Posted on 10/04/2012 7:42:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
There are a lot of differences between Obamacare and Romneycare, even though President Barack Obama said that the two plans were based on an "identical model" during the first presidential debate in Denver on Wednesday night.
"We've seen this model work very well," Obama said, "in Massachusetts."
Wrong, countered Mitt Romney. As Massachusetts governor, he passed a health care plan "on a bipartisan basis."
President Obama, said Romney, "instead of bringing America together," rammed through a bill that garnered no support across the aisle. "Something this big, this important," Romney concluded, "has to be done on a bipartisan basis."
Note this: Romney had to work with Democrats. They constituted 87 percent of the Massachusetts Legislature. In Obama's first two years in the White House, Democrats controlled the House and enjoyed a veto-proof majority in the Senate. Obama was able to pass his bill without courting GOP votes. Still, it was a poor choice with consequences.
Obama sulked that his plan was based on a Republican idea. It begs the question, Why did he fail to win a single Republican vote?
If he cannot sell Republicans on what he says is a GOP idea, what good is he?
Obamacare and Romneycare are not identical. They are very different. Romney worked to promote flexibility; Obama and the Democrats imposed uniformity. Romney worked to limit mandates in Massachusetts health care; Obama and a Democratic Congress threw a host of goodies, such as an end to copayments for "preventive care," into the Affordable Care Act. Employers will have to pay for service for which workers used to chip in.
This administration has refined passing the hat. With Congress, the president enacted mandates -- "free" birth control, adult children's being able to stay on their parents' plans up to age 26 -- for which Washington pols do not have to pay. They don't even have to pretend that Congress will have to pay in the future. The private sector pays.
"If you've got health insurance," Obama said of his plan, "it doesn't mean a government takeover."
It's a government takeover without government fiscal responsibility.
Early in the debate, Romney quipped that Obama seems to have levied an "economy tax." Well put. What employer wants to hire new workers when that employer knows that Washington pols know that they can add new mandates at no cost to themselves?
Even before Obamacare goes into full effect, it's clear that this model cannot, as the president promised, "get the cost down so it's more affordable." That's not mathematically possible.
Now that everyone knows that Washington can find services dear to politically important demographic groups and make other people pay for them, there is no controlling health care costs.
Good article! Thanks for posting it.
Last night’s debate, did Obama take social security off the table as an election issue?
It kind of sounded like it to me.
Please do not try and defend RomneyCare
Maybe you did not understand but Romney made it clear that it is up to the states not for the federal government to deal with healthcare.
Identical twins aren’t identical either. (Genetically, yes, but not once they start growing; then experience differentiates.)
Maybe you did not understand but Romney made it clear that it is up to the states not for the federal government to deal with healthcare. It’s called federalism , it’s called limiting the federal government as the founders intended and for the states to be labs.
Romney wants to limit the federal government and let the states do most things as is in the constitution.
Is that it???
This article highlights one important major difference between Obama and Romney, although it’s not the one the author intended.
Romney can get “conservatives” to support socialism, and Obama can’t.
The federalism argument has always been weak. (AntiObamacarers certainly oppose it for more reasons than that it’s unconstitutional). Anyway, Obama wasn’t arguing that Mitt wants a national Romneycare, just that Obamacare borrowed heavily from Romneycare. Which is inarguable.
Maybe you did not understand but Romney made it clear that it is up to the states not for the federal government to deal with healthcare. It’s called federalism , it’s called limiting the federal government as the founders intended and for the states to be labs.
The constitution limits the federal government and grants most powers to the states. Romney showed he is for limiting the federal government , repealing Obamacare, reducing regulations,privatizing medicare. Get it back into the states. do you understand that constitutional principle? All you can do is use liberal media spin to bash Romney
Romney made it real clear in a USA TODAY column advising Obama in about 2009 to implement a national version of RomneyCare.
Am I supposed to pretend it never happened? Romney wanted it national, no use to pretend otherwise.
I don’t actually believe that, but will accept it at least as regards Obamacare. That being said just because states can do things doesn’t mean they should. Just because Romneycare wasn’t unconstitutional like Obamacare doesn’t mean Romney should have supported it. Nor do his federalist convictions absolve him of responsibility for inspiring bigger plans.
Guess you didn’t listen to the debate or didn’t understand it.
Romney said it’s not for the federal government to limit our freedom and choices in healthcare.
RE: The way they were passed.
Obamacare has no Copayments.
Obamacare has free birth control.
Obamacare children can stay on parent’s plan up to age 26.
Is that it???
________________________
I’m not very familiar with Romneycare, but here are a few questions that come to mind:
1) Has it brought down healthcare cost for tax payers in MA?
2) How’s the healthcare COST for the state? Is it in deficit? surplus, or balance?
3) Can patients choose their doctors under Romneycare? Do doctors accept patients under the plan?
4) Does Romneycare have something similar to Obamacare’s unaccountable 15 person IPAB ( A.K.A Sarah Palin’s “death panels” )?
All you’ve done on this thread is repeat talking points. Talk about spin.
Obamacare is about moving more cash to DC..so politicians can steal it...they could care less about what people need. Most states have healthcare for people who need it.
Romney said it’s not for the federal government to limit our freedom and choices in healthcare.
Everything Romney said was for limiting the federal government. Romney said he will repeal Obamacare, repeal dod frank, reduce regulations , even privatize medicare. you all probably didn't understand any of that. Not even Reagan proposed privatizing medicare. oh yeah even that is not Conservative to you all. Romney said he thinks the free market works better than government and will allow the private sector to compete with medicare so that will be the destruction of medicare. but you call that a socialist when it is the opposite . that's called freedom , limiting the FEDERAL government as the constitution intended. if the people(nuts) in Massachusetts want some socialist program let them , that is the lab.
Good questions.
I don’t know the answers either. I remember early in the primaries many articles on Mass going bankrupt due to Romneycare.
The panel question is a good one. And is Obama’s claim that the panel is prohibited by law from dictating care true?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.