Romney Say He'd Keep Parts Of Obamacare

[Fletch]

I would like to see everybody have a chance at coverage, but I have no idea how to achieve it. There probably is good ways to do it. Preexisting conditions clauses are catastrophic for some good honest people who did their best to remain covered and lost their insurance for numerous reasons.

The very poor get Medicaid now for free anyway, if they prove need but sometimes it's too late to do them any good.

Obamacare just went way to far and is full of conditions and clauses that favor people who supported it during effort to get it passed.

You and Obamacare are fixing the wrong problem. The problem is not getting everyone covered by medical insurance. The problem is that the price of healthcare, like the price of everything else, is driven by the laws of supply and demand, and for over a century now the supply of healthcare has been artificially restricted by the people providing it, with the expressed purpose of driving up prices. Health insurance was invented as a band-aid to keep people able to afford healthcare as prices spun out of reach of the average person.

Take away the federally mandated union monopoly on the training of doctors and provision of healthcare, allow new supply into the market, and prices will fall. Further, encourage people to pay out of their own pockets for medical care, through tax breaks on cash transactions or whatever, and prices will also fall. This second bit is readily seen in every medical field that is not covered by normal insurance, from laser eye surgery to cosmetic surgery to veterinary care.

 

[Willie]

There are close to 6,000 pages in Obamacare covering almost everything imaginable. It would be extremely tough to replace it with something that did not have anything in it that Obamacare didn't have. IMHO

 

[chraland51]

Romney sucks, but just not nearly as bad as O'Bummer. A few months ago he was saying that the first thing that he would do would be to repeal O'Bummercare with executive orders. Now he is back-peddling and saying that he will keep some of it. Should that puke win, I am sure that the list of O'Bummercare items will continue to grow from the first couple that he has already mentioned. It is just too bad that we do not really get to choose who our candidates will be, but have to just live with the ones that are shoved down our throats.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Keep parts of it, huh? Like all the parts of it.

 

[Super Bee]

I got the impression from this article it was repeal and replace.


"I say we're going to replace Obamacare. And I'm replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people," Romney told "Meet the Press."




Mitt has always been a repeal and replace candidate, what has changed. Just one of the downsides to Mitt.


We Must Repeal And Replace Obamacare

Romney launches mission

 

[Phil502]

You and Obamacare are fixing the wrong problem. The problem is not getting everyone covered by medical insurance. The problem is that the price of healthcare, like the price of everything else, is driven by the laws of supply and demand, and for over a century now the supply of healthcare has been artificially restricted by the people providing it, with the expressed purpose of driving up prices. Health insurance was invented as a band-aid to keep people able to afford healthcare as prices spun out of reach of the average person.

Take away the federally mandated union monopoly on the training of doctors and provision of healthcare, allow new supply into the market, and prices will fall. Further, encourage people to pay out of their own pockets for medical care, through tax breaks on cash transactions or whatever, and prices will also fall. This second bit is readily seen in every medical field that is not covered by normal insurance, from laser eye surgery to cosmetic surgery to veterinary care.

I'm not so sure about all that and laser eye surgery is a long way from a heart transplant. Maybe they could have coupons, like at Jewel to cover that stuff. Equipment runs in the millions of dollars too. Paying cash at this point is not an option for most people and is not economically feasable for providers.

 

[Fletch]

I'm not so sure about all that and laser eye surgery is a long way from a heart transplant. Maybe they could have coupons, like at Jewel to cover that stuff. Equipment runs in the millions of dollars too. Paying cash at this point is not an option for most people and is not economically feasable for providers.

Laser eye surgery is no joke, either. Mess it up, and the patient goes blind. Not the same as dead, true, but not like having an inconvenient scar, either.

Basic law of supply and demand: as supply rises relative to demand, prices fall. As supply shrinks relative to demand, prices rise.

Supply of medical care has been shrinking relative to demand ever since the AMA colluded with the federal government to close most of the medical schools in the country and only allow training/provision by people the AMA approves.

Explain to me your logic behind the idea that increasing supply would have no effect on prices.

Medical devices and machines are similarly jacked up in price due to excessive regulation. Regulation adds cost, which increases prices. The time frame for getting a new medical device approved by the FDA is measured in decades, which necessitates a monstrous investment in sunk capital and delays treatment for those who need or want it. How then, would reducing regulation increase prices, in your view?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

What does socialism have to do with morality?

Sometimes I really wonder if people know what socialism is. It's always the easiest word to throw out there, and is blamed for basically every evil in the world. And socialism is an awful thing, don't get me wrong, but basically everything in your entire post--especially this sentence--is complete jibberish.

If we are to ever restore this republic, we need to do it without name calling and labels. And those who seek to do it need to free themselves from the delusion that religion had anything to do with founding this country, because there is absolutely no reference to religion in the constitution, and unless you're denying the brilliance of our framers, there's a good reason for that.

The problems this country faces are structural and political. Those we elect spend money that they do not have and will never have, because it helps them seek and retain power. They get away with it because much of our political policymaking over the last ~80ish years (and arguably longer) has been nationalized under the justification that federalism does not work. The national government continues to seize additional power and yet is less politically accountable, primarily because of the 17th Amendment, FDR's court packing scheme, and the Supreme Court of the United States' refusal to constrain Congress closely to its enumerated powers.

Identifying the problem is easy. It's figuring how how to use democracy to solve a problem that our framers intentionally created a republic to avoid that is the challenge. If our state legislatures elected the United States Senate, we would not be in anywhere near as deep of hot water as we are. The national government is now completely unaccountable to the states, and in fact, many states depend on federal grant money for all sorts of things, including things as critical as law enforcement, which is perhaps a state's most important government function. That we need a direct, democratic, political solution to make a difference is the crux of the current crisis, and a real tragedy in my opinion.

But socialism, it ain't.

I'd say either your grasp of American History isn't as good as you think it is, or you're being highly selective in your "remembery" if you think "religion" had no place in the Founders' intent. "Religion" - Christianity to be specific - was so universally commonplace that it was not only understood to be a common link, it was constantly referenced. What do you suppose the Founders meant by putting "In God We Trust" on their coinage?

 

[mrjarrell]

Keep parts of it, huh? Like all the parts of it.

He's gonna repeal Obamacare and replace it with Romneycare. See? There's a huge difference.

 

[Phil502]

Laser eye surgery is no joke, either. Mess it up, and the patient goes blind. Not the same as dead, true, but not like having an inconvenient scar, either.

Basic law of supply and demand: as supply rises relative to demand, prices fall. As supply shrinks relative to demand, prices rise.

Supply of medical care has been shrinking relative to demand ever since the AMA colluded with the federal government to close most of the medical schools in the country and only allow training/provision by people the AMA approves.

Explain to me your logic behind the idea that increasing supply would have no effect on prices.

Medical devices and machines are similarly jacked up in price due to excessive regulation. Regulation adds cost, which increases prices. The time frame for getting a new medical device approved by the FDA is measured in decades, which necessitates a monstrous investment in sunk capital and delays treatment for those who need or want it. How then, would reducing regulation increase prices, in your view?

I don't disagree with the business sense of all that, I don't think you'll ever get the prices down low enough to make insurance coverage obsolete. You have to have ready cash when you get sick, people won't have the ability to be ready for that type of instance. You'll always need health insurance.

 

[jpo117]

I'd say either your grasp of American History isn't as good as you think it is, or you're being highly selective in your "remembery" if you think "religion" had no place in the Founders' intent... What do you suppose the Founders meant by putting "In God We Trust" on their coinage?

The Founders had nothing to do with putting "In God We Trust" on our coins. It didn't appear on a coin until 1864.

 

[Hohn]

Not that facts matter to most people, but here's what Romney actually said:

"Well, I'm not getting rid of all of healthcare reform."
"Of course, there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform that I'm going to put in place," Romney added. "One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like.

These are very different than Obamacare. For one, Romney is saying that he'd like to create an environment where insurers can offer pre-existing condition coverage at rates they (and the insured) can afford. Note that THE MARKET is making the decision here, not the government ruling by diktat. That's a huge difference, imo.

 

[HICKMAN]

He's gonna repeal Obamacare and replace it with Romneycare. See? There's a huge difference.

Do you know what Hoosier Healthwise is?

I haven't seen you up in arms over it

 

[Expat]

From an economic sense, making the acceptance of people with preexisting conditions is problematic if you don't require everyone to have health insurance. The only people (unless they get it from their employers or government) who will buy health insurance will be those that are already ill. That is going to drive premiums even higher than they are now, making it unaffordable for most folks. The requirement of accepting preexisting illness sounds good and makes us all feel good, but it is economically untenable.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The Founders had nothing to do with putting "In God We Trust" on our coins. It didn't appear on a coin until 1864.

Ah. Thanks. I either didn't know that, or if it has been said before, I had forgotten it. Nevertheless, it makes no difference to the argument that the Founders assumed that Judeo-Christian moral values were necessary to prevent the republic from failing as other republics, such as Rome, had failed.

 

[cobber]

Anybody who has bothered to vet this candidate has seen that he's been devoted to government controlled, mandated health care for almost 20 years.

edit

2012, September

Romney affirms he will keep the mandates of Obamacare, if in fact anything is ever repealed.
​

Man, is this your full-time job or what?

 

[Hohn]

From an economic sense, making the acceptance of people with preexisting conditions is problematic if you don't require everyone to have health insurance. The only people (unless they get it from their employers or government) who will buy health insurance will be those that are already ill. That is going to drive premiums even higher than they are now, making it unaffordable for most folks. The requirement of accepting preexisting illness sounds good and makes us all feel good, but it is economically untenable.

Indeed. Pre-existing means it's not insurance. You can't be car insurance AFTER you get in a wreck.

 

[Hohn]

What, exactly would a truly free market for healthcare look like? This is useful to consider because all of the healthcare reform efforts are essentially efforts to distort the market because we don't like the outcomes.

Doesn't it seem that so much of the discussion boils down to what KIND of market distortions must be applied?

I have a problem with that basic approach.

 

[rambone]

Not that facts matter to most people, but here's what Romney actually said:

These are very different than Obamacare. For one, Romney is saying that he'd like to create an environment where insurers can offer pre-existing condition coverage at rates they (and the insured) can afford. Note that THE MARKET is making the decision here, not the government ruling by diktat. That's a huge difference, imo.

Are you familiar with Newspeak? Romney is pretty good at it. I posted multiple videos of him referring to his government mandates as "the Personal Responsibility Principle." What Romney refers to as "the market" is probably not the same as what an Austrian economist would call "the market." He favors coercion, not market forces.

 

[Phil502]

From an economic sense, making the acceptance of people with preexisting conditions is problematic if you don't require everyone to have health insurance. The only people (unless they get it from their employers or government) who will buy health insurance will be those that are already ill. That is going to drive premiums even higher than they are now, making it unaffordable for most folks. The requirement of accepting preexisting illness sounds good and makes us all feel good, but it is economically untenable.

True, but possibly there could be a stipulation that the person with pre-existing conditions did in fact have insurance within a previous cycle, or something like that.

It's the guy that loses his job and gets his insurance taken away during an illness is what bugs me the most.