Main reason: Romneycare is proof that Obamacare is not necessary. If a state can do it, then the federal government should not do it, but should, rather, target reform for existing federal hindrances to healthcare options in America.
America is in vital need of scaling back the federal government. Americans need to be more connected to their government. Obamacare with the 13,000 and growing pages of regulations is another unnecessary concentration of power directed at 300 million people:
"As far as Romneycare's implications on Romney's leadership, consider the differences between Obamacare, Romneycare as it was passed, and the bill Romney himself promoted:
The answer to the question: "Wasn't Romneycare exactly the same thing as Obamacare?" is, to quote Nancy Pelosi, "Are you serious?" The Massachusetts law contained an individual mandate, which states -- unlike the federal government -- are allowed to impose. But it did not consist of 2,700 pages of new regulations; 159 new boards and commissions; and more than $500 billion in new taxes (and counting); the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a rationing board whose decisions are unreviewable by the courts and practically untouchable by Congress itself; restrictions on religious liberty; Medicare cuts; affirmative action mandates for medical and dental schools; huge new authority over one-seventh of the U.S. economy for the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and open-ended regulations of the way doctors and others perform their jobs.
Beyond that, a glance at the history of Romneycare in Massachusetts shows that Romney's instincts and initiatives were for free-market reforms. An 85 percent Democratic legislature thwarted his best efforts, and a Democratic successor as governor twisted the law's trajectory dramatically.
Before Romney's time, Massachusetts had enacted a number of laws that made its health care system needlessly expensive. All policies offered in the state were required to cover expensive treatments such as substance abuse counseling and infertility. In 1996, the state passed a law requiring "guaranteed issue" and "community rating" -- meaning people could wait until they got sick to purchase health insurance. Naturally, rates skyrocketed. In addition, a 1986 federal law required hospital emergency rooms to treat all patients, regardless of ability to pay.
Romney's idea was to permit Massachusetts insurers to sell catastrophic plans. As Avik Roy explained in Forbes, "Shorn of the costly mandates and restrictions originating in earlier state laws, these plans, called 'Commonwealth Care Basic,' could cost much less. Romney also proposed merging the non-group and small-group markets, so as to give individuals access to the more cost-effective plans available to small businesses." Romney's plan would also have involved a degree of cost sharing so that those receiving subsidies would have an incentive to minimize their consumption.
Romney agreed to the mandate, believing that Massachusetts citizens would get the opportunity to purchase inexpensive, catastrophic plans. But the legislature, together with Romney's successor as governor, Deval Patrick, changed the law to require insurers to offer three tiers of coverage -- all of them far beyond catastrophic care. Perhaps Romney ought to have foreseen what future legislatures and governors would do -- but that's a far cry from the accusation that Romneycare was indistinguishable from Obamacare.
Romney's proposed reforms included fraud prevention measures for Medicaid, requiring the income of both parents to be considered in children's Medicaid eligibility, medical malpractice tort reform, and giving individuals the same treatment as small businesses in the purchase of health plans. He envisioned a system of increased competition and choice.
The bill that passed the legislature contained a number of features Romney couldn't countenance. He opposed the mandate, preferring to permit individuals to post a $10,000 bond in lieu of insurance. The legislature overrode him. He vetoed the employer mandate, coverage for illegal aliens, the creation of a new bureaucracy to be called The Public Health Council, a provision limiting improvements to Medicaid, and one expanding Medicaid coverage to include dental care. His vetoes were overridden.
The health reform law Romney introduced -- as opposed to the one that was implemented by his successor -- stressed competition, reduced regulation and expanded choice for the consumer."
The most pressing social issue today is the economy
If he did such a great job, why didn't he seek re-election. Most of that budget and growth was smoke and mirrors in a sense. Deval Patrick had a hell of a time his first term immediately trying to get the numbers to balance.
Many mental health services were drastically cut btw, leaving the sickest of the sick without any care under Romney.
Quoting Jambo4:I know you live in Mass...
but I think you got that wrong.. it's Obama that can't lead and work well with others. He's the one with the record showing dismal numbers in all areas, no growth, no jobs... Something must have clicked and worked right for Romney to take a big deficit, turn it into a positive (plus rainy day fund), balance a budget every year in office, turn around job numbers from losing to gaining, and so forth. I'd say he had to work with others some where along the way. =)
Quoting matreshka:
Yes proof.he cant lead or work well with others on legislation. Im fully aware od what romney did here. I live in mass.
Quoting Jambo4:His voting record? Are you taking into consideration his vetoes? Or just looking at the things that got passed while he was governor? He was overridden some 700 times. (sorry don't have the exact number)
Quoting matreshka:
His voting record in mass and his presidential platform have everything to do with becoming conservative again. Hes a chameleon.
that's sad... since he's pointing at fist bump... yeah, that sounds like Romney's style...
Quoting vonna610:
O-o
THAT!
Find out more about Mitt Romney.
Click on Mitt to visit Mitt Romney for President group at Cafemom.
Good question.. don't know why he didn't seek re-election, and I can't comment on why Patrick struggled. Learning curve?
As for the mental health services, I'm sure that not everything went down the way Romney had envisioned.
Quoting matreshka:If he did such a great job, why didn't he seek re-election. Most of that budget and growth was smoke and mirrors in a sense. Deval Patrick had a hell of a time his first term immediately trying to get the numbers to balance.
Many mental health services were drastically cut btw, leaving the sickest of the sick without any care under Romney.
Quoting Jambo4:I know you live in Mass...
but I think you got that wrong.. it's Obama that can't lead and work well with others. He's the one with the record showing dismal numbers in all areas, no growth, no jobs... Something must have clicked and worked right for Romney to take a big deficit, turn it into a positive (plus rainy day fund), balance a budget every year in office, turn around job numbers from losing to gaining, and so forth. I'd say he had to work with others some where along the way. =)
Quoting matreshka:
Yes proof.he cant lead or work well with others on legislation. Im fully aware od what romney did here. I live in mass.
Quoting Jambo4:His voting record? Are you taking into consideration his vetoes? Or just looking at the things that got passed while he was governor? He was overridden some 700 times. (sorry don't have the exact number)
Quoting matreshka:
His voting record in mass and his presidential platform have everything to do with becoming conservative again. Hes a chameleon.
I don't think so. Look at it this way: If I go to my mom's house to help her clean, I will take her wishes into account as much as possible. If I go as a MerryMaid employee to a stranger's house, I have to work with professional protocol. In both cases I have to take into account what I am permitted to do, either in my role as an employee, or as a family member, as well as the wishes of the home owner. Same person, difference situations.
Similar differences occur between a liberal state governance and a national presidential platform for governance: the same person will have different opportunities and abilities in either situation.
Quoting matreshka:
His voting record in mass and his presidential platform have everything to do with becoming conservative again. Hes a chameleon.
Quoting Jambo4:
He may or may not act on SSM on a national level, but it has nothing to do with "becoming conservative again". He will, however support and encourage conservative ideas in government... starting with spending! That's a plus! He knows how to balance a budget... still waiting on the ONLY president in the history of the USA to ever work without a budget in place! WOW
Quoting matreshka:
That could be but I do want to.stress the fact he is against same sex marriage no matter what he signed into law. So.for those who may think he will act on the federal level for same sex marriage as president based on his mass record, don't get your hopes up. Hes no longer in liberal mass hes become a conservative again.
Quoting Jambo4:
Couldn't you argue that he was holding up the will of the people of his state. Putting his own personal beliefs aside and governing for the people.
Quoting matreshka:
But he couldn't convince the legislature to pass it, or deny it. he also singed into law same-sex marriage against his own campaigning against it. He was a weak leader here.
Quoting Meadowchik:
Quoting Jambo4:
Quote:
The bill that passed the legislature contained a number of features Romney couldn't countenance. He opposed the mandate, preferring to permit individuals to post a $10,000 bond in lieu of insurance. The legislature overrode him. He vetoed the employer mandate, coverage for illegal aliens, the creation of a new bureaucracy to be called The Public Health Council, a provision limiting improvements to Medicaid, and one expanding Medicaid coverage to include dental care. His vetoes were overridden.
The health reform law Romney introduced -- as opposed to the one that was implemented by his successor -- stressed competition, reduced regulation and expanded choice for the consume
Romney is sharp-minded on legislation.
The most pressing social issue today is the economy
I don't tsee that your analogy fits, athough I get what you are saying. My point is that if he did such a great job as gov especially on balancing the budget, why is he aligning himself with the far right? Everything he does reeks of careerist "let me tell you what you want to hear" politics.
Quoting Meadowchik:I don't think so. Look at it this way: If I go to my mom's house to help her clean, I will take her wishes into account as much as possible. If I go as a MerryMaid employee to a stranger's house, I have to work with professional protocol. In both cases I have to take into account what I am permitted to do, either in my role as an employee, or as a family member, as well as the wishes of the home owner. Same person, difference situations.
Similar differences occur between a liberal state governance and a national presidential platform for governance: the same person will have different opportunities and abilities in either situation.
Quoting matreshka:
His voting record in mass and his presidential platform have everything to do with becoming conservative again. Hes a chameleon.
Quoting Jambo4:
He may or may not act on SSM on a national level, but it has nothing to do with "becoming conservative again". He will, however support and encourage conservative ideas in government... starting with spending! That's a plus! He knows how to balance a budget... still waiting on the ONLY president in the history of the USA to ever work without a budget in place! WOW
Quoting matreshka:
That could be but I do want to.stress the fact he is against same sex marriage no matter what he signed into law. So.for those who may think he will act on the federal level for same sex marriage as president based on his mass record, don't get your hopes up. Hes no longer in liberal mass hes become a conservative again.
Quoting Jambo4:
Couldn't you argue that he was holding up the will of the people of his state. Putting his own personal beliefs aside and governing for the people.
Quoting matreshka:
But he couldn't convince the legislature to pass it, or deny it. he also singed into law same-sex marriage against his own campaigning against it. He was a weak leader here.
Quoting Meadowchik:
Quoting Jambo4:
Quote:
The bill that passed the legislature contained a number of features Romney couldn't countenance. He opposed the mandate, preferring to permit individuals to post a $10,000 bond in lieu of insurance. The legislature overrode him. He vetoed the employer mandate, coverage for illegal aliens, the creation of a new bureaucracy to be called The Public Health Council, a provision limiting improvements to Medicaid, and one expanding Medicaid coverage to include dental care. His vetoes were overridden.
The health reform law Romney introduced -- as opposed to the one that was implemented by his successor -- stressed competition, reduced regulation and expanded choice for the consume
Romney is sharp-minded on legislation.
Quoting matreshka:
I don't tsee that your analogy fits, athough I get what you are saying. My point is that if he did such a great job as gov especially on balancing the budget, why is he aligning himself with the far right? Everything he does reeks of careerist "let me tell you what you want to hear" politics.
I don't agree with you at all. I'd say that with Romney, he's a leader who is better at getting to work and accomplishihng things than he is at talking about doing them, whereas Obama is better about talking about things but weak about getting things done. Romney is the post-career politician, while Obama is the career politician. I do think that Romney is very pragmatic in many regards, and he sees things in greater nuance than most idealogues would prefer, but to me that is a plus, especially now, when fiscal conservatism and econonomic growth is now of vital importance. Americans historically wait until things come to a crisis before addressing them, and we are at the point of crisis, economically, and budgetarily. Romney, IMO, is the leader needed right at this time.
The most pressing social issue today is the economy
Quoting Meadowchik:
Quoting matreshka:
I don't tsee that your analogy fits, athough I get what you are saying. My point is that if he did such a great job as gov especially on balancing the budget, why is he aligning himself with the far right? Everything he does reeks of careerist "let me tell you what you want to hear" politics.
I don't agree with you at all. I'd say that with Romney, he's a leader who is better at getting to work and accomplishing things than he is at talking about doing them, whereas Obama is better about talking about things but weak about getting things done. Romney is the post-career politician, while Obama is the career politician. I do think that Romney is very pragmatic in many regards, and he sees things in greater nuance than most ideologues would prefer, but to me that is a plus, especially now, when fiscal conservatism and economic growth is now of vital importance. Americans historically wait until things come to a crisis before addressing them, and we are at the point of crisis, economically, and budgetarily. Romney, IMO, is the leader needed right at this time.
I have to agree. I think this is where his private sector experience comes into play. He hires and surround himself with those capable of getting the job done. Doesn't matter if he's gay, or if his party lines up with his, or if it "looks" better that they are a minority or female. Who is the best person to accomplish the collective goals. (He's been criticized for that from both sides) You can see that with those he appointed in various positions, you can see that in his VP choice. He already had the "white, goodlooking, male" voters. He picked Ryan (whether or not you like him) because Ryan has shown to be focused on the money problem we face. THAT is Romney's core issue.. the economy. He is determined to turn it around and get America back on track.
Find out more about Mitt Romney.
Click on Mitt to visit Mitt Romney for President group at Cafemom.
What about his failed senatorial and presidential campaigns? He has wanted to be in politics? He has ben consistntly running for some office or another, not to mention carpetbagging to Mass to run as gov for one term before running for prez.
Quoting Meadowchik:
Quoting matreshka:
I don't tsee that your analogy fits, athough I get what you are saying. My point is that if he did such a great job as gov especially on balancing the budget, why is he aligning himself with the far right? Everything he does reeks of careerist "let me tell you what you want to hear" politics.
I don't agree with you at all. I'd say that with Romney, he's a leader who is better at getting to work and accomplishihng things than he is at talking about doing them, whereas Obama is better about talking about things but weak about getting things done. Romney is the post-career politician, while Obama is the career politician. I do think that Romney is very pragmatic in many regards, and he sees things in greater nuance than most idealogues would prefer, but to me that is a plus, especially now, when fiscal conservatism and econonomic growth is now of vital importance. Americans historically wait until things come to a crisis before addressing them, and we are at the point of crisis, economically, and budgetarily. Romney, IMO, is the leader needed right at this time.
Immigration Officer's Union Raising Concerns, re: Fraud and Security Risks Under Obama's Dream Act for Young Illegals
- Meadowchik
on Jul. 6, 2012 at 11:22 AM