Romney's got me a bit confused on healthcare..

[Conservadude]

I get the whole Romneycare thing.. It's what the state needed.. And obviously what's good for one state, isn't always good for all the others. But on meet the press today, Romney said he'd keep the ban on pre-existing conditions nationwide.. But he wants to do away with the mandate? .. Anyone wanna give an explanation a shot, as to how this would work? Wouldn't people just go get insurance as soon as they got sick?

Bit confused on this one.

 

[expatriate]

I get the whole Romneycare thing.. It's what the state needed.. And obviously what's good for one state, isn't always good for all the others. But on meet the press today, Romney said he'd keep the ban on pre-existing conditions nationwide.. But he wants to do away with the mandate? .. Anyone wanna give an explanation a shot, as to how this would work? Wouldn't people just go get insurance as soon as they got sick?

Bit confused on this one.

and now he's flipped again. Mitt changes his positions more frequently than he changes his underwear.... and it's magic underwear to boot!

Romney Says He Supports Popular Obamacare Provisions On NBC, Quietly Reverses Hours Later On Conservative Website | ThinkProgress

 

[AmyNation]

He's promised to keep all the most popular parts of Obamacare, and get rid of the part that pays for it all.

If he wins it'll be interesting to see how he tries to pull that off.

 

[Conservadude]

Would like to see some feedback from other supporters on this. I agree with repealing obamacare.. But keeping this part and removing the mandate seems sort of dumb. Unless indeed he was talking about making a high risk pool.

 

[Ruth]

He changes his mind alot. He was for ACA at first, then against it when campaigning, and now for some of it. He was anti abortion, then pro life. But the truth is, no matter what is said and promise, once they win, they don't fulfill their promises.

 

[auditor0007]

I get the whole Romneycare thing.. It's what the state needed.. And obviously what's good for one state, isn't always good for all the others. But on meet the press today, Romney said he'd keep the ban on pre-existing conditions nationwide.. But he wants to do away with the mandate? .. Anyone wanna give an explanation a shot, as to how this would work? Wouldn't people just go get insurance as soon as they got sick?

Bit confused on this one.

Actually, you couldn't just get insurance when you wanted or after you got sick. There would have to be a waiting period of one year after you apply, so if all of a sudden you are diagnosed with cancer, you can't just go get insurance the next day. The problem with this is that it just defeats the purpose in the end because the person will still be treated, and be uninsured, and will end up filing for bankruptcy. Without the mandate, we end up with a lot of uninsured people who get sick and then everyone else pays for them and it drives up the cost of healthcare for everyone.

In the end, either we go with the mandate and everyone must buy, or if we want to cut costs in healthcare, we just tell those who are uninsured that they only get treatment if they can pay for it up front. Basically, we tell most of them to go home and die without any care at all. Of course, going that route leads us to a one-payer system and universal coverage which is what we will eventually have.

 

[Political Junky]

I get the whole Romneycare thing.. It's what the state needed.. And obviously what's good for one state, isn't always good for all the others. But on meet the press today, Romney said he'd keep the ban on pre-existing conditions nationwide.. But he wants to do away with the mandate? .. Anyone wanna give an explanation a shot, as to how this would work? Wouldn't people just go get insurance as soon as they got sick?

Bit confused on this one.

To confuse the public is his plan.
Have you noticed that he hasn't given any plans at all, for anything?
It's all a big secret until after he's elected.

 

[Bfgrn]

I get the whole Romneycare thing.. It's what the state needed.. And obviously what's good for one state, isn't always good for all the others. But on meet the press today, Romney said he'd keep the ban on pre-existing conditions nationwide.. But he wants to do away with the mandate? .. Anyone wanna give an explanation a shot, as to how this would work? Wouldn't people just go get insurance as soon as they got sick?

Bit confused on this one.

In considering the individual mandate, conservatives need to address three questions. First, why is it so troubling that the government is requiring responsible individuals to purchase what they would purchase anyway? Second, is it fair or appropriate to make the responsible pay more in order to protect the rights of the irresponsible? Third, what should be done when the principle of limited government clashes with that of individual responsibility?

Or, put another way, is the principle of limited government so compelling that it should cause us to penalize the responsible and reward the irresponsible?

 

[Katzndogz]

Romney said that there would be coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. He did not say that insurance companies would be required to insure anyone, even those with pre-existing conditons. The most obvious solution would be to have a separate fund for those who have never had insurance then developed some catastrophic condition. That's the way California mediCal works. I know even people with money that are uninsurable because of chronic disease who are on the state medicaid program.

The only answer I'd like to see, that no one, neither of them, address is what's going to happen with illegals who come here chronically ill just because they know they will get medical care. I hope they will be sent back immediately.

 

[Greenbeard]

Romney said that there would be coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. He did not say that insurance companies would be required to insure anyone, even those with pre-existing conditons. The most obvious solution would be to have a separate fund for those who have never had insurance then developed some catastrophic condition. That's the way California mediCal works. I know even people with money that are uninsurable because of chronic disease who are on the state medicaid program.

Expanding Medicaid to cover more people? What a novel idea...

 

[waltky]

1 outta 5 enrolled in Medicare...

Record 70.4 Million Enrolled in Medicaid in 2011: 1 Out of Every 5 Americans
November 9, 2012 – A record 70.4 million people were enrolled in the Medicaid health care program for the poor in fiscal year 2011, according to government figures provided to CNSNews.com.

That figure equals about 22 percent of the population, which means there was one person on Medicaid for every 5 Americans in 2011. The record number of Medicaid enrollees in 2011 – the earliest year for which figures are available – is a count of all persons enrolled in Medicaid for any part of that year, providing the fullest and most accurate count of the size of the entitlement program. (The federal fiscal year in 2011 ran from Oct. 1, 2010 to Sept. 30, 2011.)

Figures provided to CNSNews.com by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that oversees the two health care entitlements, reveal an ever-expanding Medicaid program. From 2005 to 2011, total enrollees grew by more than 10 million people, going from 60.1 million in 2005 to 70.4 million in 2011. Medicaid is the joint federal-state health care program for the poor that allows states to extend coverage beyond those who are in poverty. Recently, the ObamaCare health reform law expanded Medicaid eligibility to those living on 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

The poverty level annual income for a family of four is $23,000 – 133 percent of that, in terms of annual income for a family of four, would be $30,590. That expansion does not go into effect until 2014, however, and therefore does not affect the continued growth trend. Nor does it contribute to the record 70.4 million Americans enrolled in Medicaid.

MORE

See also:

Boehner Capitulates: ‘Obamacare is the Law of the Land’
November 9, 2012 -- Although the Republican-dominant House of Representatives controls the federal purse strings, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said that Tuesday’s election victory by President Barack Obama changed how he will approach the GOP goal of repealing the health reform law, saying that the president’s reelection made it “the law of the land.”

“Well, I think the election changes that. It’s pretty clear that the president was re-elected. Obamacare is the law of the land,” Boehner told ABC News’ Diane Sawyer in an interview Thursday when asked if the House GOP would still make repeal its mission. However, Boehner also said that the law was still “on the table,” noting that he still considered it bad policy and that it was not off limits as he begins negotiations with Obama over key budgetary issues.

As House Speaker, Boehner can prevent any funding for Obamacare or any aspect of it through amendments to funding legislation, to a continuing resolution, or by simply not allowing a floor vote on the funding. “I think there are parts of the health care law that are going to be very difficult to implement and very expensive and, at a time when we’re trying to find a way to create a path toward a balanced budget, everything has to be on the table,” he said in the ABC interview.

When pressed, Boehner clarified that no decision had been made yet over which parts of the law would be included in negotiations, saying that parts of the law could be on the table. “There are certainly maybe parts of it that we believe need to be changed – we may do that, no decisions at this point,” he said.

Boehner repeated during the interview that he viewed Obama’s reelection and Republicans’ failure to achieve a Senate majority as a mandate from the American public for the two parties to work together, saying that it was simply the hand he was dealt.

MORE

 

[dblack]

I get the whole Romneycare thing.. It's what the state needed.. And obviously what's good for one state, isn't always good for all the others. But on meet the press today, Romney said he'd keep the ban on pre-existing conditions nationwide.. But he wants to do away with the mandate? .. Anyone wanna give an explanation a shot, as to how this would work? Wouldn't people just go get insurance as soon as they got sick?

Bit confused on this one.

Yeah. They're using "advanced logic". They also employed that technique to come up with the "cut taxes, spend even more and balance the budget" plan.

 

[Katzndogz]

I could see a situation that no one could be denied coverage for preexisting conditions if they had insurance and wanted to change companies. But not if they never had insurance and developed a condition and now wants coverage for the first time.

 

[dblack]

In considering the individual mandate, conservatives need to address three questions. First, why is it so troubling that the government is requiring responsible individuals to purchase what they would purchase anyway?

Because I might not purchase it. And because I might not want to buy the kind of insurance the government dictates, or might not want to buy as much, or from the vendors they authorize. You idiots are giving up the most important power a consumer has - the right to so no thanks to goods or services they don't find valuable.

Second, is it fair or appropriate to make the responsible pay more in order to protect the rights of the irresponsible?

Nope

Third, what should be done when the principle of limited government clashes with that of individual responsibility?

Or, put another way, is the principle of limited government so compelling that it should cause us to penalize the responsible and reward the irresponsible?

No, and it doesn't.

 

[emilynghiem]

In considering the individual mandate, conservatives need to address three questions. First, why is it so troubling that the government is requiring responsible individuals to purchase what they would purchase anyway? Second, is it fair or appropriate to make the responsible pay more in order to protect the rights of the irresponsible? Third, what should be done when the principle of limited government clashes with that of individual responsibility?

Or, put another way, is the principle of limited government so compelling that it should cause us to penalize the responsible and reward the irresponsible?

1. There are other ways to pay for health care besides insurance, which complicates straightforward health care services by adding regulations, conditions and paperwork.
So mandating insurances under threat of penalty basically makes it illegal to CHOOSE other means of taking care of health costs. the govt even goes so far as to regulate what religions qualify for exemptions, so that people who don't meet this are penalized by their religion.

1 and 2. The bill would have been in line by requiring people to cover their private costs WITHOUT imposing on other citizens and taxpayers. But the wrong part came in trying to dictate HOW this would be paid for. That should either be left to the states or individuals.
But it is inherently unconstitutional for federal govt to mandate controls, as regulation is only supposed to apply to commerce or issues crossing state lines that exceed state authority.

2. RE: holding people responsible for their own health care costs,
A. the govt could have imposed a tax, but then offered exemptions if you can pay without using govt services, and WITHOUT DICTATING how this is paid for! instead of requiring insurance which isn't the only way. If the opt out exemptions are currently that you must be a member of a group since 1999 where the members pay each other health care costs; then why not also exempt people who share housing costs, so there is money to pay for health care; that is one example of how these restrictions were too limited on exemptions.
B. what the media won't tell you is how the laws were biased to give exemptions to different lobbies per state in order to pass the bill; so the very groups that passed it, only agreed if they were exempt from it! how is THAT holding people responsible for their own costs?
C. the solution I see is for states (not the fed govt) to start assessing costs for criminal prosecution and holding wrongdoers for paying part or all of this back; so that money could be used to pay for health care instead of charging even more to taxpayers. so if someone commits a crime shooting people up, they would have to pay for the hospital bills. in that case, yes, i do believe people could be required to buy insurance to cover costs of the people they may injure, similar to car insurance which is required for liability to others but is OPTIONAL for yourself. If we also extend payback to citizens for corruption or abuses by govt and corporations, then we could collect back for fraud and use that to pay health care.
All these would be better for holding people accountable for actual COSTS THEY INCUR, and not charging or criminalizing people who have not committed any crimes.

3. As for limited govt vs individual responsibility, the key is consent.
if we consent to abortion being illegal, then we can pass a law banning it.
If we cannot agree, then we have to take personal responsibility to prevent it on our own,
or only pass laws on the points we DO agree that govt could and should enforce.

The whole issue of either church/state separation or state/federal or individual freedom/govt is where do we agree that a condition in the contract needs to be written and enforced.

Laws and govt authority are based on consent of the governed.
The conflicts we see now are caused by disagreeing and wanting to use govt to impose and enforce policies instead of setting up private means of resolving these issues without that.

The abortion debate is probably the most contentious I have seen about where to draw the line between individual choice/responsibility and public policy. The gun laws are very similar.

Take care and I hope this helps to understand the conservative opposition to the bill.

The number one issue seems to be respecting the delegation of powers to the states and people and getting that out of federal govt.