Obamacare= Romneycare

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,352
Reaction score
48,129
Points
2,190
The curious triumph of RomneyCare - The Week

the essence of this reform -- which is that the insurance market has been restructured to remove those adverse-selection and moral-hazard problems that have broken our private insurance-based health-financing system. Americans are now being asked not to shirk their responsibilities but rather to act like adults: to take on the burden, to the extent they are financially able, of making sure that when they wind up at the hospital the cost of paying for their care is not loaded onto somebody else's shoulders.
The conservative DNA of ObamaCare is hardly a secret. "The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan,” Frum wrote. “It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

So why are none of the talking heads on your TV screen and none of the op-ed writers in your newspaper talking about how this health plan is a big victory for Mitt Romney and Republican policy analysts? Because there has been a conspiracy of silence among those working for the bill and those working against it.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,433
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Many elements of this bill were actually proposed in the past by Republicans. It is not the basic bill that they oppose, it is the fact that it represents a victory for President Obama, and shows up the prior administration to be even more of a failure.
 
OP
rightwinger

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,352
Reaction score
48,129
Points
2,190
Many elements of this bill were actually proposed in the past by Republicans. It is not the basic bill that they oppose, it is the fact that it represents a victory for President Obama, and shows up the prior administration to be even more of a failure.

With all the Republican elements resident in the Healthcare bill, isn't it odd that not a SINGLE Republican voted for it?
 

DiamondDave

Army Vet
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
18,169
Reaction score
2,824
Points
183
Location
MD, on the Potomac River
Many elements of this bill were actually proposed in the past by Republicans. It is not the basic bill that they oppose, it is the fact that it represents a victory for President Obama, and shows up the prior administration to be even more of a failure.

With all the Republican elements resident in the Healthcare bill, isn't it odd that not a SINGLE Republican voted for it?

Putting a junior mint into a big pile of shit does not make one want to eat it
 

Claudette

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
42,200
Reaction score
12,822
Points
2,250
Was listening to Morning Joe this AM.

Pelosi wouldn't let a single ammendment come to the floor for debate before they voted this in.

Among those ammendments presented by the Reps was Tort Reform and doing away with the regs and allowing insurance companies to compete across the country.

That would have been true reform and would have helped to get costs down

One has to wonder why Pelosi didn't want any debate on any of these ammendments?
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
The is only one answer........... political gamemanship.
 
OP
rightwinger

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,352
Reaction score
48,129
Points
2,190
Republicans working against the bill have been unwilling to say "It's RomneyCare!" because they would then face the awkward question of why they did not support it. And they were never, never, never going to vote for it. The point for the Republican legislators, you see, was to follow the Gingrich strategy: work as hard as you can to block the Democratic president’s initiatives so that the press then portrays him as a wimp. Then, Republicans could pick up seats and regain their congressional majorities -- for Americans do not like wimps and the politicians who support them
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,853
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
The curious triumph of RomneyCare - The Week

the essence of this reform -- which is that the insurance market has been restructured to remove those adverse-selection and moral-hazard problems that have broken our private insurance-based health-financing system. Americans are now being asked not to shirk their responsibilities but rather to act like adults: to take on the burden, to the extent they are financially able, of making sure that when they wind up at the hospital the cost of paying for their care is not loaded onto somebody else's shoulders.
The conservative DNA of ObamaCare is hardly a secret. "The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan,” Frum wrote. “It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

So why are none of the talking heads on your TV screen and none of the op-ed writers in your newspaper talking about how this health plan is a big victory for Mitt Romney and Republican policy analysts? Because there has been a conspiracy of silence among those working for the bill and those working against it.

God but you are stupid.:cuckoo:
 
OP
rightwinger

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,352
Reaction score
48,129
Points
2,190
Was listening to Morning Joe this AM.

Pelosi wouldn't let a single ammendment come to the floor for debate before they voted this in.

Among those ammendments presented by the Reps was Tort Reform and doing away with the regs and allowing insurance companies to compete across the country.

That would have been true reform and would have helped to get costs down

One has to wonder why Pelosi didn't want any debate on any of these ammendments?

If those amendments were added to the bill, how many Republicans would have voted for it?

What is the use of opening the floor for amendments (delaying tactic), when those offering the amendment will vote against it anyway?
 

DiamondDave

Army Vet
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
18,169
Reaction score
2,824
Points
183
Location
MD, on the Potomac River
Republicans working against the bill have been unwilling to say "It's RomneyCare!" because they would then face the awkward question of why they did not support it. And they were never, never, never going to vote for it. The point for the Republican legislators, you see, was to follow the Gingrich strategy: work as hard as you can to block the Democratic president’s initiatives so that the press then portrays him as a wimp. Then, Republicans could pick up seats and regain their congressional majorities -- for Americans do not like wimps and the politicians who support them


Hell.. it's easy to say that both Obamacare and Romneycare are wrong
 

DiamondDave

Army Vet
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
18,169
Reaction score
2,824
Points
183
Location
MD, on the Potomac River
Was listening to Morning Joe this AM.

Pelosi wouldn't let a single ammendment come to the floor for debate before they voted this in.

Among those ammendments presented by the Reps was Tort Reform and doing away with the regs and allowing insurance companies to compete across the country.

That would have been true reform and would have helped to get costs down

One has to wonder why Pelosi didn't want any debate on any of these ammendments?

If those amendments were added to the bill, how many Republicans would have voted for it?

What is the use of opening the floor for amendments (delaying tactic), when those offering the amendment will vote against it anyway?

Still trying to see how many candies you can place on a turd?
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,853
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Was listening to Morning Joe this AM.

