Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

RomneyCare a Huge Asset for Romney: Proof Romney an Effective Bipartisan Leader

Posted by   + Show Post

Politico explored this in an Op-Ed and came to that conclusion:

Quote:
Since he orchestrated and then signed the Massachusetts health care law, Romney is uniquely qualified to lead the GOP attacks against the federal health care reform bill.

Why? He would be the first GOP nominee in nearly 50 years with a proven track record on health care who has been praised by Democrats — including the president — as fair and compassionate. He can’t be demonized as an out-of-touch, uncompassionate, hard-right ideologue on this issue.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1qJHywDW7

The writing has been on the wall for a very long time. Why, for instance, did Obama use Romneycare as a model for Obamacare? He wanted to make health care reform his legacy, so he adopted a conservative state model for reform. Obama's problem and Romney's asset: Obama adopted the Democrat-morphed version of Romneycare, NOT the simpler, more elegant original that Romney designed.


Indeed, Romney vetoed many of the liberal Dem provisions, yet his veto was overridden.


Compare the principle of "personal responsibility" between Obamacare and Romney's original idea for Romneycare:


Obamacare
:

Quote:
The confusion arises because of the administration’s argument that the power to enforce the individual mandate is rooted in Congress’ taxing power — but that the mechanism itself is designed to be a penalty, not a revenue-generating policy.

...


U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli used the phrase “tax penalty” multiple times to describe the individual mandate’s backstop. He portrayed the fee as a penalty by design, but one that functions as a tax because it’s collected through the tax code.
link to Fox News report


Romney's Original Plan:

Quote:
Furthermore, to allow people to go without health insurance, and then when they do fall ill expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney proposes to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: Either buy insurance or pay for your own care. Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.

But beyond that, the Romney administration got downright Libertarian in figuring how to make it work. Under Romney's plan anyone opting to not buy insurance would be required to deposit $10,000 in an (interest-bearing) escrow account with the state. If they didn't pay their medical bills, the providers stuck with their bad debts could apply for that money. But what if they won't buy insurance and refuse to put $10,000 in escrow with the state? The answer is that they aren't allowed to claim the personal exemption tax-break on their state income tax, and any tax refunds due them are deposited into the escrow account until the $10,000 limit is reached.
link to Heritage Foundation article

In this instance alone, there is a dramatic difference between Obamacare and Romney's plan as he originally designed Romneycare. Obamacare creates a tax penalty that is not designed to generate revenue to help curb the costs that Obamacare was meant to curb in the first place. Romney's state-level plan did the contrary, for those not buying coverage it revoked a tax break and routed those funds to a healthcare fund reserved to reimburse providers who did not get paid by the individual for healthcare services.

Now Romney intends to repeal Obamacare, as as the Politco article points out, Romney is the most qualified to do so. Romney was the Governor who passed Romneycare when Massachusetts citizens wanted it; Romney was the Governor who passed state healthcare reform with full bipartisan participation. Neither is the case with Obama and Obamacare.


Romney cared enough is Massachusetts to tackle healthcare reform and it is a major accomplishment that he, with the Dem majority, passed a conservative plan. Romney is the ideal candidate to speak with authority about the flaws of Obamacare; he would be ideal President to argue for its repeal!

by on Mar. 27, 2012 at 12:20 PM
Replies (41-50):
Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Apr. 15, 2012 at 7:49 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting Jambo4:


Quoting Meadowchik:


Quoting rachelrothchild:

Agreed.

This reminded me of what I've read when Romney took over managing the Olympics.  


“Mitt is a cheapskate,” says Bullock, who is now managing director of Sorenson Capital, a leveraged buyout firm. “He does not tolerate one iota of waste.”

The board members would hold lavish lunches for themselves. Romney said, “Well, our lunches are now going to be pizza, and it’s going to be a dollar a slice,” according to Bullock. “It saved us tens of thousands of dollars, and it was very symbolic, and people got the message to watch every penny.”

Romney cut back on frills for the games. He reduced the number of flags to be flown throughout the city and persuaded politicians to come up with funds to pay for some of the decorations.

Romney’s enthusiasm was infectious, driving the sales people to set an all-time record for Olympic sponsorships. Just as significant when it comes to a presidential run, Romney tamed the press.

