The Conservative Case for Obamacare

[EdwardBaiamonte]

ObamaCare is RomneyCare. Some of us knew that already and that's why I don't expect Romney to move to repeal it if he gets elected.

Both Parties are joined at the hip.

Obama care and Romney care are opposites in that Romney care is one plan for one state and therefore is not a socialist Federal plan for the entire country.

The difference is huge since our country is based on freedom from central government, but not freedom from state government.

 

[dblack]

ObamaCare is RomneyCare. Some of us knew that already and that's why I don't expect Romney to move to repeal it if he gets elected.

Both Parties are joined at the hip.

Obama care and Romney care are opposites in that Romney care is one plan for one state and therefore is not a socialist Federal plan for the entire country.

The difference is huge since our country is based on freedom from central government, but not freedom from state government.

I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly convoluted rationalization. The differences are only in scope; the principle is the same. It's fair to say that Obamacare is worse, because it forces Romneycare on the entire country, but the fundamental policies violate individual rights in the same way under both plans.

If my only objection to PPACA was the fact that it's a federal program, your distinction might be meaningful. But I would be just as vehemently opposed to this kind of overreaching government whether it was passed in my state, or county, or hometown. It's wrong because it unnecessarily dictates our personal decisions. Romney doesn't get this. That's why he won't get my vote.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One is a state program.

The other is a federal program.

That argument lost its legs in June: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Given that there's no constitutional issue, it's just good policy now. Even--or especially--Mr. Romney would agree! Besides, exchanges remain in state hands, just as Romney's Commonwealth Connector has and will.

Bill Frist explained the virtue of this state-based approach not too long ago: "Why both parties should embrace ObamaCare's state exchanges"

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.

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.

An approach that's conservative to its core.

There is no such thing as obamacare call it what it is obamatax.
You have Romneycare which a state can do that if they so choice. The Federal government cannot force a person to by anything, which cancels obamacare, but it can tax them which makes it obamatax.
Now do you understand?

 

[konradv]

ObamaCare is RomneyCare. Some of us knew that already and that's why I don't expect Romney to move to repeal it if he gets elected.

Both Parties are joined at the hip.

Obama care and Romney care are opposites in that Romney care is one plan for one state and therefore is not a socialist Federal plan for the entire country.

The difference is huge since our country is based on freedom from central government, but not freedom from state government.

I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly convoluted rationalization. The differences are only in scope; the principle is the same. It's fair to say that Obamacare is worse, because it forces Romneycare on the entire country, but the fundamental policies violate individual rights in the same way under both plans.

If my only objection to PPACA was the fact that it's a federal program, your distinction might be meaningful. But I would be just as vehemently opposed to this kind of overreaching government whether it was passed in my state, or county, or hometown. It's wrong because it unnecessarily dictates our personal decisions. Romney doesn't get this. That's why he won't get my vote.

Aren't your rights violated when you have to pay a higher hospital bill to cover those who can't pay?

 

[dblack]

Obama care and Romney care are opposites in that Romney care is one plan for one state and therefore is not a socialist Federal plan for the entire country.

The difference is huge since our country is based on freedom from central government, but not freedom from state government.

I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly convoluted rationalization. The differences are only in scope; the principle is the same. It's fair to say that Obamacare is worse, because it forces Romneycare on the entire country, but the fundamental policies violate individual rights in the same way under both plans.

If my only objection to PPACA was the fact that it's a federal program, your distinction might be meaningful. But I would be just as vehemently opposed to this kind of overreaching government whether it was passed in my state, or county, or hometown. It's wrong because it unnecessarily dictates our personal decisions. Romney doesn't get this. That's why he won't get my vote.

Aren't your rights violated when you have to pay a higher hospital bill to cover those who can't pay?

If you're forced to by government, absolutely. We should abolish that for sure.

 

[Listening]

QW's point goes directly the core fault of your beloved regulatory state - it's never about being held accountable for results,

Accountability for results is precisely what this is. Hospital pay in this area will now reflect performance. Avoidable readmissions, which are costly and potential dangerous (bad for the patient, bad for the payer) will no longer be a reliable revenue stream; "righteous readmissions" will not affect reimbursement.

That's not a regulation, it's prudent purchasing. Paying for bad results just gives you bad results.

That's not a regulation ???

You're joking...right ?

 

[Listening]

ObamaCare is RomneyCare. Some of us knew that already and that's why I don't expect Romney to move to repeal it if he gets elected.

Both Parties are joined at the hip.

Obama care and Romney care are opposites in that Romney care is one plan for one state and therefore is not a socialist Federal plan for the entire country.

The difference is huge since our country is based on freedom from central government, but not freedom from state government.

I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly convoluted rationalization. The differences are only in scope; the principle is the same. It's fair to say that Obamacare is worse, because it forces Romneycare on the entire country, but the fundamental policies violate individual rights in the same way under both plans.

If my only objection to PPACA was the fact that it's a federal program, your distinction might be meaningful. But I would be just as vehemently opposed to this kind of overreaching government whether it was passed in my state, or county, or hometown. It's wrong because it unnecessarily dictates our personal decisions. Romney doesn't get this. That's why he won't get my vote.

If he majority of your state wants it, they can vote for reps who will legislate it. You know the argument from there. And not all states have to do the same thing (many won't do anything).

 

[Greenbeard]

That's not a regulation ???

You're joking...right ?

It's a regulation on CMS telling them how to do business, not a regulation on hospitals. Hospitals can do whatever they like but one of their major payers isn't going to pay for poor service anymore.

it's simple economics. Time to let the market work its magic.

