E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
METAIRIE, La. -- Mitt Romney marked the second anniversary of the passage of President Obama's controversial health care reform law by labeling the legislation the "centerpiece" of a failed presidency, and calling for its immediate repeal and replacement.
"You’ll note the White House is not celebrating Obamacare today," Romney opened his remarks in this New Orleans suburb. "They don’t have any big big ceremony going on. The president is not giving speeches on Obamacare and that’s for a reason. Most Americans want to get rid of it and we're among those Americans, I want to get rid of it too."
In an editorial this morning in USA Today, Romney went further in his assault, ripping the law as a "unfolding disaster for the American economy, a budget-busting entitlement, and a dramatic new federal intrusion into our lives."
The law's anniversary, and the opening next Monday of arguments before the Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality, have thrust health care back into the national spotlight. For Romney, that spotlight represents both an opportunity and a challenge. The national health law was modeled, in large part, on Romney's own Massachusetts law, which Romney has defended as right for his state, while simultaneously describing the federal law as a massive government overreach.
Fully convincing hold-out conservative voters that his opposition to the federal law is genuine and that he would fight for its repeal would be a victory for the Romney campaign, but each day his opponents can remind those same voters of the link between "RomneyCare" and his defense of a mandate in Massachusetts and "ObamaCare" is another day with an albatross around Romney's neck.
Today, Romney tried a new tack, linking his opposition to the national law to his recently updated rhetoric on economic freedom, calling the law "one more example of a president pursuing his attack on economic and personal liberty," and vowing to introduce market and state-based reforms in its place.
He even went so far as to invoke the religious freedom-birth control debate.
"This is a piece of legislation that is very different than what people were told when it was being sold by the administration,” Romney contended. “We learned some other things about it in the past few weeks. One was that the Catholic Church is being told that they have to provide insurance that covers morning after pills, sterilization and contraception despite that fact that these very features violate the conscious of the catholic church itself. So the legislation not only is expensive, not only will cause people to lose their coverage that they wanted in some cases it also intrudes upon religions liberty. it's amazing how many things are wrong with it. I've got a whole list here."
Romney laid out his own vision for health care reform without a federal law, including -- including changing the tax structure to be more favorable to individuals buying their own insurance, block-granting Medicaid back to states and fighting "out of control" malpractice litigation -- quickly drew return fire from President Obama's campaign.
“It’s been six years since the Massachusetts health reform law passed, and it’s amazing how far Mitt Romney has come in his beliefs," Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt wrote in a statement. "It’s bad enough that he no longer stands by his only accomplishment as governor, but it’s worse that he thinks its ok to let insurance companies to write their own rules while leaving seniors and Americans that get sick to fend for themselves even if it means bankrupting them.”
Leave a Comment:
It will take a strong leader with good business sense to help fix the deficit that Obama care is going to cause our country. I think Mitt Romney's political and business sense will help us get to a better political environment in Washington as well. Obama just doesnt have the leadership skills to deal with politics as it stands today. He never really jelled with the nations business leaders. It's time to move on to better leadership....
Mitt “Etch-A-Sketch” Romney on HCR
On the 2 year anniversaryof the passage of the ACA Romney said:
1 - “And we’ve just learned from the CBO, it’s not a trillion dollars. It’s more like double that…Obamacare is massively more expensive than had been originally estimated.”
2 - “Thirty percent of employers said they are going to drop the coverage for their employees when Obamacare is installed.”
3 - “The Catholic Church is being told that they have to provide insurance that covers morning after pills, sterilizations, and contraceptives. Despite the fact that these very features violate the conscience of the Catholic Church itself.
The truth
1 - In a report released last week, the CBO actually found that the Affordable Care Act was expected to cost $50 billion less than they anticipated a year ago. Romney is twisting the results by referring to the gross cost of the legislation for 11 years ending in 2022 — $1.76 trillion — and comparing it to the original cost estimate of $938 billion over 10 years ending in 2019. As FactCheck.org explained, “The 11-year figure is much higher because it includes three additional years of full implementation of the coverage provisions of the law.”
2 - Surveys of employers have found that the vast majority of businesses will continue to offer insurance to employees when the law’s insurance exchanges start up. In fact, if Massachusetts’ health reform is any indication, employers are highly unlikely to dump employees into the exchanges.
3 - Romney knows, the Catholic Church — and all houses of worship — are specifically exempt from the rule requiring employers to provide preventive services like contraception to their employees. Yet he continues to repeat the lie incessantly, suggesting that he’s willing to say anything to appeal to the conservative base and win the election.
So having healthcare that saves your life is an entitlement? Wow. Just WOW.
"It’s bad enough that he no longer stands by his only accomplishment as governor, but it’s worse that he thinks its ok to let insurance companies to write their own rules while leaving seniors and Americans that get sick to fend for themselves even if it means bankrupting them.”
That is one of the most crucial parts of health care for many elderly and those which could not pay for health care as it existed before the national health care reform. For the younger people and their families, it also serves to allow them to cover their children up to age 26. That is a huge asset to younger families. But another fact is that insurance companies could no longer ignore care for preexisting conditions that is going to help tens of thousands of people across the country.
Insurance companies had been able to pick and choose who would be covered and what cost they deemed appropriate at a given time. All the cards were stacked in their favor. During recent months they have been raising the monthly costs on plans at an alarming rate. Something needed to be done to help the people of this country and everyone knew it. The only problem was that one side of the political aisle decided that they didn't want the other to get the lions share of the credit for the initiative, so they started claiming that it was no good for the country.
Yes it will be expensive. But which of your family members would you let die in your efforts to throw out this legislation? Because in many cases that is exactly what will happen. People will die becasue they couldn't afford to be seen and be cared for through curent insurance policy.
Lie
then "Etch-a-Sketch" the lie way.
Romneycare is 5 years old. Willard never brags about that???
I don't believe a thing Flip Romney. He is a born liar that will say anything. I pity any fool that would vote for him.
Au contraire.
Romney is a walking, talking, flip-flopping fool. He has taken so many different positions on health care that it has made his own head spin around.
And that about sums up Mitt Romney.
If you believe ANYTHING he says, then that makes you equally foolish.
You have no idea what he will actually do when he gets into office.
If that doesn't scare you, then I can guess why.
If you like silly old songs and dances you will love the republican Hokey Pokey party. You tickled me AMY.