“He’s very candid with reporters,” Bullock says. “He’s very articulate, and he created a philosophy of total transparency. We met with the media every Friday and told them here’s what’s going on.” 

At one point, Romney told the press, “Here are our top 10 mistakes,” Bullock says. “Kind of like David Letterman’s top 10 list.”

.....  Having faced a budget deficit of $379 million when he took over, Romney ended up with a surplus of $56 million. The money went to fund future Olympics.


Read more Olympics Spotlights Mitt Romney’s Turnaround Skill 

VERY cool details, thanks for posting!!!

"We have a moral responsibility to not spend more than we take in." -Mitt Romney 2012

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

Carpy
by Platinum Member on Apr. 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM

I disagree, however I THINK it will fall.  I don't FEEL it. 

Quoting matreshka:

The ACA is just like Romney care but at the federal level.  And I feel the Federal law will stand.

Quoting Mamawto4:

I have always felt that Romney was the worst nominee to fight against Obamacare.  But this is an interesting point of view, that I never thought about.

I think it pretty much will come down to whether Romney can "make the case".  That is, can he get this message across, while Obama will surely be arguing that Obamacare is nearly identical to Romneycare, which is the prevailing thought at the moment.



Carpy
by Platinum Member on Apr. 15, 2012 at 8:54 AM
1 mom liked this

If you cut federal, it will give states the opportunity to increase their own funding.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

So he's going to let the states figure it out ( which is how it is now ) but he's going to cut federal medicaid funding? I don't see how that will help people who can't afford health insurance.

Quoting Meadowchik:

Romney has plenty in mind for health care reform.

"In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state
the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own
citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by
creating a level playing field for competition. 


Restore State Leadership and Flexibility


Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge
of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor,
uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and
the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the
approaches best suited to their own citizens.


  • Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
  • Limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage
  • Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies
  • Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment
  • Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution

Promote Free Markets and Fair Competition


Competition drives improvements in efficiency and effectiveness,
offering consumers higher quality goods and services at lower cost.  It
can have the same effect in the health care system, if given the chance
to work.



  • Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
  • Empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools
  • Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage
  • Facilitate IT interoperability


Empower Consumer Choice


For markets to work, consumers must have the information and the
power to make decisions about their own care.  Placing the patient at
the center of the process will drive quality up and cost down while
ensuring that services are designed to provide what Americans actually
want.


  • End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance
  • Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines
  • Unshackle HSAs by allowing funds to be used for insurance premiums
  • Promote "co-insurance" products
  • Promote alternatives to "fee for service"
  • Encourage "Consumer Reports"-type ratings of alternative insurance plans"

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Does he have an alternative? I haven't heard that he does.



Quoting Meadowchik:

Repealing the ACA does not equate to "not having an alternative."

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 



Quoting jesusismyfriend:



Does anyone not realize that Romney has stated time and again that he does not think that the federal government should have a nationwide plan, he has stated that that should be left up to the individual states as to what type of health care plan they want.



 That's too bad.  I think it would help him in the general election if he had a good alternative to the ACA.




JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Apr. 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM

 Translation: States will have to raise their own taxes.  So how would the average person be any better off in that situation?  They are still paying the same amout of federal tax as they were, but now their state is having to raise taxes to make up for the medicaid cut.

Quoting Carpy:

If you cut federal, it will give states the opportunity to increase their own funding.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

So he's going to let the states figure it out ( which is how it is now ) but he's going to cut federal medicaid funding? I don't see how that will help people who can't afford health insurance.

Quoting Meadowchik:

Romney has plenty in mind for health care reform.

"In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state
the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own
citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by
creating a level playing field for competition. 


Restore State Leadership and Flexibility


Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge
of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor,
uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and
the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the
approaches best suited to their own citizens.


  • Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
  • Limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage
  • Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies
  • Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment
  • Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution

Promote Free Markets and Fair Competition


Competition drives improvements in efficiency and effectiveness,
offering consumers higher quality goods and services at lower cost.  It
can have the same effect in the health care system, if given the chance
to work.



  • Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
  • Empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools
  • Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage
  • Facilitate IT interoperability


Empower Consumer Choice


For markets to work, consumers must have the information and the
power to make decisions about their own care.  Placing the patient at
the center of the process will drive quality up and cost down while
ensuring that services are designed to provide what Americans actually
want.


