If You Need Only One Reason to Vote for Romney, Here It Is

[BluePhantom]

That doesn't mean there aren't access issue to be addressed (MedPAC consistently stresses that we can and should do better); the 1.3 percent of Medicare beneficiaries having trouble should not be ignored. The point is that extrapolating the experience of one person who "can't find a single doctor who will accept it" to the Medicare population as a whole is fallacious. Two-thirds of Medicare beneficiaries looking for a new physician have no trouble finding one at all.

Green, come on. The 1.3% is fallacious in itself. They took the number of patients who had problems and compared it to people who didn't even try. A cool third of patients had an issue. Now I can tell you that if my wife can't find a doctor in Salem who will accept medicare no one else in Salem will have more success. It's not like they are rejecting my wife for personal reasons. They are rejecting her because they don't accept new patients with that form of payment and that will be constant across the board.

It depends on how the plan is structured. The point is that the Massachusetts plan had been custom built for the conditions, demographics, laws, and political views of the people of Massachusetts. Trying to simply take that plan and hand it to Arizona and expect it to work...you're dreaming. It would be a cluster fuck.

Sorry, that argument fails. When it comes to coverage, the ACA is operationally similar to the Medicaid incarnation of federalism (indeed, half of the coverage expansions are through Medicaid): it's a federal-state partnership, in that the broad contours are set at the federal level and the rest is tailored by the state to meet its needs.

Arizona and Massachusetts and Oregon (and every other state + D.C.) all have Medicaid programs, each tailored very specifically to meet the needs and objectives of the states.

Exactly...they are tailored to specific needs according to the state. My intent is not to show that a national plan cannot work. It is simply to show that what they did in Massachusetts cannot necessarily be done in every single state in the exact same way. Every state has different needs, different situations, different abilities to compensate, different laws, and different political philosophies.

The original point that VaYank and Konradv attacked me on was that in their estimation the Massachusetts health care plan could be implemented "as is" in any state and therefore at the federal level. No..it cant.

 

[BluePhantom]

Limiting campaign donations does not limit anyone's free speech, just their ability to drown out contrary opinions.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you as do I...guess what...my side wins.

 

[BluePhantom]

to me and every other lawyer and judge i know, it's the reason to never ever ever vote for a republican for a federal position.

Might I introduce you to some judges outside the northeast?

 

[BluePhantom]

But he's a MOOOOOOOOOOOOOORMOOOOOOOON.

Course being a Mormon never stopped Democrats from voting for Harry Reid.

Well that's different. It's ok if you are a liberal Mormon. Didn't you get the memo?

 

[Greenbeard]

Now I can tell you that if my wife can't find a doctor in Salem who will accept medicare no one else in Salem will have more success. It's not like they are rejecting my wife for personal reasons. They are rejecting her because they don't accept new patients with that form of payment and that will be constant across the board.

I understand that. Your wife is in the 24% of beneficiaries looking for a provider who are having trouble. But again, I'm not sure how this is supposed to relate to your earlier point.

My intent is not to show that a national plan cannot work. It is simply to show that what they did in Massachusetts cannot necessarily be done in every single state in the exact same way. Every state has different needs, different situations, different abilities to compensate, different laws, and different political philosophies.

The original point that VaYank and Konradv attacked me on was that in their estimation the Massachusetts health care plan could be implemented "as is" in any state and therefore at the federal level. No..it cant.

And I'm pointing out to you (and to them, although I suspect they know this), that the MA plan has not been implemented at the federal level, at least in the manner you're describing. Its broad contours are being promoted, with significant latitude left to the states in the exact design and administration.

 

[BluePhantom]

And I'm pointing out to you (and to them, although I suspect they know this), that the MA plan has not been implemented at the federal level, ...

I never said it had been.

 

[Greenbeard]

And I'm pointing out to you (and to them, although I suspect they know this), that the MA plan has not been implemented at the federal level, ...

I never said it had been.

Perhaps not, but in this very thread (post #32) you seemed to express support for Romney's oft-repeated insinuation that the ACA is a "one-size-fits-all health care plan for the entire nation" (his words in the USA Today editorial last month).