As a nation we can't depend on the Supreme Court to repeal bad legislation. It is going to take an exceptional president to get everyone involved on the same page. Obama started this my way or the highway mentality when he controlled the House and The senate. Alot of bad legislation was the result. In 2010 the nation reacted with a shellacking of the Democrats unfortunately the president wasn't up for re-election then. I am encouraged by the number of first time voters in 2008 that are taking a far more educated approach to their ballot in 2012.
Remember the phrase:
"YOU LIE"
You are going to have a hard time getting 10 of millions of people who have no health insurance on that page, many of whom are currently working in right to work for less and less and less states. It is not the unionized workers that use the ER like a clinic, and depend on the people with insurance or medicaid to pick up their tab.
Sunshine and Rainbows last forever, right?
Just like your health will, right?
The ACA is a blessing for the sick and the poor. People who couldn't get healthcare due to a 'pre-existing condition' will now be allowed healthcare.
It's that simple.
Anyone who can look at the ACA, really scrutinize it closely, and say 'Repeal this!' is either A) lying that they truly looked it over or B) a cold-hearted SOB.
I pity you guys who get misinformed and base a decision off of that. It sucks and I truly hope that it's a problem we can overcome in the near future. Misinformed voting is a terrible thing.
"You Pivot"!
Is there anything Willard doesn't pivot on?
Grump,
Why would the 10 of millions who get coverage through Obamacare give a crap what it costs to go to the ER? It's no different than their old no insurance plan. When you get the bill just throw it in the trash. Obamcare does nothing to control health care costs it just forces more responsible people to pay for those who can't or won't....
Romeny doesn't pivot on the following:
Romney has a solution for people unable to afford care. It's called destructive capitalism. Use the ER and then file bankruptcy when the bills come in. Lose your home over it. Tough. Who really pays for the socialized losses? Those of us with insurance to the tune of $1000 premium added to the cost of our insurance. This destructive capitalism is something Romney knows a lot about as he made a living engaging in it.
BTW- Tort reforms and tax breaks will only make some people richer while ignoring the real problems. Something else Romney is very familiar with and never pivots from.
Who fought the mandate for those who could afford it, so costs would be distributed more fairly? Plus it does reign in costs for those with preexisting conditions and dependent children in college, and those who would be cancelled for a developing condition, it helps a lot of people with costs. Besides what is the republican plan for controlling health-care costs, if the AHA is so bad it should be hard for republicans to come up with something better, but as usual they just want to repeal this and have no solutions of their own other than kissing the rump of the health insurance lobbyists. Bottom-line is that until republicans have no plan, so that makes the AHA the best plan no matter what you may think of it.
I don't believe there is honest evidence that the majority of Americans are opposed to the ACA, only the majority of Republicans. Republicans continue to demonstrate their lack of humanity and their lack of humility. All the ranting about "personal freedoms" being lost is so contradictory to what they do and believe is "best" for all of us. They are trying to deny women many rights, beginning with our right to privacy. They are trying to make us all "good, God-fearing Christians" and ban all other religious beliefs. They are trying to rewrite history to sanitize attrocities committed against our fellow human beings. They are trying to disavow science. They are not hiding the fact that they do not care about the environment and are fine to rape and pillage the earth. They are ok with everyday citizens walking around armed and dangerous and killing a "perceived threat" without further investigation. The current Republicans and their followers are disgusting and completely without conscience, they are totally reprehensible, vile, and inhumane. Until the rhetoric from the right comes back to center and is rational once again, there is not one single Republican worth listening to. They all lie, beginning with Mitt Romney, the epitome of say anything just get elected, tell them anything they will believe it. Are we really that stupid?
Teknishan. I never really thought of myself as a cold-hearted SOB.
UAW, it seems quite obvious that you have not read the law (even though it was passed... LOL) or even bothered paying attention to the news lately. You see, there is a part of the law which calls for the establishment of an independent board of 15 which will, guess what, set standards for reduction of costs in health care.
OH, because you haven't paid attention, the GOP House is trying to repeal that section of the law, apparently Republicans don't want to reduce health care costs.
As to why do people go to the ER for their primary care, because the ER is prohibiting from refusing to care for anyone, regardless of patient's ability to pay. If people have insurance, they can go to a doctor for routine care, reducing the dependence on the ER.
Come on guys lay off the "cold hearted" Republicans crap. Obama enacted a poorly thought out healthcare law that eventually will go broke. We shouldn't be covering healthy kids to the age of 26. They need to be part of the pool working and paying in to cover those who are really disabled and unable to cover themselves. We need a better leader in the White house before the everything should be "free" mentality spreads any further than Obama has already spread it.....
Coming from you, I find that hilarious, not to mention disingenuous.
Look to your own house.
UAW,
I agree! Healthy young adults shouldn't be unemployed until age 26. We need jobs so they can get hired and no longer be-...oh, dang it.
Let me try again.
Healthy young adults shouldn't be part of this package because their own job-...oh, sorry. Another mistake.
Okay. Last time.
Healthy young adults are part of the low-risk pool and their contributions from the healthcare provided by their employer-...darn. My bad.
See the problem yet, ace?
Lisa S...does that mean you are ignorant as to what is in the bill or does it mean you are in complete denial?? My vote...it's a big combination of both.
What's Rush telling you to think?
UAW Pleeeeeeeease...I have to asume then that the health care program Romney set up was different than the one Obama came up with..even though they pretty much mirrow each other..but now Romney claims tghis is an economy buster...cool...which way will he turn next..along with the rest of the republican party ?
Tek, I'm not sure what you said. But I do see the problem.
Rough Translation-
26 year olds can't get hired to F/T jobs with healthcare benefits right now.
They are also our low-cost offset for the high-cost seniors.
Therefore. We need to keep them enrolled in health insurance for economic reasons.
The only way to keep them on the books is to have them ride on their parents healthcare.
Otherwise? Your costs go up.
This is a cost-reducing measure.
your to oblivious to see what again conservatives wanting to pass. Ryan care... middles class working families pay more while again the top 1% skates.
teknishan - Hey, I like the yellow dog avatar!
UAW - Although far from perfect, the ability for healthy people or "presumeably" healthy people to actually go for checkups and prescreenings can catch diseases or issues before they become serious and or deadly. Over the long run preventative medicine and measures could save their lives and save us all money.
To address the claim that the ACA doubled in cost, the years measured by the CBO are merely different. That said, I think everyone knew that this deal was front ended. In honesty we should look at ACA in its current form, sans public option/competition, as not so much a way to save money, but as a way to provide affordable health care to those who can't access it.
