Romneycare 2006

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58,[1][2], informally referred to as Romneycare, enacted in 2006, mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL).[3]

OK. So Romneycare mandates that nearly every resident of MA has to some minimum level of health insurance.

"MANDATE" is the key word.

So I'm confused on why a health care mandate is such a big issue between Democrats and Republicans.

How is it that the best candidate that the Republicans can put forward is a guy who passed legislation in his state MANDATING health insurance for nearly all residents of the state and yet complain about the current president for doing the same thing? Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

What happened to the Tea Party and "Don't Tread on Me"?

Someone enlighten my admittedly small pea-brain, please, because I want to vote for someone who believes that every citizen should have liberty and freedom.

If there was ever a time to vote for a third party candidate this might be it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'm not a Romney fan at all for a lot of reasons including the one you address, but I truly don't care what individual states decide is best for their citizens. A guy can move from state to state with relative ease and find the one that best resembles their own utopia. That's the nice part of this system that intended to vest the bulk of the power to those states so they could best represent the will of their populace and limit the powers of the central body as to protect that ideal. Obviously, the difference between a mandate at the state level versus one at the federal level, to me, is rather significant for that reason.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by highnote

OK. So Romneycare mandates that nearly every resident of MA has to some minimum level of health insurance.

"MANDATE" is the key word.

So I'm confused on why a health care mandate is such a big issue between Democrats and Republicans.

How is it that the best candidate that the Republicans can put forward is a guy who passed legislation in his state MANDATING health insurance for nearly all residents of the state and yet complain about the current president for doing the same thing? Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

What happened to the Tea Party and "Don't Tread on Me"?

Someone enlighten my admittedly small pea-brain, please, because I want to vote for someone who believes that every citizen should have liberty and freedom.

If there was ever a time to vote for a third party candidate this might be it.

there is hardly any difference between the two parties, neither one of them deserve a vote.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I'm not a Romney fan at all for a lot of reasons including the one you address, but I truly don't care what individual states decide is best for their citizens. A guy can move from state to state with relative ease and find the one that best resembles their own utopia. That's the nice part of this system that intended to vest the bulk of the power to those states so they could best represent the will of their populace and limit the powers of the central body as to protect that ideal. Obviously, the difference between a mandate at the state level versus one at the federal level, to me, is rather significant for that reason.

That's a good point about being able to move from state to state. However, you and I know the reality is that it is not always easy or possible to move.

The difference between the state and federal mandate is significant, however, there is one thing a politician will always do -- shove their policies down everyone's throats. Given the chance, I believe Romney would have shoved a federal mandate down our throats the same way Obama did.

By the way, thanks for moving this post. How the hell did I post it under "racing".

[Steve 'StatMan']

Well, i thought they were asking for trouble in Mass with the plan, and if Romney was or were to try raming a costly, bad bill with a bad, troubling mandate, I'll would be arguing against it as well.

Having posted that, this is clearly not a one-issue election.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I'm not a Romney fan at all for a lot of reasons including the one you address, but I truly don't care what individual states decide is best for their citizens. A guy can move from state to state with relative ease and find the one that best resembles their own utopia. That's the nice part of this system that intended to vest the bulk of the power to those states so they could best represent the will of their populace and limit the powers of the central body as to protect that ideal. Obviously, the difference between a mandate at the state level versus one at the federal level, to me, is rather significant for that reason.

A guy can move from state to state with relative ease, because jobs are so easy to come by and uprooting a family with children every time your state passes a law you don't like is such a great idea. Leave Massachusetts this year and move to New York because you don't like the Ma. healthcare system. The leave New York when the approve Gay marriage. Go to Illinois, but wait a minute taxes are too high in Illinois. Get out of there.

Moving is difficult. It costs money. Selling a house is next to impossible these days. You don't normally say stupid things, but......

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Steve 'StatMan'

Having posted that, this is clearly not a one-issue election.

Maybe not, but it might be the biggest issue!

I'm perfectly happy with my health care plan compared to the one I can get under the ACA. The ACA plan will at least double my costs and maybe increase my costs 2 1/2 times.

I can't think of any other issue in my lifetime that has caused this big of an increase in one expense.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by highnote

OK. So Romneycare mandates that nearly every resident of MA has to some minimum level of health insurance.

"MANDATE" is the key word.

So I'm confused on why a health care mandate is such a big issue between Democrats and Republicans.

How is it that the best candidate that the Republicans can put forward is a guy who passed legislation in his state MANDATING health insurance for nearly all residents of the state and yet complain about the current president for doing the same thing? Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

What happened to the Tea Party and "Don't Tread on Me"?

Someone enlighten my admittedly small pea-brain, please, because I want to vote for someone who believes that every citizen should have liberty and freedom.

If there was ever a time to vote for a third party candidate this might be it.

You are making the mistake of thinking this is about the mandate. The mandate is merely the tool to attack Obama. If Obama said he loved Santa Claus the Republicans would attack Santa Claus.