Of course it isn't, and kudos if you recognize Romney's repeated deception on this point.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Justice Antonin Scalia: 76 years old
Justice Anthony Kennedy: 75 years old
Justice Clarence Thomas: 64 years old
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 79 years old
Justice Stephen Breyer: 73 years old

In the next four years the president may be replacing any or all of those Supreme Court Justices. If Obama is elected they will be replaced with liberal, activist justices in the mold of Justices Kagan and Sotomayer who will allow the liberals to dominate the court for decades. You may not be overjoyed about Romney, but I would encourage you to ask yourself who you would trust to appoint justices to the Supreme Court that will maintain the balance and integrity of the judicial branch: Romney or Obama (who has already given us Kagan and Sotomayer).

Ginberg should be removed. any judge that cares not for any part of the Constitution after the First Amendment, shouldn't be judging the Constitutionality of any laws.

You are entitled to your opinion.

That's not an argument. That's just a mindless one liner.

 

[BluePhantom]

And I'm pointing out to you (and to them, although I suspect they know this), that the MA plan has not been implemented at the federal level, ...

I never said it had been.

Perhaps not, but in this very thread (post #32) you seemed to express support for Romney's oft-repeated insinuation that the ACA is a "one-size-fits-all health care plan for the entire nation" (his words in the USA Today editorial last month).

Of course it isn't, and kudos if you recognize Romney's repeated deception on this point.

No I never said that. What I said was:

Is it good for Massachusetts? They apparently think so. So Romney did his job.

Will it be good for the entire United States? Absolutely not and Romney has said so consistently.

and please provide a link to the USAToday editorial you are referring to

 

[rightwinger]

Romney's track record proves he's a massive, liberal, ultra-leftist.....

It is funny as hell to watch all of these "conservative" posters now attempt to rally around Mitt Romney....I wonder if they know just how stupid they look, based on their previous Tea Bagger displays??

It's always funny when an 0bama fluffer such as yourself makes reference to the Tea Party that way....

BTW, I made no reference to Romney....

Yea....like House might actually say who or what he supports

 

[Truthseeker420]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsm5550-TGY]Mitt Romney Doesn't Know what the Constitution Is - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Greenbeard]

No I never said that. What I said was:

Is it good for Massachusetts? They apparently think so. So Romney did his job.

Will it be good for the entire United States? Absolutely not and Romney has said so consistently.

and please provide a link to the USAToday editorial you are referring to

Here you go. The ACA is insinuated to be a "one-size-fits-all health care plan for the entire nation" that is antithetical to a "free market, federalist approach to making quality, affordable health insurance available to every American" and prevents each state from pursuing its own approach. Instead of providing leeway to states, Romney says, the ACA instead results in them being "dictated to by Washington." Per usual, Romney is being a wee bit deceptive here, as he generally is in on this subject in his verbal remarks.

 

[BluePhantom]

No I never said that. What I said was:

Is it good for Massachusetts? They apparently think so. So Romney did his job.

Will it be good for the entire United States? Absolutely not and Romney has said so consistently.

and please provide a link to the USAToday editorial you are referring to

Here you go. The ACA is insinuated to be a "one-size-fits-all health care plan for the entire nation" that is antithetical to a
"free market, federalist approach to making quality, affordable health insurance available to every American" and prevents each state from pursuing its own approach. Instead of providing leeway to states, Romney says, the ACA instead results in them being "dictated to by Washington." Per usual, Romney is being a wee bit deceptive here, as he generally is in on this subject in his verbal remarks.

Ok let me read it. I will get back to you on it

 

[BluePhantom]

Mitt Romney Doesn't Know what the Constitution Is - YouTube

You apparently don't know what the constitution says either. The President can do anything he wants with the military initially. Congress can force a withdrawal of troops if they choose to and can declare war, but the president does not require a declaration of war to take military action.

 

[BluePhantom]

No I never said that. What I said was:

Is it good for Massachusetts? They apparently think so. So Romney did his job.

Will it be good for the entire United States? Absolutely not and Romney has said so consistently.

and please provide a link to the USAToday editorial you are referring to

Here you go. The ACA is insinuated to be a "one-size-fits-all health care plan for the entire nation" that is antithetical to a "free market, federalist approach to making quality, affordable health insurance available to every American" and prevents each state from pursuing its own approach. Instead of providing leeway to states, Romney says, the ACA instead results in them being "dictated to by Washington." Per usual, Romney is being a wee bit deceptive here, as he generally is in on this subject in his verbal remarks.

Ok well he doesn't actually say the ACA is a one-size fits all program. Yes the nature of his phrasing suggests it but that's typical politics. Every politician and media outlet does the same thing. Now in some ways the ACA does indeed dictate to the states and to the people...that's part of what the SCOTUS is considering right now in regard to the individual mandate and whether the ACA is coercive. Is it deceptive? I think I would agree with your assessment..."a wee bit" but at the same time there a lot of truth to it as well.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not now not ever

 

[Greenbeard]

Ok well he doesn't actually say the ACA is a one-size fits all program.

This isn't a new theme for him:

"Our plan was a state solution to a state problem. And his [Obama's] is a power grab by the federal government to put in place a one-size-fits-all plan across the nation," Romney said today.

That's one of his favorite "distinctions" between MA's Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 and the Affordable Care Act. It also happens to be bullshit.

 

[BluePhantom]

Ok well he doesn't actually say the ACA is a one-size fits all program.

This isn't a new theme for him:

"Our plan was a state solution to a state problem. And his [Obama's] is a power grab by the federal government to put in place a one-size-fits-all plan across the nation," Romney said today.

That's one of his favorite "distinctions" between MA's Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 and the Affordable Care Act. It also happens to be bullshit.

Now you are not going to sit here and tell me that the ACA does not dictate to the states are you? I mean surely you are not going to make that argument.

 

[BluePhantom]

Ok well he doesn't actually say the ACA is a one-size fits all program.

This isn't a new theme for him:

"Our plan was a state solution to a state problem. And his [Obama's] is a power grab by the federal government to put in place a one-size-fits-all plan across the nation," Romney said today.

That's one of his favorite "distinctions" between MA's Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 and the Affordable Care Act. It also happens to be bullshit.

Now you are not going to sit here and tell me that the ACA does not dictate to the states are you? I mean surely you are not going to make that argument.

Tell you what....you hold that thought. i am going to go spend time with the family for the rest of the evening and we can pick up again tomorrow.

 

[Greenbeard]

Ok well he doesn't actually say the ACA is a one-size fits all program.

This isn't a new theme for him:

"Our plan was a state solution to a state problem. And his [Obama's] is a power grab by the federal government to put in place a one-size-fits-all plan across the nation," Romney said today.

That's one of his favorite "distinctions" between MA's Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 and the Affordable Care Act. It also happens to be bullshit.

Now you are not going to sit here and tell me that the ACA does not dictate to the states are you? I mean surely you are not going to make that argument.

Notice how what you're responding to is independent of your response? Romney is repeatedly making an argument here that you've, I think, explicitly rejected (or at least repeatedly denied accepting) in this thread; so we're treated to this semantic shift so you can avoid coming to grips with that. That's often a sign that you've run out of ground to stand on.

Anyway, it looks we've reached the point where I need to simply repeat things I've already said because you've might have spontaneously come to "misunderstand" what I'm saying about the state-federal relationship under the ACA:


When it comes to coverage, the ACA is operationally similar to the Medicaid incarnation of federalism (indeed, half of the coverage expansions are through Medicaid): it's a federal-state partnership, in that the broad contours are set at the federal level and the rest is tailored by the state to meet its needs.

Arizona and Massachusetts and Oregon (and every other state + D.C.) all have Medicaid programs, each tailored very specifically to meet the needs and objectives of the states. Your argument is equivalent to arguing that an identical Medicaid program cannot function in every state and thus Medicaid, the broader federal-state partnership, is a functional impossibility. And yet 1) we know that's not what is or has been on the table when it comes to Medicaid, and 2) we know that states may tailor to the program as they see fit, within certain large-scale constraints.

The "Massachusetts plan" is to get more federal money pumped into its (state-tailored) Medicaid program and to organize its individual private health insurance market using a state-designed health insurance exchange. That can indeed work in any state, since that structural design is built on Medicaid and exchange structures that are tailored by each state to satisfy its own political and other constraints.