Tek, My 77 year old retired father-inlaw just got rehired by John Deere in Ankeny, Iowa. There are jobs out there. The trucking firm I work for hires drivers starting at age 23. We've got a hundred open positions right now. Google "Driver Shortage" and you will see 1000's of tryucking companies hiring. These are positions with full benefits and you can learn to drive a truck in 30 days. You can also live any where as most trucks travel through all states. If you are saying 26 year olds can't get jobs I'd say they just aren't hungry enough to really want one yet....
Leaving Jr. on his parents health insurance till age 26 isn't increasing premiums it's just adding costs to his parents coworkers premiums.
Not everyone is cut out to drive a truck.
I don't know what your wages are, but repaying 30K in student loans can be pretty murderous for low-paying job-takers.
They need jobs they can live on. Add in their burdened student-loans and that means they need a starting wage of semi-decent.
Also, local. relocating to a new place, without money, a place to live, or work is 'bad'. Unless your company hires people via phone interview, there's not much that non-local candidates can really do to jump onto those 'thousands of job openings'
shockedandisguted, Do you really have to imply that a person is ignorant simply because they disagree with a policy. I have many objections to ACA including the provisions to raise the tax on home sales by 3.8%. If you wish to be civil I would be happy to have discussion on the issues.
@UAW: Obama is the best thing to hit the white house in decades. His leadership is top notch. You sir are simply in denial of it or have simply allowed yourself to be polarized to a point of ignorance of obvious facts. Let us be reminded that the mandate for health insurance was originally a republican strategy. The GOP and its followers are all phonies pure and simple. Honor no longer resides in ANYTHING republican. So dysfunctional that it is completely unamerican!
lisa s,
Because you seem like a nice girl, and don't come in spouting hate and brimstone, i direct you to the following (politely);
www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/
It's a debunked myth.
It does impose a sales tax on home sales...if you sell for over 250K (single) or 500K (married).
And only on the excess amount.
Thus, if you are single and sell for $260,000...you are taxed 3.8% on $10,000.
I don't think this affects too many Americans right now, save us suckers who own homes in Southern California or other pricier areas...but I am more than willing to make that concession if/when I sell any of my houses.
shockedandisgusted, Do you really need to imply that someone is ignorant simply because they disagree with you on policy issues. One objection I have to ACA is the tax on home sales it increases it by 3.8%. If you care to have a serious discussions on policy please be civil. I have never listened to Rush, my news toolbar includes CNN,MSNBC,The New York Times,Google news,ESPN,Los Angels Times, BBC,NPR, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal. Have a nice day.
Shockedandisgusted, Sorry for the double post I was trying to edit.
First, Romney urges Obama to follow Massachusett’s lead and adopt the mandate:
Then he tries to criticize Obama for doing it????
Lisa s - I apologize for lumping you in with the "repeal this" category based on your response to teknishan. If you reread teknishan's post and your response, you may understand how I came to the conclusion that I did. Again, I do apologize for jumping to conclusions - I have just lost all patience with the averege right-wing people that post on here and keep repeating the same, exact, inaccurate talking points.
The details of the ACA need to be worked out - with that I think everyone can agree. That is why it will not take effect until 2014. Unfortunately, instead of working out the details (perhaps there can be another source of income to offset a tax on home sales), the Republicans and the people that post on here (again, I apologize for the assumption that you were one of them) simply want to destroy the ACA without any plan of their own to deal with the healthcare crisis.
I would love to hear your take on why Romney has completely flipped on this issue. It was perfectly OK 5 years ago in MA, but now it's a "budget busting entitlement". Why isn't Romney saying something to the effect of, "This is precisely what I think is wrong with the ACA, and this is how we fixed that problem in MA."?
You, obviously, don't live on either coast- or very close to Chicago, for that matter.
A person cannot buy a dog house for less than $250 k in those areas.
Moreover, despite the current downturn in the housing market- which will, like all others, pass- a home is most people's biggest investment. The funds a retired person or couple realize from the sale of said home helps tremendously in their golden years.
Having worked a lifetime, should such a person or couple be compelled to subsidize the health care policy of a thirty-something? It makes no sense.
Nor does it make sense to have an appointed board of bureaucrats making decisions about what treatments should be available.
Nor does it make sense to infantilize young adults by keeping them dependent on their parents until they are close to thirty.
Or abrogate the First Amendment's guarantee of free religious expression.
There were and ate many ways to address the problems of the uninsured- this legislation did little to address that. The single biggest issue with health insurance was, and remains, COST. This legislation has only exacerbated that issue.
All twenty-something's really need is catetrophic coverage- accidental injury, sudden acute illnesses, and the like. What they are forced to purchase is ridiculous- as ridiculous as forcing fifty-something's maternity care and well baby coverage.
That's what mandates get you.
Eliminate the mandates, and health insurance costs go down. Allow people to purchase the coverages they desire- or allow employers to provide same, and let people purchase the additional coverages no provided by the employer. Craft legislation allowing small businesses to form groups for lower group rates, and allow individuals to buy into their municipalities' coverage.
Problem solved.
No Joe, You have a common sense approach to this. It's refreshing. I'm signing off for the weekend. Have a good one people...
Shockedanddisgusted, Thank you for your post. I look forward to further discussion.
Lisa s - thanks for the forgiveness and the reminder that it really does get WAY to easy to generalize on here and that it is healthy to disagree and discuss.
Again, the NJ nut job is speaking of things she knows NOTHING about!
shockedandisgusted, I think that as Americans we have more in common then either party wants us to think. I hope you have a nice weekend
Lisa, don't forget that the tax on home sales is based on selling your home for over $250,000 in PROFIT, over and above cost value. Since the housing bubble collapse how many people do you think are able to sell their homes for over $250,000 more than they bought them for? I don't think you have to worry too much about that.
Lisa s - I think you hit the nail on the head. Most of all, I do believe that most Americans do not wish their fellow Americans to fail or suffer. It's just not in our nature.
You have a beautiful week-end, too!!
This is what I have always admired & ♥'d about Lisa - she is a TRUE independent.
Unlike those who lurk around here claiming to be...
Feisty, Thanks for the nice compliment. You and I have always been able to have good rapport. You have a great weekend.
Anytime Lisa - I just call them like I see em!
Like shockedanddisgusted - when you have been doing this as long as I have, sometimes your patience wears thin with the rookies...
