ROMNEYCARE vs OBAMAMACARE.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LilOlLady, Dec 29, 2011.

  1. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,841
    Thanks Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +761
    ROMNEYCARE vs. OBAMACARE.

    Only difference is Obamacare has a “mandate” and Romneycare,s mandate is called “personal responsibility” “ rose by any other name still smells the same.”
    Romney calls the federal run healthcare mandate unconstitutional and state run healthcare mandate personal responsibility. Is Romney playing with a full deck?
    Romney is a businessman and we all know what the last businessman (Bush) did to this country and the world. We don’t want anymore of that kind of change.
    If Romney is the front runner, Obama don’t even have to campaign to win in 2012.
     
  2. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    80,350
    Thanks Received:
    6,865
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +14,975
    I've said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again.

    The Uninsured aren't the real problem here. They are usually young, between jobs and being uninsured is a temporary situation for them. Because they tend to be younger and healthier, they don't make that many trips to the doctor.

    The real problem is for those of us who have insurance and need it do to chronic health issues brought about by age. Whether our costs are born by an insurance company or a government program, the fact that costs are increasing at 3 times the rate of inflation is the problem.

    The private insurance companies have attempted to contain costs by not paying for things, doing cost benefit analysis and invoking "pre-existing conditions". ObamneyCare disallowed the practice, but then sweetened the pie by forcing people into the system who didn't want to be there. And to be fair, if you don't allow them to refuse to pay, you've essentially turned health insurance into a public utility, so everyone has to pay their bill.

    But the underlying problem- the increase in costs, is not addressed. So on the off chance that the mandate is upheld (it is probably unconstitutional), it just delays the inevitable- the collapse of private insurance. If it struck down, you essentially will have a situation where people can buy insurance after they get sick, which is like buying car insurance AFTER you've had the accident.

    That's not a good idea, either.
     
  3. Freedomlover
    Offline

    Freedomlover VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +49
    The big difference between the two lies in the language of the Constitution. Nowhere in the document does it give power to the Federal Government to force people to buy a product that they may not want. Romney is right. This is a states rights issue and each state should address it in the manner they choose, or not address it at all. It is then up to the voters of the state to decide if their representatives have put into place something they agree or disagree with. Remember, the closer the government is to the people the more accountable it is to them and easier to change.

    Don't rely on the Interstate Commerce Clause. Each insurance company must be approved by each individual state in order to sell their products in that state. Historically this has been the case. There is no interstate commerce taking place here! Why do you think Republicans have tried to pass legislation to allow purchasing of health insurance across state lines? Because it is not permitted now. One down side to this proposal is if people are allowed to purchase insurance across state lines that will make it interstate commerce. Therefore, even if the idea might soumd good to perhaps create competition in the industry it will also make it subject to the Interstate Commerce Clause and thus come under control of the federal government. Personally I would rather keep it under state control so I can more easily reach those who might pass something that I totally object to.

    Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it!
     
  4. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    State fascism vs. federal fascism.

    You can have them both.
     
  5. Mr. Shaman
    Offline

    Mr. Shaman Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    23,892
    Thanks Received:
    817
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +819
    So......let's see......


     

Share This Page