As the federal Gov. holds us all hostage (yes left and right) here is some food for thought; At first, there was a lot of skepticism in Massachusetts – from those on the right against “socialized medicine,” and from those on the left pushing for a single-payer system. The Providence Journal next door in Rhode Island had this to say about Romneycare on its editorial page Sunday: “The big difference between the programs is that the federal version puts more emphasis on controlling costs. That makes Obamacare arguably more conservative than the Romneycare. “For example, Obamacare proposes bundling payments for a medical condition. That means payment will be a set amount covering the soup-to-nuts treatment for an ailment, such as foot surgery. That removes incentives for ordering more tests or treatments than needed – while rewarding medical providers for doing a good job the first time around. “It bears noting that Massachusetts is less generous in determining who gets subsidies. It helps pay for the coverage of those earning up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The federal government sets the limit for subsidies at up to 400 percent of the poverty level.” So Obamacare is “more conservative” than Romneycare according to this analysis. Romneycare got tweaked over the years, including in ways that control costs. As a result, the Providence newspaper points out, the fiscally conservative Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has called Romneycare “a well thought-out piece of legislation.” PEACE
Posted on: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:34:52 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015