I can get along with anyone - as long as they are honest! My BS detector is finely tuned... lol
Off to read your daughters wedding story @ the DDI!
Have a splendid weekend yourself! ;o)
UAW
How did Obama start this my way or the highway attitude??? He was compromising the day he entered office. The stimulus was stuffed with tax cuts to placate the GOP; he compromised on the contraception issue to placate the right AND ultraconservative Catholic bishops (who I as a Catholic would hope to get back to reality, as a majority of Catholics support the bill); he compromised with the GOP on deficit reduction and the Bush tax cuts, only to have the rug get pulled out from under him; and even the ACA is a compromise. Obama took out the public option and used a REPUBLICAN idea: the individual mandate.
Obamacare (as you righties call it) is actually slated to lower the deficit by about $97 billion. And it technically does not go against the Constitution: doesn't the document allow the federal government to enact any law to maintain the health and welfare of the American people??? And last time I checked, providing affordable healthcare IS in preserving the welfare of the nation. I'd say go one step further and nationalize the healthcare industry. Use AHA and contract the healthcare companies instead of making them make the rules.
And what is so bad about IBAD (sorry if I misspelled it)??? Just because it has appointed officials doesn't make it evil. It actually makes it more efficient because it will be harder to lobby the board-members and allows PROFESSIONALS to make decisions, not politicians. Certain things ought to be left in the hands of appointed and apolitical bureaucrats, and that includes healthcare, education, and monetary policy.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
OBAMACARE LEGAL 2012
Romney is going to make me puke.
TO: UAW Pleeeeeeeease who wrote:
It's NOT bad legislation, just the opposite.
The majority of American People want quality, affordable health care and the reason WHY Republicans CANNOT win the presidency is because Republicans are only concerned with what 26% of the United States Population wants, and 26% AIN'T no "majority"!
I read an article that says that the cost of this health care will cost less than 1% of what's already coming out of our paychecks for health care, and Republicans are about to faint.
Republicans, look, Social Security is NOT coming out of your paychecks, you're not vested in Social Security OR Medicare, and paying for Obamacare means taking a tiny less-than-1% more out of our paychecks and we want it, what on earth do you care?
The only way I can view Republicans on this issue is that they just can't stand anybody having quality health care EXCEPT for them! What's up with that?
Obama / Biden 2012
American Girl,
Me too!
Keep the garbage can handy... we are going to need it between now & November! lol
I feel nauseous thinking about it.
I am blown away that Teapublicans clap and cheer for Romney when he resorts to red meat (hyperbole, fear-mongering, lies) about the Affordable Care Act.
We've always known most are low-information voters who live in the right-wing bubble of FOX Noise and Hate Radio. But it can't be possible to be THAT stupid. Do Teapublicans really believe Romney hates "Obamacare," really?!
And the biggest irony of all are recent reports showing health care costs in Massachusetts have gone down and are lower compared to the rest of the nation. In other words, Romneycare has been successful!
Yes, try pivoting Romney, it's entertaining to watch, but also very sad.
Obamacare is a travesty to this country. So what if Romney is against it? It's not the same as the health care plan in Mass. A state run health care system is very very different than a country wide health care system when you have interstate commerce laws that have been broken. We'll let the supreme court sort this mess out... and hopefully they'll come to the same conclusion as most reasonable minded people. We can't let the government get away with fining us for not buying something.
Brianb-999431
"We can't let the government get away with fining us for not buying something"
That's a typical line from an illiterate who can't read or digest what he/she read. Could you please show where it states in the rule that you'll be fined for not buying the insurance.
Did you actually read the rules or you're just relating what you heard on talk radio and faux news? Which is it?
Okay. Take away the mandate and keep the rest.
Double-dog dare you.
Pen - Stop being an ass in your responses. If you don't understand something don't make it sound like a poster doesn't know what he's talking about... The supreme court is getting involved because of exactly that reason. The provision in the bill requires you to purchase health insurance or face fines.
Anna - that would be OK for some, but they didn't write a provision for that in the ACA. It's all or nothing. If it's struck down because of the fine provision, the merits of the bill itself did not include partial inclusion. I want to see the entire bill gone anyway. Let them re-write it as a bi-partisan effort.
The liberals are all upset that the bill might be trashed in the Supreme Court. It's once in a lifetime where the democrats have total control to pass something like this... The chances of a similar bill ever being passed again is pretty slim... That's why the democrats RUSHED this bill through without reading it. They knew they had only a small window in which to do it. Excluding the republicans from seeing it, or having input in it's creation was completely wrong. I know liberals, wahhhh wahhhh wahhhh. Your precious little attempt to jamb your ideology down everyone's throat might come to a screeching halt... we'll listen to your tears when it happens.
So when the state says you can't license your car without proof of insurance that is illegal too? As long as you are willing to put up everything, and I mean EVERYTHING you own to pay for your healthcare and the healthcare of your dependants without any delinquency you should be allowed to opt out. Get cancer or have a massive heart attack and I hope you have millions of disposable dollars to fall back on or you'll be there with the rest of the pan handlers eating in the soup kitchen. I don't like the mandate but that can be changed by Congress the rest of the law is a great step in the right direction. We are the only country in the so called industrial world that doesn't offer some form of universal healthcare. It works well in some countries where they have both private insurance and an AHA kind of thing.
This is just starting the early statges of implementation, without results of how well it works people condemn it out of hand. What I have read, so far, the folks that have used the AHA part that is in effect love it. Time will tell but give it a chance. It is not in stone and can be amended later.
Baldeagle - You aren't required to own a car. If you don't own a car, you don't need insurance. Your point is moot.
...but, unlike chosing to own or not own a car.......
....Everybody is a body that as an adult 'you own it', like it or not.....personal responsibiity and all that.
The critical difference between the MA law and the ACA is that for the MA law, the leader in the Executive branch who signed the law was a Republican.
Nothing else about either law really matters to the GOP.
Oh, pish. As I recall it, they had all the time in the world to make it a "bi-partisan" effort, and the Republicans deliberately took a pass so they could have plausible deniability later. They knew they would never get any credit for it anyway, if it became law, so obstruction became the game.
By the way, you're not even exactly correct about the lack of bi-partisanship. Without a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate, there had to be some Republican/Independent cooperation in the Senate to get the bill through.
As for severability, just remember that the final bill, which in fact was the Senate bill, was written with the help of insurance company lobbyists to benefit insurance companies. Severability was deliberately written OUT of the Senate bill because the insurance companies didn't want the bill if the mandate was struck down. I'll bet they're scared to death that the Supremes might uphold the rest of it.
And mark my words, THAT's the reason for all the fuss. Otherwise, they wouldn't care a hill of beans.
Anna, will you marry me? :)
I think that getting rid of the mandate would be the most-awesome-thing-ever-done-by-republicans!
By which I mean, cutting off their own heads to spit their face. But still...that would be awesome, yeh?
Awesome. Seriously. ;-)
Anna Molly
First let me state that I don't like the mandate and can truthfully admit that there are not much in the way of cost competition to bring costs down in ACA.
However, if the mandate was ruled unconstitutional but the rest was upheld how do you pay for it?
Would you not have to add an additional pay roll type tax to pay for the ACA? Otherwise it becomes a huge deficit generator.
Mark,
If the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the insurance industry dies a quick and painful death.
Low-risks will opt not to buy insurance (why bother, they never see the doctor anyways!), and high-risks will jump into that pot faster than you can say 'bankruptcy'.
The insurance companeis are still legally bound to provide insurance, they cannot adjust their rates without oversight board approval, and the low-risk payers which they needed to offset their high-risk losses won't be their customers.
The insurance industry would die.
Besides. Thanks to Mr. Norquist, over 50% of the house of representatives won't raise taxes 'no matter what' :)
Brianb-999431
so why did Romney suggest to Obama to copy RomneyCare???
Anna Molly
I will agree with you only if they can substitute it with a contract that whoever chooses not to have health insurance will deed their homes, cars, savings accounts, 401K or whatever they have of value when unable to pay their medical bills.
I choose not to pay for the deadbeats that rack up medical bills and then stick those who do have it with higher premiums, and the state (aka taxpayer) with their unpaid bills.
It's like the lady in FL who hopped on the lawsuit wagon (she feels she should not be forced to pay for insurance) just to find out that she filed for bankrupcy and had thousands in unpaid medical bills.
Eh, don't sweat it. The Supreme Court will break 8-1 in favor of the bill. It is constitutional.
Then we'll be able to look at the republicans, shake our heads in sorrow, and try to get them educated on the bill instead of parroting fox news points.
Yellowdog -- that's exactly why they don't want the bill if the mandate fails.
One might also argue that the insurance companies only agreed to the mandate disingenuously, because they figured that if there was going to be some kind of reform, they wanted it to be private sector reform and not a public option, or even worse, single payer. They had to know there would be challenges on that basis, which could blow up the entire bill. They could look like they were for it, but were actually against it. And they made sure the severability provision was not in the Senate bill as their safety valve.
bayllie -- Don't jump to conclusions. Believe it or not, I'm opposed to the mandate.
But you already pay for those "deadbeats" through higher-priced emergency room care, and you pretend you don't know it because of your own apparent bias in favor of the private health insurance industry.
And that's where I get off this boat.
What bothers me is how the insurance companies manipulated this whole thing, as discussed in my post above, so that they would win whichever way it comes out -- except if the mandate goes and the rest remains.
And that's the ONLY reason they care. Why else would they be fighting so hard against a bill they helped to write?
Anna Molly
I know you're not. I just "used" you to throw it out there :)
Anna Molly,
I just reread your post and relized that I pi$$ed you of which was never my intention. I guess that's the beauty of a written word - does not show one's the emotion. I am not for private health insurance. It's think they make money by deciding what coverages to deny - and that to me it despicable. I don't think a CEO should make tens of millions of dollars a year while a kid (and an adult) is denied a coverage.
I also have to make sure that I put this out there: when I say "deadbeats" I mean those who can afford insurance but choose not to. The cost is passed on the rest of us and many of us have a hard time paying for co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pockets. And that's not fair.
I really enjoy your post, Anna Molly, and sorry for making it sound like I was picking on you.
TO: Brianb-999431 who wrote:
What's REALLY a travesty to this country is the level of ignorance of some people.
Obama / Biden 2012
you must be a socilist/communist implant that wants to undermine our freedoms and liberties under the constitution.
John--read the constitution, even you have a right to be a socialist,communist or crypto nazi. This is still America.
John-
So you think calling people after those guys in the USSR who murdered millions through genocide, misguidance, and forced economic programs is actually helpful??? You are just like the rest of the GOP; resorting to name-calling when you find that you're trapped in a corner. Tell me how can a government that forces you to buy insurance when you get a car cannot tell people that they must get health insurance in order to stop moochers from sucking at the teats of the healthcare industry???? Why is it bad??? Obamacare, in my opinion, doesn't go far enough and the ONLY people who should oppose it are diehard libertarians and liberals who want socialized medicine (like me), as this plan is private-sector based. Most industrialized countries have what you call "socialized medicine," and their systems are much more efficient and their life expectancy is much longer than ours. Say what you want, but that doesn't change the fact that Obamacare is a blessing to this nation.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
PS The only thing I find bad about taking away pre-conditions is that it forces companies to cover sick people and raise premiums. But then again, the benefits can override the costs...
OBAMACARE LEGAL 2012
Uh, hem. This article is about Romney trying to pivot on health care.
Where is the discussion on this most outrageous of all the lies he tells? I am blown away that Teapublicans clap and cheer for Romney when he resorts to red meat (hyperbole, fear-mongering, lies) about the Affordable Care Act.
We've always known most are low-information voters who live in the right-wing bubble of FOX Noise and Hate Radio. But it can't be possible to be THAT stupid. Do Teapublicans really believe Romney hates "Obamacare," really?!
And the biggest irony of all are recent reports showing health care costs in Massachusetts has dropped and are lower compared to the rest of the nation. In other words, Romneycare has been successful!
Sure, the courts will have to rule on the constitutionality of the mandate. Why? Because health care will still be provided by the private sector, thus a "commerce" issue. If we had Medicare for all, we wouldn't have this problem -- or all the other problems for that matter (for-profit gouging, religious institutions complaining, employers having to dedicate resources to it, etc.).
What's silly about the comparison to auto insurance is the FACT that most of the United States is rural, and most urban areas in the United States west of New York/Chicago have freeway systems rather than public transportation. Add to that many job requirements of needing a vehicle, and the claim that folks don't have to drive is a friggin' joke. No, people, most Americans MUST have auto insurance to exist, and that's the truth and you know it.
Carry on...
