What is the difference between Obama Care & Romney's Massachusetts Free Health Care

The people of Massachusettes demanded state managed health care and Romney devised a plan. Like Oregon did. If the people of Massachusettes (or Oregon for that matter) don't like it, they can change it to make it work for them.

You can make the same empty argument to defend the national plan. Our national reps voted on it, just as the state reps in Massachusetts voted on theirs. We can change it to make it work for us, just as they can change theirs. So what?

None of that addresses what's really wrong with both plans, namely the assumption that government should be able to dictate to all of us how we spend our money, how we manage our health care, even who we choose to do business with. Obama doesn't get that. You don't get that. And Romney doesn't get that, which is why he'll never get my vote.
 
The Majority of Massachusetts were for their state health care plan.
The Majority of the Nation was and still is against the Federal Health care plan.
 
The Majority of Massachusetts were for their state health care plan.
The Majority of the Nation was and still is against the Federal Health care plan.

The majority is represented by their respective congresspersons in both cases. Doesn't make it right in either.
 
No health care basically equals death.

And Romney's plan to repeal ObamaCare will essentially kick off some 30 million Americans from being able to afford to get care.

Which will kill a good amount of them.

Repeal = Death.

Simple as that.

Even with the Obamacare clusterfuck there are still 29 million uninsured....as usual you never think past the nose on your face.....

Nice number you made up
 
As we have seen in the news Romney's aide getting slammed for what I feel she was probably thrown out there in a scramble to say something and of coarse she got it wrong. Poor thing.

What is the difference between the 2 plans, it does seem to be working for the State I believe.

My husband and I are paying for our own health insurance which is killing us as a small business owner.
I am thankful for it because I have been through hell this past year with breast cancer even with insurance our deductible is $6000.00 plus but with all the test, major surgery and chemo I am sure its been way over $100.000.00 and another surgery coming up.

I don't think the Obama care will help me personally, but I can not imagine not being able to have the right kind of care when your diagnosed with something as I did.

The big difference is that Romney's plan was set up for Massachusetts with Massachusett's in mind. The ACA is trying to act as if every state's situation is the same. What works for Massachusett's (a fairly wealthy state where most can afford insurance anyway) probably won't work for California or Florida or Montana.
 
No health care basically equals death.

And Romney's plan to repeal ObamaCare will essentially kick off some 30 million Americans from being able to afford to get care.

Which will kill a good amount of them.

Repeal = Death.

Simple as that.

Don't sweat it. He won't touch the core of Obamacare. At best he'll poke in a few token tweaks - just enough that he can claim he 'tried' - and move on. Obviously, he's behind the gist of it.

I don't doubt a Romney presidency will be more moderate then the rhetoric.

My worry is that he's going redo Bush policies on the economy and with foreign policy.

That's pretty much the shootin' match if that happens.

Not that America will be "destroyed" per se..things will probably be on an upswing for a couple of years..until the RomneyBubble bursts and we are back to a worse meltdown then before.
 
The people of Massachusettes demanded state managed health care and Romney devised a plan. Like Oregon did. If the people of Massachusettes (or Oregon for that matter) don't like it, they can change it to make it work for them.

obamacare is imposed on the nation, no one got a chance to vote on it or consider it. In Massachusettes the people get to configure a plan that suits them. In obamacare the people of Wyoming get a plan suitable to the slums of DC and had nothing whatsoever to do with them.

Exactly. The laboratory of the states concept is tossed out the window in favor of a "one size fits all" approach. If yo don't like the Mass health plan, you can leave Massachusetts, it's easy. You can drive an hour north, west, or south and escape from it......With Obamatax unless you plan on leaving the US, you're screwed. that is why we need to elect Romney- to overturn, de-fund, and dismantle Obamatax...


If yo don't like the Mass health plan, you can leave Massachusetts, it's easy.
Seriously? ARe you freaking serious? Sure, if you don't like it just pick up and move in the middle of economic downturn. It'll be easy, just ask this guy, he know's all about it.

edit: I'm sure the average family totally has the means to make such a drastic change, shouldn't be any problem for them, right?
 
Last edited:
As we have seen in the news Romney's aide getting slammed for what I feel she was probably thrown out there in a scramble to say something and of coarse she got it wrong. Poor thing.

What is the difference between the 2 plans, it does seem to be working for the State I believe.

My husband and I are paying for our own health insurance which is killing us as a small business owner.
I am thankful for it because I have been through hell this past year with breast cancer even with insurance our deductible is $6000.00 plus but with all the test, major surgery and chemo I am sure its been way over $100.000.00 and another surgery coming up.

I don't think the Obama care will help me personally, but I can not imagine not being able to have the right kind of care when your diagnosed with something as I did.

The big difference is that Romney's plan was set up for Massachusetts with Massachusett's in mind. The ACA is trying to act as if every state's situation is the same. What works for Massachusett's (a fairly wealthy state where most can afford insurance anyway) probably won't work for California or Florida or Montana.

Sure it will.

States get to configure the ACA in to something that works for them. Vermont basically is going with single payer.
 
The big difference is that Romney's plan was set up for Massachusetts with Massachusett's in mind. The ACA is trying to act as if every state's situation is the same. What works for Massachusett's (a fairly wealthy state where most can afford insurance anyway) probably won't work for California or Florida or Montana.

Hence the heavy emphasis on state-level design, administration, and customized solutions in the ACA.

Or as Bill Frist recently put it:

State exchanges are the solution. They represent the federalist ideal of states as "laboratories for democracy." We are seeing 50 states each designing a model that is right for them, empowered to take into account their individual cultures, politics, economies, and demographics. While much planning has yet to be done, we are already seeing a huge range in state models. I love the diversity and the innovation.

Helping more Americans find and compare the private insurance they need and can afford should be an easy principle both political parties agree on.

Want a more conservative, small-business focused exchange that bans abortion coverage in all its plans? Try Utah and its state exchange, originally founded under Gov. Jon Huntsman. Think that President Obama missed a huge opportunity to steer the nation towards a single payer system? Try Vermont, which plans to ultimately transform its state exchange into a single payer system, Green Mountain Care, that will offer coverage to all state residents. With soaring health care costs one of, if not the most, dangerous threats to America's greatness, a new round of national health care experimentation is exactly what we need.
 
State-Run -vs- Federally Mandated


If I don't want Mass's healthcare system I don;t have to live there.

I shouldn't have to leave America, tho
 
From my understanding the Bush tax cuts were designed to alleviate the effect of the DOT COM bubble popping and to help the economy.

Obama's PPACA was designed to alleviate the massive costs of health care to...everyone and by helping employers that would help the economy.

Man...I can't help but to think that within the next decade we're going to be talking about the skyrocketing costs of Obamney-care.

Americans don't value their healthcare worth shit, that is, til they no longer have it. I'm going back to my original opinion about everything: we, Americans, desperatly need enhanced/improved education.
 
Romney vetoed several sections of the Mass healthcare law but was overridden by the legislature. He certainly couldn't stop it from passing if he tried.

Oh so now he didn't want it in Massachusettes?

That isn't what he's been saying. In fact..before the present "iteration" of Romney..the "old" Romney of 2008 was suggesting that the President use "his" model for national healthcare.

What I posted is fact. You can choose to spin it any way you like. Is Obamacare the same as the Mass law? Nobody can really seem to tell....
 
Romney vetoed several sections of the Mass healthcare law but was overridden by the legislature. He certainly couldn't stop it from passing if he tried.

Oh so now he didn't want it in Massachusettes?

That isn't what he's been saying. In fact..before the present "iteration" of Romney..the "old" Romney of 2008 was suggesting that the President use "his" model for national healthcare.

What I posted is fact. You can choose to spin it any way you like. Is Obamacare the same as the Mass law? Nobody can really seem to tell....

Sure they can. We can look at each law and see the many similarities, and the relatively few differences. Not so hard to 'tell'.
 
The people of Massachusettes demanded state managed health care and Romney devised a plan. Like Oregon did. If the people of Massachusettes (or Oregon for that matter) don't like it, they can change it to make it work for them.

obamacare is imposed on the nation, no one got a chance to vote on it or consider it. In Massachusettes the people get to configure a plan that suits them. In obamacare the people of Wyoming get a plan suitable to the slums of DC and had nothing whatsoever to do with them.

Exactly. The laboratory of the states concept is tossed out the window in favor of a "one size fits all" approach. If yo don't like the Mass health plan, you can leave Massachusetts, it's easy. You can drive an hour north, west, or south and escape from it......With Obamatax unless you plan on leaving the US, you're screwed. that is why we need to elect Romney- to overturn, de-fund, and dismantle Obamatax...

I'm one of the biggest states rights advocates there is, but the simple solution of "just move to a different state" is not the argument to make for it. You say it like it's a breeze to just quit your job, uproot your family, and go start fresh in a new location.

As conservatives, just because this was the right of the state of MA, doesn't mean we should agree with what they did. It's still a government socially engineering and controlling a populace through force. It should be condemned at ANY level of government.
 
I'm one of the biggest states rights advocates there is, but the simple solution of "just move to a different state" is not the argument to make for it. You say it like it's a breeze to just quit your job, uproot your family, and go start fresh in a new location.

As conservatives, just because this was the right of the state of MA, doesn't mean we should agree with what they did. It's still a government socially engineering and controlling a populace through force. It should be condemned at ANY level of government.

Exactly. The state's rights argument is lame rationalization for a lack of respect for basic rights. Romney could've and should've vetoed it. The fact that he didn't, the fact that he enthusiastically supported the mandate and still defends it, disqualifies him from the presidency in my view.
 

Forum List

Back
Top