 

[dblack]

That's not a regulation ???

You're joking...right ?

It's a regulation on CMS telling them how to do business, not a regulation on hospitals. Hospitals can do whatever they like but one of their major payers isn't going to pay for poor service anymore.

it's simple economics. Time to let the market work its magic.

And, running that through the patented "Greenbeard Interpreter", we get: "Time to manipulate the economy with coercive government policy!"... Go team!

 

[Greenbeard]

And, running that through the patented "Greenbeard Interpreter", we get: "Time to manipulate the economy with coercive government policy!"... Go team!

Economies are based on incentives. Buyers send signals, sellers respond. Is this a new concept?

 

[dblack]

And, running that through the patented "Greenbeard Interpreter", we get: "Time to manipulate the economy with coercive government policy!"... Go team!

Economies are based on incentives. Buyers send signals, sellers respond. Is this a new concept?

Black is white. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Sling it GB!

 

[Listening]

And, running that through the patented "Greenbeard Interpreter", we get: "Time to manipulate the economy with coercive government policy!"... Go team!

Economies are based on incentives. Buyers send signals, sellers respond. Is this a new concept?

Not the same thing. His original statement stands...your little pile of snow on a heap of s**t does not stop it from stinking.

 

[Listening]

That's not a regulation ???

You're joking...right ?

It's a regulation on CMS telling them how to do business, not a regulation on hospitals. Hospitals can do whatever they like but one of their major payers isn't going to pay for poor service anymore.

it's simple economics. Time to let the market work its magic.

That's all I needed to see.....the rest does not matter.

 

[Greenbeard]

That's not a regulation ???

You're joking...right ?

It's a regulation on CMS telling them how to do business, not a regulation on hospitals. Hospitals can do whatever they like but one of their major payers isn't going to pay for poor service anymore.

it's simple economics. Time to let the market work its magic.

That's all I needed to see.....the rest does not matter.

CMS is not the private sector. Obviously it has internal rules for what it will pay for and how. Those provide no legal restrictions on how private providers may conduct their business.

 

[Listening]

It's a regulation on CMS telling them how to do business, not a regulation on hospitals. Hospitals can do whatever they like but one of their major payers isn't going to pay for poor service anymore.

it's simple economics. Time to let the market work its magic.

That's all I needed to see.....the rest does not matter.

CMS is not the private sector. Obviously it has internal rules for what it will pay for and how. Those provide no legal restrictions on how private providers may conduct their business.

This gets more funny all the time.

They needed Obamacare to "get smart" and they are actually getting more stupid.

Medicare/Medicaid are promises to seniors. The regulation has started. Unbelievable.

As already pointed out in the articles on Mayo cutting of seniors in Phoenix.....Medicare and Medicaid are already underfunded.

Obamacare just adds to the confusion. WTF is going on with our government. One bill to correct a problem created by another bill.

 

[Greenbeard]

Obamacare just adds to the confusion. WTF is going on with our government. One bill to correct a problem created by another bill.

Honestly, what is the confusion? What are you finding so baffling? I assume you understand that some proportion of hospital readmissions are unnecessary and can be prevented via some degree of reorganization of care delivery. I assume (perhaps wrongly) that it's also understood that being in a hospital in the United States can be dangerous--people die of or are injured by things they didn't have when they were admitted.

Payment and care delivery are closely linked. Reform that doesn't start with changing the way we pay for care isn't reform at all. This is a bipartisan realization by the way; even Mitt Romney's vacuous bullet points on his campaign issues page recognize this ("Promote alternatives to 'fee for service'").

 

[dblack]

Payment and care delivery are closely linked. Reform that doesn't start with changing the way we pay for care isn't reform at all.

Oh that's just a silly assumption. There are any number of ways to reform bad laws that don't involve dictating how people pay for things.

This is a bipartisan realization by the way; even Mitt Romney's vacuous bullet points on his campaign issues page recognize this ("Promote alternatives to 'fee for service'").

Oh, I've no doubt both parties are in on it. They've been wanting to get their 'mitts' on health care for decades.

 

[Greenbeard]

Payment and care delivery are closely linked. Reform that doesn't start with changing the way we pay for care isn't reform at all.

Oh that's just a silly assumption. There are any number of ways to reform bad laws that don't involve dictating how people pay for things.

There's only so much tutoring on health economics I can offer at any one time, particularly at this hour.

 

[dblack]

Payment and care delivery are closely linked. Reform that doesn't start with changing the way we pay for care isn't reform at all.

Oh that's just a silly assumption. There are any number of ways to reform bad laws that don't involve dictating how people pay for things.

There's only so much tutoring on health economics I can offer at any one time, particularly at this hour.

Good to hear. Get some sleep.

 

[Listening]

Obamacare just adds to the confusion. WTF is going on with our government. One bill to correct a problem created by another bill.

Honestly, what is the confusion? What are you finding so baffling? I assume you understand that some proportion of hospital readmissions are unnecessary and can be prevented via some degree of reorganization of care delivery. I assume (perhaps wrongly) that it's also understood that being in a hospital in the United States can be dangerous--people die of or are injured by things they didn't have when they were admitted.

Payment and care delivery are closely linked. Reform that doesn't start with changing the way we pay for care isn't reform at all. This is a bipartisan realization by the way; even Mitt Romney's vacuous bullet points on his campaign issues page recognize this ("Promote alternatives to 'fee for service'").

Medicare invites readmission. I am married to someone who works in a hospital and knows first hand the abuse that takes place in the system.

Fix that.....stop using one government bill to correct the failings of another.