Brian B. Sounds like you are making a constitutional/legal argument and you are entitled to that. What do you think about the underlying economics to the plan? I was watching a CNN special last night on the Swiss healthcare system....which went into effect 20 years ago. It is remarkably like Obamacare with a mandate via private insurers. It's one of the more expensive healthcare systems in Europe, but about 2/3rds the cost on a per capita basis of the current U.S. system. Additionally, the system is not based on employers buying insurance. Everyone buys their own. The poor get subsidies. The Swiss love it. Our current system (without Obamacare) is unsustainable. Romney can get rid off Obamacare but I can assure 10 years from now, you will be clamoring for the public option. Be careful what you wish for.
B707,
Thanks for making those points.
Actually there is little Romney or any Republican President in 2013 or 2014 can do to repeal the ACA. It will require 60 votes in the Senate for cloture to get a bill to the floor for a vote. Republicans will not gain enough Senate seats and even with DINO’s they will not get 60 votes. The President could give wavers as long as they do not under-mind the law itself.
As a budgetary issue it would only take 50 votes to defund it but if the SCOTUS upholds the ACA then the POTUS would be required by the constitution to enforce the law.
This would not be like DOMA where it has not been ruled to be constitutional so the POTUS is not required to defend it. If DOMA gets to SCOTUS and is found to be constitutional then the POTUS would be required to uphold the law.
Good Questions - why IS Romney povoting on this? It is modeled after his bill - so is he pivoting to garner votes from Republicans that are opposed to the bill?
What happens to workers who have the option for employer sponsored healthcare, but the employee contribution to the premium is not affordable based on low hourly wages? How does the ACA address that group?
If they meet the income requirements they can apply for insurance through the pool.
Mitt, "etch a sketch" moment won't happen on this issue. Better look for something else to erase Romney Care from our memories. We love ObamaCare.
Obama/Biden 2013
The GOP, of course, would be absolutely beside themselves if any of the above were to take place.
Ha you bet Mitt pivots, if he had ice skates on they would be naming some new moves after him. Oh look a that! An inside out triple Mitt, with a full twisting sommersault and he made it look easy!
Thank you, Forrest Grump, for the humor. My own comment further down reflected my annoyance at Romney and a bit of frustration at the media which seems incapable of calling a lie, a lie.
A mackeral out of water would have to admire Mitt s flipping and flopping!
So if your left foot is amputated by mistake, they won't charge you for amputating the right foot and now you won't have a nasty limp! Just don't try to sue...
There's another Hokey Pokey joke in here somewhere.
Just remember to keep your receipt when you bring the left foot back to Walmart...
It is not a pivot.
It is a Lie. It is a Lie.
Frustrating, just about everything Romney says is a lie.
You know something Mr. Etch-a-Sketch Romney, your outrageous lies and pompous arrogance are annoying. No wonder the GOP keeps looking for anyone but Mitt. He is a serial liar who has no core, no inner soul, no one knows what he really stands for, what his real policies are. He's told so many lies I doubt that even he doesn't recognizes himself in the mirror.
Oops, couldn't get edit to work. That should be: I doubt that even he recognizes himself in the mirror.
He is a pathological "Etch O Sketcher"!
Is that much different than a pathological "Lego builder?"
Lego my Eggo.
It's not an Eggo it's a person.
Chuck, Fellas -
Why can't ANYONE point out that there is another pretty good reason ObamaCare polls badly (in addition to the WH's piss-poor messaging; The people who would most benefit from the policy are not being proportionally reflected in these polls. I don't want my insurance to change at all - because I HAVE insurance, however still strongly support the concept that we all need to pay in to take care of everyone. When these polls are taken, do you honestly think people want to mess with their own insurance when they're covered? You combine that with being outspent in swing states on opposition advertising by 2 to 1 (fear mongering), No wonder it polls so badly. I read most of the support ads are up in dem leaning states anyhow. (wasted resources).
We ALL pay anyway when these folks go into ER's. Yes the policy needs some tidying up to be sure - but it's asinine for anyone to WIN an argument for not insuring everyone with a mandate for everyone to have a responsibility to pay in. It's a Nixon idea anyhow for Pete's sake!
The fact we dems can lose this messaging is embarrassing. They need to grow a pair and lean hard into this issue ESPECIALLY if Romney is the nominee. If they need a middle class, articulate consultant on this have them contact me!
Achilles
I have never understood how the 'repeal the AFA' supporters have traction with the poor, the uninsured.
Louisiana is one of the poorest states with increasing more folks that are uninsured...they do get sick, age or have accidents that force them to seek medical care in an ER.
The ER by Law, must stabilize/treat anyone regardless of their ability to pay...and guess what, the bill (for the uninsured) is passed on to the insured incrementally.
Ignorance must truly be blissful.
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/statehealthreform/louisiana.html
What are they going to do about the $ millions given to seniors as part of the Medicare part D fix in the ACA if they repeal the ACA ?
Romney is playing a huge game of golf where he moves from one lie to the next, but never in a fair way.
People who have not read the law are the ones to make most of the criticism. They listen to some blabbermouth on the radio or tv and not think for themselves. The law isn't perfect, what law is? It is a step in the right direction and amendable. Rather than scrapping the whole thing perhaps they should look at keeping things people like and scrap what they don't. Of course for the GOP/TP bunch that is the whole thing because it helps poor and middle class and doesn't line the pockets of their greedy rich insurance company buddies.
Most of the law doesn't go into affect until 2014 so give it a chance already.
President Obama did a poor job selling the law and so many have the wrong ideas of what it is and what it isn't so he is partly to blame for his opponents having ammunition, true or not, to spread what they want about it.
By all accounts Romneycare has been pretty successful. I must not have been paying attention when he held the big celebration on its anniversary.
The biggest problem to fix isn't the mandate. It is the single payer solution that needs to be added. Too bad this bill started out compromised from the start. I laugh everytime I see posts that people assume the Republicans really want to repeal this cash cow for the insurance industry. Millions of new clients to suck dry and the Republicans want to repeal it? LOL. They are only interested in gutting the portions that save you money and make insurance more affordable. They could care less cause they don't have this healthcare. We will see where this issue goes this next week when the Supreme Court starts the hearings on this.
This LAW is just something the GOP wants to use to try to get back into power. While there may be 1% who really care about the issue, the fact is that the majority of people who are decrying the law have not read it or know what its effects will be.
Like abortion, birth control, environmental protection of endangered species, and just about everything else which has ever had a law written about it, there rarely is 100% approval of what is passed until the law takes effect and people get the advantages of the law instead of the scare tactics from the opponents.