The mandate worked in Massachusetts. It will work in the United States as a whole. But it is Obama's mandate and therefore the Republicans hate it.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by mostpost

You are making the mistake of thinking this is about the mandate. The mandate is merely the tool to attack Obama. If Obama said he loved Santa Claus the Republicans would attack Santa Claus.

The mandate worked in Massachusetts. It will work in the United States as a whole. But it is Obama's mandate and therefore the Republicans hate it.

It is about the mandate and Romneycare is mandated in MA. That is a just a fact. Whether it works or not is debatable. What isn't debatable is that Romney forced a mandate on the people of MA.

If he did it there what makes anyone think he will not do it nationwide?

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by highnote

Maybe not, but it might be the biggest issue!

I'm perfectly happy with my health care plan compared to the one I can get under the ACA. The ACA plan will at least double my costs and maybe increase my costs 2 1/2 times.

I can't think of any other issue in my lifetime that has caused this big of an increase in one expense.

How do you know this? Where did you get your information from? If you tell me it is from something you read online, I will tell you to get better information. Until you get a bill or notification from your insurance company, you do not know if there will be an increase. Since full implementation of the program will not occur for several years, no one knows what will really happen.

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by mostpost

A guy can move from state to state with relative ease, because jobs are so easy to come by and uprooting a family with children every time your state passes a law you don't like is such a great idea. Leave Massachusetts this year and move to New York because you don't like the Ma. healthcare system. The leave New York when the approve Gay marriage. Go to Illinois, but wait a minute taxes are too high in Illinois. Get out of there.

Moving is difficult. It costs money. Selling a house is next to impossible these days. You don't normally say stupid things, but......

You do realize you made one hell of an argument to get rid of Obama...right?

[highnote]

Originally Posted by mostpost

How do you know this? Where did you get your information from? If you tell me it is from something you read online, I will tell you to get better information. Until you get a bill or notification from your insurance company, you do not know if there will be an increase. Since full implementation of the program will not occur for several years, no one knows what will really happen.

You bring up an excellent point. One of the big problems is that no one knows! Our current admin is doing a great job keeping everyone in the dark.

Now, I've read that the cost will be between 10-12 thousand dollars per year for a family of four. That is more than double what I pay now. I would have read that in a column at Yahoo news. I can try to find it, but it isn't necessary. I memorized the numbers because that is the bottom line for me ---- the cost.

Found this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...average-family

And as I said, this will more than double my monthly cost for health insurance.

NY Times said families may have to pay 15% to 18% of income on insurance and co-pays. CO-PAYS? We have to have insurance and then we have to CO-PAY on top of that! My current insurance is much better.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by highnote

You bring up an excellent point. One of the big problems is that no one knows! Our current admin is doing a great job keeping everyone in the dark.

Now, I've read that the cost will be between 10-12 thousand dollars per year for a family of four. That is more than double what I pay now. I would have read that in a column at Yahoo news. I can try to find it, but it isn't necessary. I memorized the numbers because that is the bottom line for me ---- the cost.

Found this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...average-family

And as I said, this will more than double my monthly cost for health insurance.

NY Times said families may have to pay 15% to 18% of income on insurance and co-pays. CO-PAYS? We have to have insurance and then we have to CO-PAY on top of that! My current insurance is much better.

Here is a paragraph from the Hill article.

* If your household income is $66,000 a year, slightly above the national average, Obama’s healthcare bill will require you to spend 12 percent of your income — about $8,000 a year or almost $700 a month — to buy health insurance before you get any federal subsidy. * Even those making less will have to reach deep into their meager resources to satisfy Obama’s statutory requirement. Families scraping by on only $44,0000 a year will have to pay 7 percent of their income (about $3,000) on insurance.

Tell me how you interpret it. I'll read your response in the morning.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Here is a paragraph from the Hill article.

Tell me how you interpret it. I'll read your response in the morning.

That is exactly the sentence I was using. Using the info in this paragraph I estimate that my health insurance costs will more than double.

I was pissed when my insurance company raised its rate 10%. Now my rates will increase over 100%!

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by mostpost

A guy can move from state to state with relative ease, because jobs are so easy to come by and uprooting a family with children every time your state passes a law you don't like is such a great idea. Leave Massachusetts this year and move to New York because you don't like the Ma. healthcare system. The leave New York when the approve Gay marriage. Go to Illinois, but wait a minute taxes are too high in Illinois. Get out of there.

Moving is difficult. It costs money. Selling a house is next to impossible these days. You don't normally say stupid things, but......

I didn't say it was convenient, fun, or profitable. It is relativvely easy - you sell the home and move and find a new job. That's relatively easy, but a challenge nonetheless. People move every day to this very day because of what one state offers as opposed to another, often resulting from legislation. It is the beauty of having 50 states under one flag. For someone as "principled" as you, I wouldn't think you would find this concept so absurd.