"I will repeal Obamacare" Mitt Romney

[Greenbeard]

The difference is Massachusettes is a state and the residents of that state have a right to decide what kind of insurance they want to have.

Again, that's not a distinction the piece is drawing in those quotes.

Regardless, the principle that residents of a state have control over insurance regulation in the state doesn't seem to jibe with the conservative push (rhetorical push, at least) to use federal power to strip states of the authority to regulate insurance products sold in their states.

 

[Zander]

The difference is Massachusettes is a state and the residents of that state have a right to decide what kind of insurance they want to have.

Again, that's not a distinction the piece is drawing in those quotes.

Regardless, the principle that residents of a state have control over insurance regulation in the state doesn't seem to jibe with the conservative push (rhetorical push, at least) to use federal power to strip states of the authority to regulate insurance products sold in their states.

Does your paycheck stop if the SCOTUS rules Obamacare unconstitutional?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Regardless, the principle that residents of a state have control over insurance regulation in the state doesn't seem to jibe with the conservative push (rhetorical push, at least) to use federal power to strip states of the authority to regulate insurance products sold in their states.

They don't have to strip states of the power really since the commerce clause gave them regulatory power. More importantly, it was power specificially to encourage free trade among states. This would cut the cost of health care in half!

"The McCarran-Ferguson Act does not prevent the federal government from regulating the insurance industry. It provides only that states have broad authority to regulate the insurance industry unless the federal government enacts legislation specifically intended to regulate insurance and to displace state law."

 

[Wry Catcher]

The difference is Massachusettes is a state and the residents of that state have a right to decide what kind of insurance they want to have.

Again, that's not a distinction the piece is drawing in those quotes.

Regardless, the principle that residents of a state have control over insurance regulation in the state doesn't seem to jibe with the conservative push (rhetorical push, at least) to use federal power to strip states of the authority to regulate insurance products sold in their states.

Does your paycheck stop if the SCOTUS rules Obamacare unconstitutional?

Mine doesn't. I'm a bit differnt than you. I 've got mine and I DO give a damn about other Americans.. You don't.

 

[Greenbeard]

They don't have to strip states of the power really since the commerce clause gave them regulatory power.

I'm not talking about replacing state-level regulatory structures with uniform national standards imposed by the federal government--that would in fact be a logical step toward creating a national marketplace. I'm talking about simply stripping states of the ability to regulate their own insurance markets but also eschewing federal standards. The new silver bullet for the right.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm talking about simply stripping states of the ability to regulate their own insurance markets

how would you do that? The Fed can control interstate but if CA wants tighter pollution standards its not clear that the Feds can prevent it, although like everything that could be seen as part of interestate commerce..

but also eschewing federal standards. The new silver bullet for the right.

why silver bullet. Conservatives would want strict federal regulation so you'd have serious competition. I'd say you'd want 10 or so insurance products so consumers could compare price and quality of each

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm talking about simply stripping states of the ability to regulate their own insurance markets

how would you do that? The Fed can control interstate but if CA wants tighter pollution standards its not clear that the Feds can prevent it, although like everything that could be seen as part of interestate commerce..

I'm not talking about pollution standards, I'm responding specifically to the statement above that "the residents of that state [Massachusetts] have a right to decide what kind of insurance they want to have." The reality is that the notion that states and their citizens have the authority to craft rules for their own marketplace and regulate insurance policies sold within their borders is under attack.

Under that proposal, the federal government would grant insurance companies an exemption from the laws of a state ("the secondary state"), laws decided on by the residents of that state (or at least their duly elected representatives). Instead, those insurers would be subject only to the rules of some other state government ("the primary state"), over whom the citizens of the secondary state have no influence.

It's an absurd state of affairs in which 1) the state can't regulate all insurance products sold within its borders due to federal intervention, and 2) the federal government provides no baseline national regulations for those products. There's no one at the wheel. I'm reminded of one of Justice Kennedy's points on Wednesday when he asked if "there [should] be a clear line of accountability so the citizen knows that it's the Federal or the State government who should be held responsible for their program?" Well, in these proposals its neither. Citizens of a state aren't being protected by laws passed by their state legislature or by the federal government, they're potentially subject to laws passed by a different state's legislature--a state legislature that is not accountable to them in any way.

The standard language used in numerous pieces of legislation that have pushed this effort to use federal authority to strip states of the ability to regulate their own markets looks like this:

`(a) In General- The covered laws of the primary State shall apply to individual health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in the primary State and in any secondary State, but only if the coverage and issuer comply with the conditions of this section with respect to the offering of coverage in any secondary State.
`(b) Exemptions From Covered Laws in a Secondary State- Except as provided in this section, a health insurance issuer with respect to its offer, sale, rating (including medical underwriting), renewal, and issuance of individual health insurance coverage in any secondary State is exempt from any covered laws of the secondary State (and any rules, regulations, agreements, or orders sought or issued by such State under or related to such covered laws) to the extent that such laws would--

`(1) make unlawful, or regulate, directly or indirectly, the operation of the health insurance issuer operating in the secondary State, except that any secondary State may require such an issuer-- ....​

why silver bullet. Conservatives would want strict federal regulation so you'd have serious competition. I'd say you'd want 10 or so insurance products so consumers could compare price and quality of each

You're describing an exchange. Baseline regulations that allow for easy, real-time apples-to-apples comparisons of various plan options--an absolute must for a competitive insurance market. Conservatives wanted that 3 years ago, but they no longer seem to.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The reality is that the notion that states and their citizens have the authority to craft rules for their own marketplace and regulate insurance policies sold within their borders is under attack.

yes they have that right now and it it doesn't work anymore than liberal bimbo bureaucrats designing a NYS car and telling Ford to make it would work.

You lose economies of scale and prices skyrocket with only limited competition in each state. Do you get it now?


Interestingly McCurran Ferguson gave corrupt states the right to protect a hugely abusive insurance monopoly in Georgia. It should be repealed with the Commerce Clause used to promote national capitalism in health care in order to cut prices in half or more.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're describing an exchange. Baseline regulations that allow for easy, real-time apples-to-apples comparisons of various plan options--an absolute must for a competitive insurance market. Conservatives wanted that 3 years ago, but they no longer seem to.

I'm describing a national market place just like we have in tooth paste. Imagine if each state got to define tooth paste?

 

[dblack]

I'm still wondering why anyone believes Romney would try to repeal PPACA anyway? Hopefully the Court will make that a moot point, but Romney's just as much corporatist is Obama. How are we imagining he would lead any differently than Obama has?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm still wondering why anyone believes Romney would try to repeal PPACA anyway? Hopefully the Court will make that a moot point, but Romney's just as much corporatist is Obama. How are we imagining he would lead any differently than Obama has?

He would repeal it because he knows and believes in the principle that an individual mandate, on a federal level, is unconstitutional.

 

[dblack]

I'm still wondering why anyone believes Romney would try to repeal PPACA anyway? Hopefully the Court will make that a moot point, but Romney's just as much corporatist is Obama. How are we imagining he would lead any differently than Obama has?

He would repeal it because he knows and believes in the principle that an individual mandate, on a federal level, is unconstitutional.

Even if he were sincere about that, which in my opinion we have every reason to doubt, he clearly believes in the goal of the mandate - using government to push everyone into the insurance pens. This is the core of the problem. He'll likely just repackage the mandate as a 'tax incentive' and happily shove it right back on us. I think I'd honestly rather have Obama in there with Republican opposition in Congress - rather than a nominal conservative pursuing the same policies. They're much better at opposing than the Democrats.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm still wondering why anyone believes Romney would try to repeal PPACA anyway? Hopefully the Court will make that a moot point, but Romney's just as much corporatist is Obama. How are we imagining he would lead any differently than Obama has?

He would repeal it because he knows and believes in the principle that an individual mandate, on a federal level, is unconstitutional.

Even if he were sincere about that, which in my opinion we have every reason to doubt, he clearly believes in the goal of the mandate - using government to push everyone into the insurance pens. This is the core of the problem. He'll likely just repackage the mandate as a 'tax incentive' and happily shove it right back on us. I think I'd honestly rather have Obama in there with Republican opposition in Congress - rather than a nominal conservative pursuing the same policies. They're much better at opposing than the Democrats.

I was involved in fighting against him, and romneycare, in my home state of MA years back when he was getting it implimented. I dislike Romney for Romneycare but in all our dealings with people who worked for/with him I never got that impression.

He was trying to go after the freeloaders but his means were not justified by the ends in my opinion.

All I know for certain is that I am POSITIVE obama will try to figure out a way to force us into it if he is re-elected.

 

[CausingPAIN]

Great, I look forward to McPlasticCare!
Can you give me a brief of the talking points of your plan?
Along with the chemical proportion in the plastic mix? and are
they EPA approved? I would like to help spread some
Non-paid for care.

 

[dblack]

I was involved in fighting against him, and romneycare, in my home state of MA years back when he was getting it implimented. I dislike Romney for Romneycare but in all our dealings with people who worked for/with him I never got that impression.

He was trying to go after the freeloaders but his means were not justified by the ends in my opinion.

All I know for certain is that I am POSITIVE obama will try to figure out a way to force us into it if he is re-elected.

Yeah... seems like a toss-up to me. Obama has at least been against the mandate, and conceded to it as a 'compromise' - one he likely now regrets making. Romney actually implemented it.

Don't get me wrong. I see very little to be gained from an Obama re-election. But I see little or no difference in Romney and refuse to reward Republicans with my vote for offering up a virtual clone of the sitting president. I'll vote Libertarian or independent and send a message. It may be a message lost to the wind - but it might not. It might be heard, and that possibility is completely nullified if I endorse status-quo politics by voting for Romney. All I'm saying then is 'more please'.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I was involved in fighting against him, and romneycare, in my home state of MA years back when he was getting it implimented. I dislike Romney for Romneycare but in all our dealings with people who worked for/with him I never got that impression.

He was trying to go after the freeloaders but his means were not justified by the ends in my opinion.

All I know for certain is that I am POSITIVE obama will try to figure out a way to force us into it if he is re-elected.

Yeah... seems like a toss-up to me. Obama has at least been against the mandate, and conceded to it as a 'compromise' - one he likely now regrets making. Romney actually implemented it.

Don't get me wrong. I see very little to be gained from an Obama re-election. But I see little or no difference in Romney and refuse to reward Republicans with my vote for offering up a virtual clone of the sitting president. I'll vote Libertarian or independent and send a message. It may be a message lost to the wind - but it might not. It might be heard, and that possibility is completely nullified if I endorse status-quo politics by voting for Romney. All I'm saying then is 'more please'.

you aren't the only one. Romney doesn't have my vote yet, I am still thinking about voting my party (libertarian) for pres.

 

[freedombecki]

This will scare you.... I've been trying to find an answer to that question for weeks. I'm totally up for repealing ObamaCrap... but I insist that the candidate I support explain what he plans to replace it with.

The trouble with the bill referred to Obama Care is its confusing presentation packaged as a 5-reams of paper repository for unpractical demands.

Not one person in this country is interested in people going without healthcare, but making people's medical histories available nationwide to hackers and code crackers is just insane, particularly when you consider that after a while, medical info would become available to anyone with another bill in their hand called "right to know."

The first and most important thing is to get rid of the entire bill because it is too long and it layers medicine such that the prices of medical care could quadruple overnight, and insidious little acts by insurance companies, like raising people's deductible from $200 to $4500 a year places a lot of Americans who once had good medical coverage to basically being out of the loop for what they paid for over 40-year careers, then winding up with a load like crazy el-switcho-chango stuff from terrified insurance companies who did take time and had legal departments reading through the bill thoroughly and realizing the entire onus was on them, and it was scary, considering longer lifespans increase medical costs, and they would be unpopular people for contacting death boards for almost any reason, and a few other things that are clear to them, but not to most of us.

Laws should be less than 2 pages long and easy to understand. There was no call to ram through a bill that fast that was engineered to pick a lot of pockets, namely ours, while increasing and further empowering the federal government to stick its nose in everyone's private business any time it felt like it.

I'm glad Romney is going to repeal it. It needs to be done.

 

[AquaAthena]

What are the key differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare?

It is often asserted that RomneyCare is the same thing as ObamaCare, but this is simply not true. While there are similarities, there are also key differences. Below is a table of differences between the Romney plan and the Obama plan.

RomneyCare – The Truth about Massachusetts Health Care | Mitt Romney Central

Here is much more, from Romney, describing the differences between the two methods of health care. State vs. Federal:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d4raK3QJmQ]Mitt Romney Interview Romneycare vs. Obamacare - YouTube[/ame]

 

[freedombecki]

Again, that's not a distinction the piece is drawing in those quotes.

Regardless, the principle that residents of a state have control over insurance regulation in the state doesn't seem to jibe with the conservative push (rhetorical push, at least) to use federal power to strip states of the authority to regulate insurance products sold in their states.

Does your paycheck stop if the SCOTUS rules Obamacare unconstitutional?

Mine doesn't. I'm a bit differnt than you. I 've got mine and I DO give a damn about other Americans.. You don't.

Are you certain, Wry Catcher?

I think Zander cares VERY MUCH about the people of this nation. That's why he stands up for what the United States Constitution says and supports others in a position to do likewise.

I think you should apologize for that untoward remark, and I insist that you do so.

 

[Listening]

Again, that's not a distinction the piece is drawing in those quotes.

Regardless, the principle that residents of a state have control over insurance regulation in the state doesn't seem to jibe with the conservative push (rhetorical push, at least) to use federal power to strip states of the authority to regulate insurance products sold in their states.

Does your paycheck stop if the SCOTUS rules Obamacare unconstitutional?

Mine doesn't. I'm a bit differnt than you. I 've got mine and I DO give a damn about other Americans.. You don't.

Yes, yes....we always come back to the personal attacks when the moment is reached where a liberal figures out he's been cornered.

You don't know squat about another internet poster...but you just gotta say it because, by golly, your right and you just know it.

Such statements drip with hypocricy.