Skip to comments.A year after Romney loss, GOP woes run even deeper (o noes 4 woes)
Posted on 10/28/2013 8:37:22 AM PDT by Olog-hai
click here to read article
A newer socialist brick builds upon an older socialist brick. I’m afraid I do not see the capitalist angle here.
2) RomneyCare increased taxes: "Technically the last day to sign up for insurance in compliance with that mandate was November 15, though as a practical measure Massachusetts residents actually had until January 1, 2008. Those without insurance as of that date will lose their personal exemption for the state income tax when they file this spring. In 2009, the penalty will increase to 50 percent of the cost of a standard insurance policy." ?(Emphasis Added) - http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2008/lessons-fall-romneycare
3) RomneyCare caused increased spending: "The Massachusetts plan might not have achieved universal coverage, but it has cost taxpayers a great deal of money. Originally, the plan was projected to cost $1.8 billion this year. Now it is expected to exceed those estimates by $150 million. Over the next 10 years, projections suggest that Romney-Care will cost about $2 billion more than was budgeted. And the cost to Massachusetts taxpayers could be even higher because new federal rules could deprive the state of $100 million per year in Medicaid money that the state planned to use to help finance the program." (Emphasis Added) http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2008/lessons-fall-romneycare
So, each of your arguments having been disproved, all we have is the equivalence of RomneyCare and 0bamaCare, one of which you approve because it had a (RINO) tag on it.
RomneyCare was a liberal policy predicated on GOVERNMENT FORCE, HIGHER TAXES and SPENDING. You approve of it. You're a liberal.
I refuted his car insurance argument earlier with no rebuttal forthcoming. That’s a dead horse. He lost.
Yes those demographics are changing but rather than try to emulate Democrats pandering we need to appeal to minorities in ways that align with our principles stated policy aims. The GOP in Texas has done an excellent job of appealing to minorities especially Hispanics without selling their soul on immigration policy. They also have a sizable number of Hispanic GOP officeholders including Ted Cruz. The Florida GOP has been historically successful also though they have slipped in the past few years. The GOP hurt themselves the most with self inflicted wounds when they embrace the rhetoric and the premises of Democrats and attack each other suggesting latent racism etc and clouding the immigration issue so much that it looks like the GOP want open borders and are the ones looking for near slave labor to make them rich. So they end up taking a hit on both sides and winning very little.
Reply to my #23 or STFU about car insurance.
OK. I see your point. And I respect it. Now. My question for you: An uninsured fellow walks into a hospital. Needs care. Perhaps having a heart attack or chest pains, could be anything. He receives treatment and care. He is later given the bill. He says he cannot or will not pay. Now what?
I live in CA. One cannot function in CA without a car.
Just a moment and the Governor can MANDATE that you contract with the Public Transportation Utility and make illegal purchasing cars on the open market for personal use.
Just like Romney, making some kinds of economic transactions required, and others illegal.
Romneycare used Medicaid funds the state ALREADY receives to subsidize health insurance. They were going to get the money anyways.
I don’t have auto insurance. I have no car.
Should I be shot by the fascist thugs because I am not paying in?
ObamaCare and RomneyCare are not about getting people insured, you might have noticed that premiums skyrocketed - this is because it is a wealth redistribution scheme and some people will be paying the premiums for others.
This is socialism. Even if it is done at a state level.
OK. You don’t drive. You don’t need auto insurance. Fine.
But we have to make sure that if you don’t have health coverage and you get sick and go to the hospital that you won’t walk away from that bill.
That shouldn’t be the governments business. The federal government is $17 trillion in debt and it thinks it should be charged with that? lol
That’s what civil court is for...the man entered into an arrangement with the hospital, they treat his ailment, he pays them. If he fails to honor his part of that agreement, well fellow, we’ll see you in court.
How does having the government involved in a private transaction help anyone involved? Simple, it doesn’t.
