WhoreMods
Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
You keep thinking this is about Romney....
Here is a list of 25 Republicans who supported the idea as well. Are they all faux conservatives too? Newt Gingrich? Rick Santorum?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/republicans-supported-obamacare-gingrich-dole-individual-mandate/
Are you continuing to push the idea that Obamacare is the same as the HEART Act of 1993, even though it's been shown it's merely similar and not the same? There are differences, and they aren't minor.
No. I NEVER mentioned the Heart Act. That is a massive strawman. The only person who brought up the Heart Act, was you To be clear, I wasn't referring to any specific legislation. Rather, I was indicating that the ACA concepts are 90% from Heritage (ok 90% was a SWAG). A more accurate statement, would be, (and to refer to an actual piece of legislation) the Heritage inspired Romneycare was supported by dozens of Republicans across the country.
http://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/the-significance-massachusetts-health-reform
The ACA and Romneycare (sharing the same architect, Jonathan Gruber). If you compare Obamacare to Romneycare, conceptually they are almost identical (hence the 90%).
http://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/the-massachusetts-health-plan-lessons-the-states
Gee.... Let's have an individual mandate, because it enforces "Personal Responsibility" (the Right Wing talking point of the day (with which I agree)).
Let's have an exchange where everyone could shop for plans in a marketplace.
Oh and BTW: Let's expand Medicaid for people who can't afford anything on the exchange.
Sound a bit like Obamacare? 90% is a conservative estimate.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/194075-architect-of-romneys-health-bill-says-its-the-same-as-obamas
Let me get this out of the way first: When most on the left accuse the GOP of supporting the mandate before Obamacare, they point to the HEART Act of 1993. That is not a strawman. That is fact. Had you specified Romneycare with your 90% claim, it would have been clear. My strawman was not intentional at all.
Romney signed a bill in heavily Democratic Massachusett's, vetoing 8 sections, and the legislature immediately overruled 6 (and the other 2 eventually). The 34D-6R Senate, and the 139D-20R-1I House, passed a bill, sent it to the Governor, and then overruled all 8 of his vetoes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but elected representatives (including the Governor) are supposed to govern according to their constituents, right? Wouldn't you think it likely in a heavily Democratic State Government, there will likely be things a GOP Governor will sign that aren't traditionally GOP party planks?
As far as Romney's actual plan....
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2004/11/24/plan-for-massachusetts-health-insurance-reform/d1I1xFpnfLcQ8Ipz4nCdpJ/story.html
The mandate required people to have at least a basic level of coverage. quote:
Today our laws prevent insurers from offering policies with only basic benefits. Bells, whistles, and costly options are mandated.
Insurers tell us they can develop plans costing less than half of today's standard rate of $500 for an individual. These plans still provide primary, preventative, specialty, and catastrophic care. The cost could be lower with higher deductibles and more restrictions. New York introduced a program in which private insurers offer rates as low as $140 a month. We can have a similarly affordable program in Massachusetts: Commonwealth Care Basic.
http://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/the-significance-massachusetts-health-reform quote:
Personal Responsibility
Finally, the element of the Massachusetts bill that has attracted the most attention and dispute is the "personal responsibility" provision, also known as the "individual mandate."
From the outset, Governor Romney stated that requiring individuals to buy health insurance in the currently fragmented and overly expensive insurance market would be wrong and counterproductive. But he also argued that if the market could be reorganized to make coverage universally available and portable, deregulated at least enough to make it affordable for the middle class, and subsidized enough to make it affordable for the low-income, then there would be no reasonable excuse for anyone to forgo health insurance.
Romney also pointed out that to allow people to go without health insurance when they can expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney's plan was to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: either buy insurance or pay for your own care. He proposed that those who want to go without coverage could place $10,000 in an interest-bearing escrow account, which providers could claim against if the individual did not pay medical bills.
Unfortunately, the state legislature changed that idea into a mandate: either buy coverage or pay a fine. This provision is more onerous and philosophically objectionable, but it is unlikely to prove onerous in practice. That is because the legislation includes three avenues through which Massachusetts residents can meet the individual coverage requirement by purchasing an inexpensive health plan. First, the bill allows more carriers to offer HSA products with high-deductibles. Second, it also circumvents Massachusetts' overly regulated non-group market by allowing any resident to buy coverage as an individual through the Connector, where a wide choice of plans and premiums will be available. And third, it allows insurers to offer inexpensive "mandate-light" policies to young adults between the ages of 19 and 26, those most likely to go without coverage.
Romney's plan would have prevented "free riders," but wasn't really a mandate to purchase something. "Romneycare" included a mandate because the legislature (aka not Romney) put it in. Also to note, there were different options for coverage, and not the laundry list of "everyone has to pay for almost everything in every plan" requirement under the ACA.
What is called "Romneycare" isn't exactly what Romney put forth. The "individual mandate" part of "Romneycare" wasn't part of Romney's plan, but changed by State legislators (heavily Democrat as noted earlier).
The biggest difference, in my mind, has to do with Constitutionality. Nowhere in the Constitution is there authority granted for the Federal Government to pay for/provide health insurance or health care for all US Citizens (health care for Veterans/Military would fall under the employer/employee category). State Governments may or may not have that authority granted. If it's not granted to the Federal Government, technically, the Federal government isn't supposed to do it, regardless of how many people want it. If you look at my arguments against universal health care, it's framed around needing a Constitutional Amendment.
According to The Federalist Papers, the Federal Government is supposed to focus on things that affect the country as a whole, not the country as a whole bunch of individuals. State Governments were to focus on things that affect their individuals.
The constitution doesn't mention a lot of things: there's nothing in there about the Federal government being required to provide a road system or run a postal service either. Should those both be turned over to the private sector, who can clearly do a better job with both?
_____________________________
On the level and looking for a square deal.
|
RE: Senate to vote soon on tax bill - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread