Key differences between Obamacare and Romneycare

[TheGreatGatsby]

First off, let me say that I'm not a fan of Romneycare. I don't like anything that steers away from free market healthcare. However, I do tire of people (libtards mostly) mindlessly claim they are the same thing. For one, social medicine is a different beast constitutionally speaking at the federal and state levels. And that has been the main glaring thing to me. But I decided to dig deeper and found key differences at political level:

* Romneycare does not penalize employers for not providing health insurance.
* Allegedly more market based. Certainly, less bureaucratic rigors built into it.
* Based in conjunction with a balanced state budget. No massive new taxes added.
* No cuts to Medicare.
* As aforementioned, Romneycare is constitutional. Obamacare is unconstitutional despite whatever our puppet Supreme Court says.
* A state solution to state problems. I do think that even if you were to take constitutional concerns out of it, it is a mistake to think that there is a one size fits all option. And it's foolhearty to think that such a national system doesn't create enormous waste in conjunction with massive corruption.

Source: Mitt Romney and Healthcare Romneycare Vs. Obamacare

The article also notes that Romneycare had bipartisan support, whereas Obamacare did not. I think that's a nonsense point. Politicians will always do whatever's best for themselves within whatever the constituency will allow.

 

[JoeB131]

DIfference between ObamaCare and RomneyCare.

The Black Guy Did It!!!

 

[JoeB131]

RomneyCare was "White and Delightsome".

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I couldn't give an f about the race of backers of any law. You'd love to take it to such a trivial denominator as to ignore the abuses in Obamacare. Case in point: You ignored my bag of facts while only spouting your lame come ons.

 

[JoeB131]

I couldn't give an f about the race of backers of any law. You'd love to take it to such a trivial denominator as to ignore the abuses in Obamacare. Case in point: You ignored my bag of facts while only spouting your lame come ons.

I ignored them because they were silly. These were the things you would have had to have done to do it on the federal level. As I pointed out in the other thread, Mitt Romney was calling RomneyCare a model for the Nation- Until the Black Guy did it and all you racist a--holes suddenly decided you hated the market-based solution you have been advocating for decades.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I couldn't give an f about the race of backers of any law. You'd love to take it to such a trivial denominator as to ignore the abuses in Obamacare. Case in point: You ignored my bag of facts while only spouting your lame come ons.

I ignored them because they were silly. These were the things you would have had to have done to do it on the federal level. As I pointed out in the other thread, Mitt Romney was calling RomneyCare a model for the Nation- Until the Black Guy did it and all you racist a--holes suddenly decided you hated the market-based solution you have been advocating for decades.

And as I pointed out in the other thread, guy, he was calling it a model at the state level; and he has been explicitly clear about that. And you ignore 'these things,' guy, cos you ain't up for a substantive debate, guy.

 

[JoeB131]

And as I pointed out in the other thread, guy, he was calling it a model at the state level; and he has been explicitly clear about that. And you ignore 'these things,' guy, cos you ain't up for a substantive debate, guy.

He didn't say that until after you guys all decided that you hated ObamaCare.

 

[Greenbeard]

* Romneycare does not penalize employers for not providing health insurance.
* Allegedly more market based. Certainly, less bureaucratic rigors built into it.
* Based in conjunction with a balanced state budget. No massive new taxes added.
* No cuts to Medicare.
* As aforementioned, Romneycare is constitutional. Obamacare is unconstitutional despite whatever our puppet Supreme Court says.
* A state solution to state problems. I do think that even if you were to take constitutional concerns out of it, it is a mistake to think that there is a one size fits all option. And it's foolhearty to think that such a national system doesn't create enormous waste in conjunction with massive corruption.

Massachusetts did enact an employer mandate as part of its reforms under Romney and despite the (apparent?) implication that Romney's program didn't cost anything, it did.

I don't know what "more market-based" is supposed to mean. I would argue that the design of the Romney exchange was less market-based than the ACA exchanges, since in the ACA exchanges all plans compete with all other plans for all potential customers--in the design of the Romney exchange, that wasn't the case.

As for reforming Medicare, sure, that's out of the scope of a state's reforms. The ACA, on the other hand, did reform Medicare. And we're now seeing Medicare spending falling on a per capita basis, which is pretty much unprecedented in the history of the program.

At some point the guy (and his boosters) need to embrace what he did, policy and all. It was a good thing and an impressive achievement. And it paved the way to where we are now. Romney should be proud.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

And as I pointed out in the other thread, guy, he was calling it a model at the state level; and he has been explicitly clear about that. And you ignore 'these things,' guy, cos you ain't up for a substantive debate, guy.

He didn't say that until after you guys all decided that you hated ObamaCare.

Or, he just flat out never said it how you say it. You love your convenient narratives though.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Massachusetts did enact an employer mandate as part of its reforms under Romney and despite the (apparent?) implication that Romney's program didn't cost anything, it did.

Go ahead and source this alleged enacted employer mandate.
When did I ever 'imply' that Romneycare didn't cost anything? The first rule of business is that there's a cost to everything.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I don't know what "more market-based" is supposed to mean. I would argue that the design of the Romney exchange was less market-based than the ACA exchanges, since in the ACA exchanges all plans compete with all other plans for all potential customers--in the design of the Romney exchange, that wasn't the case.

As for reforming Medicare, sure, that's out of the scope of a state's reforms. The ACA, on the other hand, did reform Medicare. And we're now seeing Medicare spending falling on a per capita basis, which is pretty much unprecedented in the history of the program.

At some point the guy (and his boosters) need to embrace what he did, policy and all. It was a good thing and an impressive achievement. And it paved the way to where we are now. Romney should be proud.

Really? All plans compete in Obamacare? The companies have been shrinking. Subsidized government care only crushes private companies as well (along with the figuratively innumerable new regulations/strings attached to Obamacare).

Romney should not be proud for the reasons you state. The Mass legislature could over-ride his vetoes. So, he played ball and made the best of a bad situation.

 

[Greenbeard]

Go ahead and source this alleged enacted employer mandate.

Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development

What is the Fair Share Contribution?

Massachusetts state health insurance legislation (Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006) enacted in April of 2006 contained new obligations for Massachusetts employers. Among the provisions was the requirement for certain employers to make a "Fair Share Contribution" (FSC) to the Commonwealth Care Trust Fund if they do not make a "fair and reasonable" contribution to the health insurance costs for their employees at levels specified by regulation. The Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy (DHCFP), an agency within the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, promulgates the regulations related to the determination of an employer's liability for FSC, including regulations defining the "Primary Test" and the "Secondary Test," which determine whether a fair and reasonable contribution has been made. The Division of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) is responsible for collection of the Fair Share Contribution. Massachusetts employers subject to M.G. L c.151A § 1 (unemployment insurance law) who employ eleven (11) or more full-time equivalent employees must file an annual Fair Share Contribution report as well as the Employer Health Insurance Responsibility Disclosure (HIRD) report.

For those who don't know anything about anything, Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 is Romneycare.

The employer mandate in Massachusetts was repealed in 2013 to avoid duplication with the ACA's employer mandate.

Really? All plans compete in Obamacare?

Yeah. Anyone, subsidized or unsubsidized, shopping in an ACA exchange can choose any plan being sold in it. Which means all participating plans are competitors on all lines of business. In the Romney exchange, this was not the case, limiting the competitive forces at play. That was one of the improvements made on the Massachusetts approach.

The companies have been shrinking. Subsidized government care only crushes private companies as well (along with the figuratively innumerable new regulations/strings attached to Obamacare).

Not sure I'm following. Did Romneycare's subsidized government care crush private companies?

 

[JoeB131]

Really? All plans compete in Obamacare? The companies have been shrinking. Subsidized government care only crushes private companies as well (along with the figuratively innumerable new regulations/strings attached to Obamacare).

Romney should not be proud for the reasons you state. The Mass legislature could over-ride his vetoes. So, he played ball and made the best of a bad situation.

Okay, a couple of things here.

First, the goal should be making sure that everyone gets covered, not that the health insurance companies make a profit.

Those "strings" you whine about are things like making sure your insurance carrier can't go through your medical records and call your teenage acne a precursor for the skin cancer you are being treated for now, so they don't have to pay you.

Here's the thing, health care spending is shrinking as a percentage of GDP. That's the desired goal. It would shrink more if we went to single payer, but twits like you would scream "Freedom" when you didn't feel Koch Brother Dick up your ass.

 

[JoeB131]

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Go ahead and source this alleged enacted employer mandate.

Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development

What is the Fair Share Contribution?

Massachusetts state health insurance legislation (Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006) enacted in April of 2006 contained new obligations for Massachusetts employers. Among the provisions was the requirement for certain employers to make a "Fair Share Contribution" (FSC) to the Commonwealth Care Trust Fund if they do not make a "fair and reasonable" contribution to the health insurance costs for their employees at levels specified by regulation. The Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy (DHCFP), an agency within the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, promulgates the regulations related to the determination of an employer's liability for FSC, including regulations defining the "Primary Test" and the "Secondary Test," which determine whether a fair and reasonable contribution has been made. The Division of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) is responsible for collection of the Fair Share Contribution. Massachusetts employers subject to M.G. L c.151A § 1 (unemployment insurance law) who employ eleven (11) or more full-time equivalent employees must file an annual Fair Share Contribution report as well as the Employer Health Insurance Responsibility Disclosure (HIRD) report.

For those who don't know anything about anything, Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 is Romneycare.

The employer mandate in Massachusetts was repealed in 2013 to avoid duplication with the ACA's employer mandate.

Really? All plans compete in Obamacare?

Yeah. Anyone, subsidized or unsubsidized, shopping in an ACA exchange can choose any plan being sold in it. Which means all participating plans are competitors on all lines of business. In the Romney exchange, this was not the case, limiting the competitive forces at play. That was one of the improvements made on the Massachusetts approach.

The companies have been shrinking. Subsidized government care only crushes private companies as well (along with the figuratively innumerable new regulations/strings attached to Obamacare).

Not sure I'm following. Did Romneycare's subsidized government care crush private companies?

A cumulative fair share contribution and a mandate to insure every employee are two different things.

Furthermore, don't pretend that Obama is about the competition. Health costs have skyrocketed under him; and in the 08 debates he was clear about not wanting competition at the national level. Pretty damn hypocritical for a guy who wants to control health care at the national level, I'd say.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Really? All plans compete in Obamacare? The companies have been shrinking. Subsidized government care only crushes private companies as well (along with the figuratively innumerable new regulations/strings attached to Obamacare).

Romney should not be proud for the reasons you state. The Mass legislature could over-ride his vetoes. So, he played ball and made the best of a bad situation.

Okay, a couple of things here.

First, the goal should be making sure that everyone gets covered, not that the health insurance companies make a profit.

Those "strings" you whine about are things like making sure your insurance carrier can't go through your medical records and call your teenage acne a precursor for the skin cancer you are being treated for now, so they don't have to pay you.

Here's the thing, health care spending is shrinking as a percentage of GDP. That's the desired goal. It would shrink more if we went to single payer, but twits like you would scream "Freedom" when you didn't feel Koch Brother Dick up your ass.

Health care has not shrunk as a percent of GDP according to this: Health expenditure total of GDP Data Table

And I doubt they have even adequately accessed calculated all the various direct and hidden costs. Furthermore, even if the costs as a percent is the same or close to it; it's because you're throwing in a bunch of shitty do nothing low cost plans. The quality of care is compromised. I know that my same plan tripled. So suck it, dick before you go rambling on about nonsensical percentage of GDP crap.

Also, the goal of government at this point is to get as many people on their plans, squeeze as many private companies out, and then jack up their prices later. Of course, that's what gonna happen, dick.

 

[JoeB131]

I know that my same plan tripled.

I'm always wondering how it is always Right wingers who suddenly get their plans trippling in cost or covering less.

My plan. Actually went down a bit.

 

[Greenbeard]

A cumulative fair share contribution and a mandate to insure every employee are two different things.

The employer mandate in Massachusetts and the employer mandate in the ACA do differ, but you haven't described either one correctly.

In Massachusetts, employers with more than 10 employees paid a penalty if (1) they didn't have a certain percentage of their workers enrolled in a company plan, or (2) they weren't paying for a certain percentage of employees' premiums purchased on the employees' own.

Under the ACA, employers with more than 50 employees pay a penalty if (1) they don't make an offer of coverage to their employees (note: almost all employers of this size already do make such an offer), and (2) some of their employees are getting public subsidies in an exchange.

Of course, if you're one of those who (wrongly) believes that the ACA was designed such that there are no public subsidies in states with federally facilitated exchanges, then you also believe that the ACA's employer mandate was (1) a state prerogative, and (2) not applicable in most states today.

Furthermore, don't pretend that Obama is about the competition. Health costs have skyrocketed under him; and in the 08 debates he was clear about not wanting competition at the national level. Pretty damn hypocritical for a guy who wants to control health care at the national level, I'd say.

Health care cost growth since the ACA passed has been the lowest ever recorded in the United States. Across the board--health spending growth has slowed, health care price inflation has slowed, premium growth in group and non-group markets has slowed, the taxpayers have seen the price tags for the public health insurance programs slashed again and again.

Nothing like this, of this duration and scale, has ever happened before in American health care.

Health care spending [in 2013] grows at lowest-ever rate
Per Capita Medicare Spending is Actually Falling
Employee Health Insurance Costs Barely Increased This Year [2014]
O-Care premiums stable nationwide [going into 2015]
ACA coverage expansion costs lower than expected [in FY2014]

Just like conservatives predicted five years ago!

As for "national level" competition, by that are you saying you want to be flown to see an out-of-state doctor or go to an out-of-state hospital every time you have a medical issue? For most of the rest of us, health care is a pretty local thing.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I know that my same plan tripled.

I'm always wondering how it is always Right wingers who suddenly get their plans trippling in cost or covering less.

My plan. Actually went down a bit.

Now everyone knows you're lying. Nobody's plan just suddenly goes/went down. Meanwhile, my plan still tripled.

 

[HenryBHough]

One big difference:

Romney had the sense to flee Massachusetts after the crime.

Obama has not yet fled.

But we should be patient.......Cuba's beaches beacon and there are no extradition treaties.