  • End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance
  • Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines
  • Unshackle HSAs by allowing funds to be used for insurance premiums
  • Promote "co-insurance" products
  • Promote alternatives to "fee for service"
  • Encourage "Consumer Reports"-type ratings of alternative insurance plans"

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Does he have an alternative? I haven't heard that he does.



Quoting Meadowchik:

Repealing the ACA does not equate to "not having an alternative."

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 



Quoting jesusismyfriend:



Does anyone not realize that Romney has stated time and again that he does not think that the federal government should have a nationwide plan, he has stated that that should be left up to the individual states as to what type of health care plan they want.



 That's too bad.  I think it would help him in the general election if he had a good alternative to the ACA.



 

 

Sisteract
by Socialist Hippie on Apr. 15, 2012 at 2:01 PM


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 Translation: States will have to raise their own taxes.  So how would the average person be any better off in that situation?  They are still paying the same amout of federal tax as they were, but now their state is having to raise taxes to make up for the medicaid cut.

Quoting Carpy:

If you cut federal, it will give states the opportunity to increase their own funding.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

So he's going to let the states figure it out ( which is how it is now ) but he's going to cut federal medicaid funding? I don't see how that will help people who can't afford health insurance.

Quoting Meadowchik:

Romney has plenty in mind for health care reform.

"In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state
the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own
citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by
creating a level playing field for competition. 


Restore State Leadership and Flexibility


Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge
of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor,
uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and
the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the
approaches best suited to their own citizens.


  • Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
  • Limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage
  • Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies
  • Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment
  • Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution

Promote Free Markets and Fair Competition


Competition drives improvements in efficiency and effectiveness,
offering consumers higher quality goods and services at lower cost.  It
can have the same effect in the health care system, if given the chance
to work.



  • Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
  • Empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools
  • Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage
  • Facilitate IT interoperability


Empower Consumer Choice


For markets to work, consumers must have the information and the
power to make decisions about their own care.  Placing the patient at
the center of the process will drive quality up and cost down while
ensuring that services are designed to provide what Americans actually
want.


  • End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance
  • Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines
  • Unshackle HSAs by allowing funds to be used for insurance premiums
  • Promote "co-insurance" products
  • Promote alternatives to "fee for service"
  • Encourage "Consumer Reports"-type ratings of alternative insurance plans"

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Does he have an alternative? I haven't heard that he does.



Quoting Meadowchik:

Repealing the ACA does not equate to "not having an alternative."

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 



Quoting jesusismyfriend:



Does anyone not realize that Romney has stated time and again that he does not think that the federal government should have a nationwide plan, he has stated that that should be left up to the individual states as to what type of health care plan they want.



 That's too bad.  I think it would help him in the general election if he had a good alternative to the ACA.




 

IMO, the goal is not for the "average" person to get ahead. This is a problem with a consumer based economy....it relies on the middle class who put the money they earn back into circulation. The average person  (collectively) no longer has the means to buy. Fewer jobs, lower salaries, fewer dollars into the fragile economy, fewer small business that will succeed.....and the problem becomes a circle jerk; perpetuates itself.

The Corps (who are now people), those who are entiled to loopholes and are allowed to control legislation love this situation.

Average people, not so much-

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Apr. 15, 2012 at 5:37 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting Sisteract:


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 Translation: States will have to raise their own taxes.  So how would the average person be any better off in that situation?  They are still paying the same amout of federal tax as they were, but now their state is having to raise taxes to make up for the medicaid cut.

Quoting Carpy:

If you cut federal, it will give states the opportunity to increase their own funding.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

So he's going to let the states figure it out ( which is how it is now ) but he's going to cut federal medicaid funding? I don't see how that will help people who can't afford health insurance.

Quoting Meadowchik:

Romney has plenty in mind for health care reform.

"In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state
the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own
citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by
creating a level playing field for competition. 


Restore State Leadership and Flexibility


Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge
of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor,
uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and
the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the
approaches best suited to their own citizens.


  • Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
  • Limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage
  • Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies
  • Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment
  • Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution

Promote Free Markets and Fair Competition


Competition drives improvements in efficiency and effectiveness,
offering consumers higher quality goods and services at lower cost.  It
can have the same effect in the health care system, if given the chance
to work.



  • Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
  • Empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools
  • Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage
  • Facilitate IT interoperability


Empower Consumer Choice


For markets to work, consumers must have the information and the
power to make decisions about their own care.  Placing the patient at
the center of the process will drive quality up and cost down while
ensuring that services are designed to provide what Americans actually
want.


  • End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance
  • Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines
  • Unshackle HSAs by allowing funds to be used for insurance premiums
  • Promote "co-insurance" products
  • Promote alternatives to "fee for service"
  • Encourage "Consumer Reports"-type ratings of alternative insurance plans"

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Does he have an alternative? I haven't heard that he does.



Quoting Meadowchik:

Repealing the ACA does not equate to "not having an alternative."

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 



Quoting jesusismyfriend:



Does anyone not realize that Romney has stated time and again that he does not think that the federal government should have a nationwide plan, he has stated that that should be left up to the individual states as to what type of health care plan they want.



 That's too bad.  I think it would help him in the general election if he had a good alternative to the ACA.




 

IMO, the goal is not for the "average" person to get ahead. This is a problem with a consumer based economy....it relies on the middle class who put the money they earn back into circulation. The average person  (collectively) no longer has the means to buy. Fewer jobs, lower salaries, fewer dollars into the fragile economy, fewer small business that will succeed.....and the problem becomes a circle jerk; perpetuates itself.

The Corps (who are now people), those who are entiled to loopholes and are allowed to control legislation love this situation.

Average people, not so much-

Actually block-granting will send payments back to the states, and also help cut out the federal bureacracy costs.  I don't think people realize that it really IS possible for a government to be less centralized and for more local governments to be in charge of a greater majority of revenue: I've seen it, as I lived in Switzerland, where only 7 percent of total revenue was used by the national government, the majority of revenue used by local government, and people are more involved in their community polices, and there is a tremendous sense of responsibility there.  Similar things can occur on the state level, although I doubt with our military that we can scale down the federal share to 7 percent, but it can get better.  

"We have a moral responsibility to not spend more than we take in." -Mitt Romney 2012

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

imamomzilla
by on Apr. 18, 2012 at 10:33 AM

BUMP!

paperorplastic
by Silver Member on Apr. 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM

 Insurance is a private issue.  If you want to have it, you need to buy it.  It's not some government program.  Romneycare may work for Mass., but it would not work for every state.  What I don't understand is the fact we are free individuals here in America.  It should be our choice, and our obligation to decide if we purchase insurance or not.  Big government, and their programs have brain washed Americans.  I seriously don't think many even know what true freedom means anymore.  Sad:(

im23vaughn
by Bronze Member on Apr. 18, 2012 at 5:17 PM
1 mom liked this

I agree & I think if people choose not to get health insurance than doctors and hospitals should be able to choose not to treat them. You can't say healthcare should be a choice, but then give the hospitals no choice in treating you once you get sick.

Quoting paperorplastic:

 Insurance is a private issue.  If you want to have it, you need to buy it.  It's not some government program.  Romneycare may work for Mass., but it would not work for every state.  What I don't understand is the fact we are free individuals here in America.  It should be our choice, and our obligation to decide if we purchase insurance or not.  Big government, and their programs have brain washed Americans.  I seriously don't think many even know what true freedom means anymore.  Sad:(


Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Apr. 19, 2012 at 3:52 AM

Wow, im23vaughn, I didn't know you were a libertarian on healthcare!

:)

Quoting im23vaughn:

I agree & I think if people choose not to get health insurance than doctors and hospitals should be able to choose not to treat them. You can't say healthcare should be a choice, but then give the hospitals no choice in treating you once you get sick.

Quoting paperorplastic:

 Insurance is a private issue.  If you want to have it, you need to buy it.  It's not some government program.  Romneycare may work for Mass., but it would not work for every state.  What I don't understand is the fact we are free individuals here in America.  It should be our choice, and our obligation to decide if we purchase insurance or not.  Big government, and their programs have brain washed Americans.  I seriously don't think many even know what true freedom means anymore.  Sad:(



"We have a moral responsibility to not spend more than we take in." -Mitt Romney 2012

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN