When the R's gain the House and Senate, they can do whatever they want. Medicare has been on a course of failure even before BC's time. Everyone knew it. Hillary and BC tried in 1993. W ignored it in favor of tax cuts and deficit spending. It needed to get done, now and not latter as the R's always have done. They (R) even shot down Paul Ryan's and W's 2004-05 initiative to change SS to more what BC put forth in sharing SS risk and rewards.
R's are so wishy washy. Why do you think I voted for RP, at least he stands for something.
That's the liberal talking point, which emphasizes the similarities between the plan but ignores, obfuscates, or misrepresents their differences, which are principled and profound.
The essence of the plan Romney proposed is summarrized by saying that ...
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. http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/15/obamacare-vs-romneycare-a-cruc/
From The New Yorker:
Romney had accomplished a longstanding Democratic goal—universal health insurance—by combining three conservative policies. Massachusetts would help the uninsured buy private insurance; it would create a deregulated online marketplace; and it would require that everyone carry insurance. Uninsured citizens no longer would use the emergency room as a primary-care facility and then fail to pay their bills. ...
Romney’s crucial choices—refusing to raise taxes and focussing more on personal responsibility than on personal liberty—were consistent with the reigning ideology of his party. Although Romney’s plan did not reduce the state’s over-all health-care costs, which continue to rise, he did succeed in bringing insurance to nearly a hundred per cent of Massachusetts residents. ...
It’s not entirely unreasonable to praise Mass-care while bashing Obamacare. Obama’s law, the Affordable Care Act, is more sweeping than Romney’s, and even though they use the same mechanisms to expand insurance, it’s possible to argue that the national law costs too much or raises taxes or includes additional provisions that are unacceptable to principled conservatives. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/06/06/110606fa_fact_lizza#ixzz271uwIykG
From The San Francisco Chronicle:
the philosophies behind the federal plan and the Massachusetts plan are radically different. Romney set out to offer a plan that would address the state's 460,000 uninsured residents, without putting undue burdens on state employers. Obamacare, conversely, is mandate heaven. ... the Romney model promoted flexibility, individual choice and responsibility. Instead of giving away benefits, Romney concentrated on providing medical care in a cost-sharing framework to encourage families to make smart choices, health-wise and money-wise.
It's not perfect and needs more work-if only the politicos can get together. But since the R's are now coming around to changing ObamaCare, at least we can recognize that Medicare needs a rework.
If the Republican Romney governor can get Massachusetts to take on RomneyCare, which is ObamaCare-where's the issue?
Nearly 6 million Americans -- most of them in the middle class -- will face a tax penalty for not carrying medical coverage once President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is fully in place, congressional budget analysts said Wednesday.
The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.
The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are significantly higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed.
The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected. The difference -- 2 million people-- represents a 50 percent increase.
That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans. Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.
And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.
