if you're terminal, or to expensive to cure. So everything's sort of a Hobson's choice, when you get down to it.

That's an interesting stat. And not at all surprising. Do you recall where you saw it?

 

[Amelia]

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.

read a document called "the us constitution" to get the answer to your question....

So it's okay for the states to send you to jail, make you buy a product you don't want, fine you, etc. Because you have some weird fetish that it isn't in the federal constitution, that's what makes it wrong?

States can make you do crap you might not want to do. Like wear clothes outdoors. Which usually means they're making you buy stuff. I hate to be too simplistic. Not trying to equate something as simple and accepted as clothes with something as complex as healthcare. I'm just saying.

It's not a violation of the U.S. constitution.

 

[California Girl]

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?

Well, given that he understands the difference between a state and a nation, I'd say he gets it, yea.

He's already on the record as saying he'll deal with ObamaCare as President... and I think he will. He's smart enough not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.... he'll fix it... which is want needs doing. Fix it, throw out the crap, and keep the parts of it that we can constitutionally, and without causing vast increases in taxes, work with.

Nothing to get hysterical about.

 

[JoeB131]

[
States can make you do crap you might not want to do. Like wear clothes outdoors. Which usually means they're making you buy stuff. I hate to be too simplistic. Not trying to equate something as simple and accepted as clothes with something as complex as healthcare. I'm just saying.

It's not a violation of the U.S. constitution.

That was a bit overly simplistic.

Whether or not ObamneyCare is a violation of the constitution is questionable in and of itself, but I don't think requiring people to wear clothes outside is an imposition. Making them buy something they 1) don't really need and 2) may not be able to afford is.

If you want to take the Clothes Analogy to its logical conclusion, ObamneyCare is requiring everyone to wear the same state-mandated uniform, even if that is so totally not working for you.

And here is where this debate has been sort of dishonest. the uninsured were never really the problem. Most are uninsured by choice. In my 20's, I would have never chucked out good money for health insurance. When I was at university, there was a health clinic I paid $10 a month for (remember this was the 1980's) and when I was in the service all my health care was covered. But if I did other things, my medical needs were so minimal I could have just as well gone without. Even in my 30s, it wasn't a big deal.

Today I'm pushing 50 and have all the health issues of a man of my age has. I wouldn't dare go without insurance and even though I have the backup plan of going to the VA, I don't want to test that bridge.

The purpose of a Mandate is to get people to pay into the private system so that when you disallow certain behavior on the part of the insurance companies (like denying for pre-existing conditions) they can absorb the costs. It doesn't address the underlying problem, which again, is medical inflation being 3 times regular inflation, combined with a population that is getting older Demographically.

 

[Greenbeard]

He's already on the record as saying he'll deal with ObamaCare as President... and I think he will. He's smart enough not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.... he'll fix it... which is want needs doing. Fix it, throw out the crap, and keep the parts of it that we can constitutionally, and without causing vast increases in taxes, work with.

What does any of this mean?

 

[dblack]

He's already on the record as saying he'll deal with ObamaCare as President... and I think he will. He's smart enough not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.... he'll fix it... which is want needs doing. Fix it, throw out the crap, and keep the parts of it that we can constitutionally, and without causing vast increases in taxes, work with.

What does any of this mean?

It means Romney will be no different than Obama.

 

[dblack]

If you want to take the Clothes Analogy to its logical conclusion, ObamneyCare is requiring everyone to wear the same state-mandated uniform, even if that is so totally not working for you.

And to wear it whether they go outside or not. Also, to buy it only from state approved vendors.

The purpose of a Mandate is to get people to pay into the private system so that when you disallow certain behavior on the part of the insurance companies (like denying for pre-existing conditions) they can absorb the costs. It doesn't address the underlying problem, which again, is medical inflation being 3 times regular inflation, combined with a population that is getting older Demographically.

Exactly.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

So you don't believe in states' rights?
Look! Most Conservatives that government run health care is a bad idea, but why criticize a Governor from signing a bill that the majority of those who elected him support?
This is Massachusetts we are talking about here. They have the right to self destruct just like California or cities like Detroit.

 

[The T]

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?

Well, given that he understands the difference between a state and a nation, I'd say he gets it, yea.

He's already on the record as saying he'll deal with ObamaCare as President... and I think he will. He's smart enough not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.... he'll fix it... which is want needs doing. Fix it, throw out the crap, and keep the parts of it that we can constitutionally, and without causing vast increases in taxes, work with.

Nothing to get hysterical about.

So can we count on Mitt to seek repeal of Obamacare and return it to 10th Amendment status? I think this is the pertinent question here.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

He was also disingenuous to set the "really bad parts" to start after he leaves office.

 

[JoeB131]

So you don't believe in states' rights?
Look! Most Conservatives that government run health care is a bad idea, but why criticize a Governor from signing a bill that the majority of those who elected him support?
This is Massachusetts we are talking about here. They have the right to self destruct just like California or cities like Detroit.

So what you are saying is that a governor should go along with a 'self-destructive' policy because people want it?

Then should a president go along with a self-destructive policy because the people want it?

Or should he use it as a teaching moment, point out why it's self destructive and try to find a better way.

If Romney couldn't stand up to the legistlature of a state, how's he going to stand up to Congress with bigger egos an a few guys who will be gunning for his job in 2016?