Stop making arguments that RomneyCare was not a budget buster until you reply to the Cato information posted above. Your say-so doesn’t make it true in the face of reality.
Who is “we” Kimosabe?
You and your statist bureaucrat buddies?
Hospitals should be free to contract as they see fit.
I totally agree. Health insurance is NOT a federal responsibility. But the states can regulate health insurance and they can regulate automobile insurance.
Hospitals are not free to contract as they see fit. They cannot turn people away.
Be sure to send our love to Mitt, Juan and Linda at your next RINO conclave.
unless they speak Spanish and are in the country illegally. There - fixed it for you.
they can regulate it, but they cannot force me to buy things I don’t want
But they could if Government weren’t in their business in the first place.
So you would patch a failure of government with more government.
Yo cannot put debtors in prison. If you could, half the college students in this country would now be in the slammer.
Keep in mind that the media are now unashamed agents of the Democratic Party, and that all policy disputes will be cast as disagreements between “rational” Democrats and “extremist” Republicans. And even indisputable facts will not get in their way. For example, when the recent government shutdown was looming, the Seattle Times editorialized that it was time for Republicans to break ranks and show courage, to quit acting as a monolithic block-vote. But that is what the DEMOCRATS were doing - acting as a block vote - whereas the Republicans were divided and squabbling.
Free markets can correct for bad debts.
Your repeatedly preferred socialists positions cannot.
I hate socialism. But the law states hospitals cannot turn away anyone. I do not favor more government or higher taxes. Romneycare did not raise taxes. Romneycare did not increase new spending. Romneycare rediverted funds already allocated to the state from Medicaid.
Who said anything about prison? Civil court, not criminal court...
Liens, garnishments, etc. to recoup the payments owed...rightfully owed to the provider of said services.
It’s quite simple, if you don’t like the arrangement, don’t enter into it. Find another provider more to your liking.
Exactly. And if Romneycare proved to be bad and unpopular and workable tthe voters in that state could repeal it in the next election. Bad laws get passed. Bad laws can get repealed. Much easier on the state level.
You did not refute Cato’s analysis in my #53.
Repeating socialist / RINO talking points does not make an argument true.
I believe they do imprison men who have debts owed to females.
Dude. I used to think so highly of you. You're really going with the "Socialism at the State level is okay" argument?
I proved it:
Romneycare Advisers Went to WH to be Obamacare Advisers
By W. James Antle, III on 10.12.11 @ 9:26AM
Records show that Mitt Romney aides met a dozen times with the White House to discuss health care reform, according to reports that are sure to refocus attention on the similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare. The Massachusetts health care plan Romney signed into law was an inspiration for the federal legislation, signed by Barack Obama, that the Republican frontrunner has pledged to have repealed.
Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC host: “Alright, come on. Come clean. You were in the room with President Obama discussing healthcare reform and you did in fact work with the Romney administration in Massachusetts. Come on Professor, you’ve got to tell us the truth.”
Jonathan Gruber, MIT professor: “The truth is that the Affordable Care Act is essentially based on what we accomplished in Massachusetts. It’s the same basic structure applied nationally. John McDonough, one of the other advisers,who work in both Massachusetts and advised the White House said ‘it’s the Massachusetts with three more zeros.’ And that’s basically a good description of what the federal bill did.”
Gruber says Massachusetts received some federal funding for Romney’s healthcare reform, meaning all U.S. taxpayers chipped in to fund RomneyCare.
Because they pre-stole the money from the Federal Taxpayers:
"Did Romneycare raise taxes? No, but the state didnt need to. It covered the cost of reform with larger payments that it negotiated from the federal government for its Medicaid program."
As I said, you are just citing MSNBC talking points and a liberal MIT professor. Romney HIMSELF pointed out the huge differences between his law and Obamacare, and the length of the respective laws proves that they are vastly different. And this is not to say that I support Romneycare - I’ve read that it too has all sorts of issues and problems, financial and otherwise. My only point is that it is vastly different from Obamacare.
Ideally, then I do agree. Most of the legislation passed since the New Deal and Great Socirty should be repealed. You won’t get an argument out of me on that point. I think Romney was simply working within the system. His state does get Medicaid dollars. And hospitals are not allowed to turn away anyone. I think he was simply working within that framework. Rather than simply giving people Medicaid, he though it would be better to make them obtain private insurance.
The person used auto vs. health insurance as his argument, not me. The last paragraph in your comment are your words, not mine.
I don’t HAVE to drive and along with that comes all manner of perceived “inconveniences”. So be it...again, I (me personally) DON’T HAVE TO DRIVE. I can choose alternative methods to get along/around.
Thus, auto insurance is not compulsory or mandatory for me to get along in life. If I CHOOSE to engage in behavior that requires licensing or following legislation of some sort, then so be it, I’m under the government’s thumb.
But for simply being born, existing in the USA, we are now FORCED to purchase insurance.
I stand by my original premise/response, one that is supported by numerous other FReepers and the simple fact that, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I consider myself a free man, a citizen, not a subject.
Romney’s “liberal MIT professor”
Oh noes! I better get myself to an anti-bullying campaign because another poster repeatedly refuses to refute my point, and keeps making the same disproven point.
Well there's an unbiased unimpeachable source.
At this point, I’m just going to reflect on the nature of the argument.
Here at FR we have people who justify socialism because it came from a guy with an (R) behind his name.
How in the world can conservatism ever win with allies like this?
More "ideological Republicans" are to dumbies who believe in the US Constitution and Rule of Law. How quaint.
We have anti-bullying campaigns on FR now? What won’t the GOP-e stoop to, I wonder.
Not that I trust Robert Reich for much of anything, but today he partially made the case I’ve been pointing out. Socialism constructed by Republicans makes the case the Democrats want:
Don’t Like Obamacare? It Was the Republicans’ Idea, Says Liberal Democrat
October 28, 2013 - 10:12 AM
By Susan Jones
Subscribe to Susan Jones RSS
Follow Susan Jones on Twitter
Robert Reich served as Labor Secretary for President Bill Clinton. (AP File Photo)
(CNSNews.com) - Not a single Republican voted for the Democrats Affordable Care Act, but one liberal Democrat is nevertheless blaming Republicans for the system that’s debuted to so much criticism.
“While Republicans plot new ways to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, it’s easy to forget that for years they’ve been arguing that any comprehensive health insurance system be designed exactly like the one that officially began October 1st, glitches and all,” said Robert Reich, who served as President Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary.
Reich says Democrats should have insisted on a single-payer system because it would have been “cheaper, simpler, and more popular.”
In a blog at The Huffington Post website, Reich wrote that Republicans have long argued for a health care system based on private insurance and paid for with subsidies and a requirement that the young and healthy people sign up. Democrats, he says, wanted to model health care reform on Social Security and Medicare, and fund it through the payroll tax.
Reich says President Richard Nixon in 1974, “proposed, in essence, today’s Affordable Care Act.” Thirty years later, then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, another Republican, “made Nixon’s plan the law in Massachusetts.”
Reich adds: “When today’s Republicans rage against the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, it’s useful to recall this was their idea as well,” as proposed in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler of the Heritage Foundation.
“Now that the essential Republican plan for healthcare is being implemented nationally, health insurance companies are jubilant,” Reich said, because they see opportunities for higher profits and expanded growth.
“So why are today’s Republicans so upset with an Act they designed and their patrons adore? Because it’s the signature achievement of the Obama administration,” he says.
Reich’s blog is entitled, “The Democrat’s Version of Health Insurance Would Have Been Cheaper, Simpler, and More Popular (So Why Did We Enact the Republican Version and Why Are They So Upset?)”
Reich, now a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, advocates a single-payer health insurance system, such as “Medicare for all.”
..- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/dont-obamacare-it-was-republicans-idea-says-liberal-democrat#sthash.l5J8mEie.dpuf