By the time the ACA goes into full effect in 2018, President Obama will have been out of office for two years and most of the positive effects of the law will have been in place for four years. At that time, if there are parts of the law needing adjustment, they can be done.
IMHO, we should have gone to a single payer system, eliminating the private health insurance industry as anything other than a supplement to a universal coverage system. It would have saved the country the 20% of the $15TRILLION paid by the insurance industry each year. A $ trillion here, a $trillion there, pretty soon we're saving some real money.
Giving up our freedom and going to a pure socialist health care system will save money? Are you delusional?
The government cant run anything efficiently.
So why did "socialism" work so well for Romney, bob from the "Probe Me" state?
So tell us how Rush Limbaugh thinks that probing women is celebrating their freedom, bob. How is the ACA socialism and what kind of socialism is it, bob? How does fixing the "donut hole" and bringing down prescription drug costs for seniors violate your "freedom" bob?
ANYONE pushing the christo-fascist sexual deviant Bob McDonnell for VP revokes their right to intelligently discuss either freedom or healthcare.
Bob, do you think Canadians have no freedom because they have universal health care? I don't think you could find many Canadians who think that. Personally, I would rather have "freedom from fear of Medical bankruptcy" than "freedom to be denied coverage by my insurance company". Isn't that what we are talking about, here?
What they say simply doesn’t mean anything as that is just the con. What they do really matters and their history clearly tells what they do.
These are just some of the deceptions, without elaboration, assuming their stubborn and arrogant focus on benefit for “the few” (1%) while insultingly taking the majority (99%) for granted will be remembered. Remember: the multiple tax cuts heavily weighted for the wealthy; Global Warming stated as not a problem; private accounts recommended for Social Security; the actual minimized/ignored warnings before 9/11 while concentrating on Iraq; trumped up justification for attacking Iraq; abandoned effort in Afghanistan; Afghanistan presented as secure; the false coalition with America paying 95%+; Iraqi oil money never paying for the war as was proposed; executive pressures put on the intelligence community to create justification; including the authorized departure from Geneva Convention rules; frequent misrepresentations to manipulate public opinion; no bid contracts ($100B’s) to favored vendors; responsibility for port security offered to Dubai Ports; the always excusing the growing deficit and unfavorable trade deficit; the apathetic reaction to the hurricane Katrina aftermath; blocking bringing less costly American drugs back into the US; vengefully exposing the CIA agent's identity; squelching the “wiretapping without court order” story; falsely raising the security threat level before 2004 election; the excessive deregulation and the lack of any responsible oversight, favoring the few and resulting in unchecked greed, gross dishonesty and criminal self-indulgence eventually bringing down the financial industry; encouraging the exportation of American jobs and taxes; the sociopathic GWBush falsely presented as a “born again Christian”; ... and then after Bush-Cheney: the Republican’s continual belligerent concentration on their political ambitions; stubbornly obstructing and faulting all efforts to address problems; irresponsibly withholding any bipartisan cooperation; implementing, directing and financing the Tea Party movement with their constant screams for “more”; the ‘Swift-boat” propaganda and the manipulation of the Christian block, all aimed to deceptively excite and sway public opinion; their insultingly offering several “puppet” candidates ready to perform as their “strings are pulled”; Cheney’s, Rove’s, Norquist’s, SuperPacs and other groups, using “the few’s” unlimited funds to first, coerce and intimidate their own to insure strict unity, and second, to con the people and manipulate public opinion ... on and on, without any conscience, with complete disregard for responsibility and always aimed to just benefit “the few”, their supporters and controllers, while insultingly just taking the people for granted.
It is said the current Republican / Tea Party is owned and controlled by “the money” and that they are now incapable of honestly and responsibly governing; the last twelve years have clearly substantiated that. To get the Grande Ole Party back, once again with a sincere concern for the people, the stranglehold “the money” has on them has to be broken. The only way to accomplish that is to firmly and totally reject their “puppet” politicians.
Repeal and replaced it with what mitt? You are an empty suit with an empty head. You'll have to seek another way to get to "god" status, because you'll never become president of the USA. For all of you tauting romney's business sense - he hasn't be the private sector since 1998 and hasn't been in the public sector since 2007. He's been running for president since 2007.
This will truly be an election between the 1% vs the 99%!
Mitt Romney's position on health care is blatantly hypocritical. He has no credibility on this issue at all because he is so vociferously decrying the very same policies he once supported. But here's the thing: that makes the distance between Romney and the rest of the Republican party on this issue exactly zero.
The AHCA was a conservative bill. It was based on conservative ideas. It would have been championed in much the same form by a Republican president. But once Obama made it his signature agenda item, they turned to demonizing and opposing their own ideas with an aggressive propaganda machine running on lies and mischaracterizations.
Newt Gingrich has no credibility on this issue. Rick Santorum has no credibility on this issue. They are all one and the same, taking the tack of political convenience. There isn't a single ideological leg to stand on between the three of them when it comes to health care reform, and that is why this issue is such a loser for them.
Romney hasn't backed off of his Romneycare plan for MA. Quite the contrary. He's proud of the accomplishment, and you're right, it was once considered to be a conservative bill. Romney is still very much in favor of solutions like Romneycare on the state level. That's the difference. Romney wants to avoid all of the very real disadvantages of a national program like Obamacare with its central control, massive new bureaucracies, increased taxes and costs by enabling the states to set up their own programs, which may or may not look like Romneycare depending on what the individual states want to do. Romney has proposals for dealing with pre-existing conditions, portability of insurance, allowing individuals to receive the same tax breaks employers receive for providing health insurance to encourage and help folks that don't receive insurance from work to buy insurance, and allowing folks to buy insurance across state lines to foster competition among insurance companies. See today's (or maybe it was yesterday) op-ed is USA today where Romney talks about his plan for an alternative to Obamacare.
It seems odd that such an esteemed businessman as Mitt Romney would not understand how economics of scale work. Or that he used to understand (see his pre-Obamacare op-ed on the topic), but lost that knowledge as soon as he started running for president.
He's not been able to articulate any coherent reason for disliking Obamacare other than it being a national plan rather than a state plan. But the law actually allows states to receive waivers if they can demonstrate that they have their own comparable or superior health care system, so there's really not even room for a cogent attack on that basis.
That doesn't matter to many people. The vast majority of attacks from the right against health care reform have depended on pushing inaccurate depictions of the law.
The Mex. Republican Corporate Puppet doesn't know a damn thing about healthcare! All he knows is what his corporate buddies want and that is to put the load on the American People so corporate can steal more from them! You know, the SAME people that made these corporates successful! But, they still want more GREED! It's time for them to give back, not take anymore, because right now there is no more for the American People to give! They broke us! And, still want MORE!!!
Massachusetts was one of just four states that by the time of the financial crisis still had not recovered all the jobs they had lost during the 2001 recession. And, as Romney’s opponents have pointed out, the state ranked 47th in job creation during his term.
But Andrew Sum, a professor of economics at Northeastern University, says the unemployment rate fell only because people were leaving the workforce in droves during Romney’s term. Just one state had a bigger drop in its labor force during the same period, according to Sum — that was Louisiana, which was hit by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
“There was not one measure where the state did well under his term in office. We were below average and often near the bottom,” said Sum, who is also the director of Northeastern’s Center for Labor Market Studies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-massachusetts-governor-romneys-record-on-jobs-was-unremarkable/2012/02/06/gIQABzEfxQ_story.html
Romney is gonna make me puke.
I was talking to a fellow Church member and amazingly, this is what he said to me.
“My current unpaid Emergency room bill stands at $150,000.00, and you know what, I have continued to use the emergency room for treatment any time I fall ill. The law prevents them from refusing to treat me.
Each time I fall sick, the only option I have is to go to the emergency room because I do not have a family doctor, which would be obviously cheaper. This is because I have no healthcare coverage.
It is 20 times expensive to go to the emergency room than to visit a personal doctor but it is the only option I have any time I fall sick.
Each time I visit an emergency room, my bill is in the rage of $2000.00 but I have never been able to pay and I do not intend to pay because it no longer makes no difference to my credit standing.
Emergency room bills have already spoiled my credit so what is the point of paying even a dime each time I visit?
I still have to visit emergency room anyway each time I fall ill. The amount I owe so far is $150,000 but it is good that I do not have any mandate to pay any insurance but I still have to visit the emergency room because the current law prevents them from not treating me.
There are currently millions of Americans like me who do not have healthcare and the only option they have each time they fall sick is to visit emergency room. Their credits scores have already been messed up by huge hospital bills so why should they fear visiting emergency room due to high bills.
Currently, the amount millions of people like me owe to the emergency room which they will never pay runs into billions of dollars which is paid by taxpayers through the government.
What Republicans are referring to as Obama care is nicely structured to take care of this problem. This means that someone like me who is currently using emergency room but paying nothing will be required to contribute at least some little healthcare premium every month. Other millions like me will no longer burden the emergency room with huge bills, which they cannot pay and are to be shouldered by taxpayers. When I pay my share and other millions like me pay their share, these huge billions of emergency room bills will be lifted off the tax-payers shoulders because my monthly premium and the monthly premiums of others like me will absorb it before it spread to the tax-payers."
Republicans are blinded with politics and are refusing to see the benefits of health care reform. Healthcare reform is very beneficial for the country and need to be supported by every right thinking American.
Nope. Republicans, like Romney, are very aware of the very issues you mention, and they do have a plan. Romney wants to enable individual states to set up their own "Romneycare" systems (or whatever plan the choose to implement), along with tweaks to the tax code to make buying insurance easier for those that can't get it through work, by allowing folks to purchase health care across state lines (opening up huge markets and competition among insurers), making sure insurance is portable, and also dealing with pre-existing conditions. See today's (or it might have been yesterday) op-ed by Romney in USA Today. We can solve the healthcare issues without creating the massive new federal bureaucracies, new taxes, and massive increased costs related to Obamacare.
Leave it up to the states? Are you kidding me? Crazy governors like Perry could cut off low income women's health care. State legislatures demanding vaginal probes. On and on......NO! We need a federal plan which guarantees equal access without these whacko states either mandating or denying patients' health care. And from an economic standpoint? You could have the best or worst governor and/or legislative body but each has budgetary challenges unique only to that state. For instance, some may need better public works due to climate, others more social services due to elderly population, etc.
Can you imagine the nightmare if each state had its own Medicare? NO THANK YOU! Changing every couple of years?
Good grief. All these overweight white guys "serving" in Congress, retire with Cadillac (my wife drives two) taxpayer paid health insurance and all kinds of benefits. Like they know a rat's butt about fixing health care. And wanting to slash Medicare and Medicaid.
Bush started wars that went on for at least a decade and didn't figure it into the federal budget. Now the Republicans are going after Medicare, screaming "deficit!"
There is a deficit alright. It's mental deficiency in the GOP.
How is this a pivot? It's the same stuff Romney has been saying for eons. Romney has a plan to encourage states to set up their own systems that may or may not look like Romneycare. Far better to do this on the state level, for a host of reasons. Romney has not backed off of his accomplishment in MA, and he actually wants to fix this health insurance issue without creating massive new federal bureaucracies, increased taxes, and reduced personal and religious freedoms by enabling individual states to do what MA did. Romney has been extremely consistent on this issue, and is not "pivoting" at all.
CalGTR- Speaking of SuperPacs, are you by any chance getting paid to describe Romney as "extremely consistent?"
I'm no more a part of Romney's campaign than you are. And I only referred to "extremely consistent" with respect to Romney on the subject of healthcare. I do happen to think he has a lot of good ideas, but my point in my post is that his op-ed today is not a pivot - it's what he's been saying for quite some time now. He still believes they did the right thing with Masscare (as the Romney people call it). I live in New Hampshire, so I've been hearing about these issues regarding Romney for a long time since we share the media market with MA.
As for another post of yours, we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether healthcare is best solved with a massive federal program or by the individual states with some help from Washington to ensure portability, freer markets, pre-existing condition issues, and changes to the tax code to make things more fair for those that don't get their insurance through their employer. Think on this: Romneycare (or Masscare, depending on what you want to call it) was a bill 70 pages long. Obamacare is better than 2000 pages long. There are reasons for that. First, Obamacare is not simply Romneycare on the national level. Obamacare has a ton of differences. The mere act of taking a state plan and trying to scale it up to the national level automatically means huge amounts of complexities and bureaucracies, rule-making, taxes, and so forth and so on. It's a monster power grab by the federal government, and many of us don't think it's a good idea. States are well suited to assess their own situations and to solve their own healthcare needs, and the federal government can encourage and support those efforts. It's like the national highway system - the federal government of course plays a role, but funds are provided to individual states and the states are left to build and maintain the highways.