Pelosi wouldn't let a single ammendment come to the floor for debate before they voted this in.

Among those ammendments presented by the Reps was Tort Reform and doing away with the regs and allowing insurance companies to compete across the country.

That would have been true reform and would have helped to get costs down

One has to wonder why Pelosi didn't want any debate on any of these ammendments?

If those amendments were added to the bill, how many Republicans would have voted for it?

What is the use of opening the floor for amendments (delaying tactic), when those offering the amendment will vote against it anyway?

Still trying to see how many candies you can place on a turd?

What else do you expect from these nanny-state fucks?
 

Skull Pilot

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
45,446
Reaction score
6,145
Points
1,830
And Romney Care is responsible for insurance premiums in MA rising well above the national average

Romney Care is responsible for increasing spending on Medical services in MA over the past 4 years to over 4 billion dollars.

Romney Care has already cost 6 times what was profected

And I thought it was supposed to lower premiums and costs
 
Last edited:

Gadawg73

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
14,426
Reaction score
1,617
Points
155
Location
Georgia
Was listening to Morning Joe this AM.

Pelosi wouldn't let a single ammendment come to the floor for debate before they voted this in.

Among those ammendments presented by the Reps was Tort Reform and doing away with the regs and allowing insurance companies to compete across the country.

That would have been true reform and would have helped to get costs down

One has to wonder why Pelosi didn't want any debate on any of these ammendments?

That does bother me greatly Claudette. All the issues but tort reform.
All tort reform is allowing doctors to get a pass on negilgence. Only a jury can award damages in any med/mal case and you have to have a team of expert doctors to testify there was negligence just to get into court.
Tort reform is not the answer. If anything doctors need to have more rules and regs to police their own.
 
OP
rightwinger

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,352
Reaction score
48,129
Points
2,190
And the Democrats? Well, the critical votes -- numbers 200-240 in the House and numbers 55-60 in the Senate--would vote for RomneyCare but not for anything more liberal and interventionist. These Democrats would not support any form of government-provided health care -- not even Medicare-for-All or Federal-Employees-Heath-Benefit-Plan-for-All. They were not on board for any plan that required businesses to pool the costs of their workers and bargain in their behalf for affordable health care. They were not even on board for a plan that allowed people to vote-with-their-feet and sign up for Medicare if they thought it was a better deal than their private insurance So for the Democrats, it was RomneyCare or nothing.
Thus the task for Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama was to hold the Democratic right to RomneyCare while not losing the Democratic left. As long as they could say to the left, "Look, this is what we can pass: it's a lot better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick (and a poke in the eye with a sharp stick is a lot better than our current health care financing system)," they had a chance of holding the left, especially if they could sweeten it with progressive tax and subsidy policies. But if they pointed out the intellectual origins of the plan -- oh, and by the way the guts of the plan came out of the conservative uber-think tank, the Heritage Foundation, and it was what Mitt Romney thought was good policy back in 2004 -- then the left-wing Democrats' heads would have exploded and their votes would have vanished.
 

goldcatt

Catch me if you can!
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
10,330
Reaction score
3,037
Points
48
Location
CentralPA
Many elements of this bill were actually proposed in the past by Republicans. It is not the basic bill that they oppose, it is the fact that it represents a victory for President Obama, and shows up the prior administration to be even more of a failure.

With all the Republican elements resident in the Healthcare bill, isn't it odd that not a SINGLE Republican voted for it?

Problem is they took a bunch of stuff Republicans proposed in the past, added some other stuff that doesn't work alongside it, and created a flawed and fragmented system that has little to no chance of succeeding. I'm all for reform, but they didn't reform anything.

Don't get me wrong here. Tort reform is a partisan hack attempt to choke off resources to a group that tends to use them to support the opposition, it's a joke as far as cost control and the numbers prove it. It just happens to be popular because it's fashionable to hate lawyers.

Interstate competition could have been an effective part of a solution depending on the details and regulations put in place to prevent monopoly and a race to the bottom - which would have involved things like actual compromise. Wasn't going to happen, the rhetorical lines in the sand were drawn on both sides.

Non profit alternatives were the way to go as far as acheiving universal coverage, whether through the public option, private local and regional co-ops or other means. They were too chickenshit to pursue it. Can't piss off those big donors looking for a welfare handout, can we?

Thanks, Congress on both sides and the two party system in general. Way to screw up a golden opportunity. :thup:
 

Claudette

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
42,200
Reaction score
12,822
Points
2,250
Was listening to Morning Joe this AM.

Pelosi wouldn't let a single ammendment come to the floor for debate before they voted this in.

Among those ammendments presented by the Reps was Tort Reform and doing away with the regs and allowing insurance companies to compete across the country.

That would have been true reform and would have helped to get costs down

One has to wonder why Pelosi didn't want any debate on any of these ammendments?

If those amendments were added to the bill, how many Republicans would have voted for it?

What is the use of opening the floor for amendments (delaying tactic), when those offering the amendment will vote against it anyway?


RW. How do you know they wouldn't have voted for it if some of the ammendments offered had been included??

After all. These ammendments would have truely helped lower costs something this bill in its current form doesnt' do at all.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,931
Reaction score
16,985
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
the 'interstate competition' thing is a scam. they want it so insurance companies can incorporate in the state with the most lax regulations... same reason banks gravitate to delaware.

and i think it doesn't do anyone any good to have a health plan in a place where the PROVIDERS aren't. e.g., if i buy Maine HealthPro (made up name)... the affiliated doctors are going to be in Maine. No?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top