It Really Is Too Bad ObamaCare Is Not More Like RomneyCare Of course Healthcare Reform came up during the 2012 Presidential Debates and each time Mitt Romney pointed out the flaws in ObamaCare the best defense the president could muster up was “It’s Your Plan!” insinuating that ObamaCare was modeled after RomneyCare. If we could only have been so lucky but unfortunately all the virtues that brought success to RomneyCare were completely left out of ObamaCare. Case and point…………. RomneyCare’s first mark of success was that it was a bi-partisan piece of legislation. State lawmakers, healthcare experts and the bean counters worked together, for over a year, carefully crafting a bi-partisan piece of legislation tailored to the NEEDS OF THE STATE and in a manner to which all parties could agree on and were able to work together with. ObamaCare on the other hand is a pure partisan piece of legislation that republicans were not only not asked to participate in (other than the very initial go around) but much of how the bill was crafted was specifically to prevent republican from being able to filibuster, slow down or even block the passage of the law. The ObamaCare vote was taken the moment democrats secured exactly enough votes to pass it into law and they did not delay for fear of losing one of those votes or another roadblock to appear as it did happen twice. ObamaCare is 100% political and 0% in the best interest of the all people. RomneyCare imposed NO NEW TAXES on the people of Massachusetts! Massachusetts had a number of problems besides healthcare. Mitt Romney first worked to put the state’s fiscal house in order and in doing so was able to pay for most of RomneyCare adding only a modest 1% to the state’s budget. ObamaCare on the other hand imposes 20 new taxes and surcharges upon the medical related business and the wealthy. All those taxes on business of course get passed on to the consumer so We the People are still getting taxed indirectly. And while the president claims that ObamaCare will actually aid in reducing the deficit, it’s pretty difficult to comprehend how it does so if it generates over $1 trillion in new revenue (taxes) over the next decade and uses the supposed “surplus” in new revenue (taxes) to lower the deficit. Isn’t that the same thing as creating a new tax to lower the deficit? And the way things are going, there is more likely to be a shortfall of funds rather than a surplus, possibly a major shortfall. Fiscally, ObamaCare is going nowhere near as planned as cost are turning out to be significantly higher than projected and enrollment is only about 25% of projection. RomneyCare was a mere 70 page market driven solution to the states healthcare needs. ObamaCare on the other hand is an over 2000 page piece of comprehensive legislation that imposes hundreds maybe thousands of new regulations on the healthcare insurance industry. ObamaCare is not healthcare reform, it is a complex and comprehensive national healthcare insurance subsidy program based around a political ideology instead of sound business and fiscal practices. RomneyCare was well supported by both parties and was highly popular with the overwhelming majority of the people of the State of Massachusetts. ObamaCare on the other has never gain the majority approval, not even in its infancy stage, it’s been highly unpopular since day one and as more and more of the problems that were predicted by the laws opposition come to fruition, its popularity continues to fall. RomneyCare was rolled out in stages and closely monitored over a long period of time. They made certain that a particular provision was working correctly before they introduced the next. If the provision had shortcomings they were addressed then and there. Any tweaking needed was made than and to any of the effected forthcoming provisions before they were rolled out. ObamaCare on the other hand was dropped into the laps of America in two large phases. The first was an immediate rollout of several provisions at almost the moment the bill passed in to law and over the next few months. There were drop dead dates imposed in the law, many of which were forced although not ready while others were delayed at the will of the president as too many problems existed, both in the execution of the law and politically, for some of the provisions to move forward on schedule. The second phase was the rollout of the HealthCare.gov website which was a complete and utter failure and of which is still being repaired/built. Both due to the fact that the law is so comprehensive and that it was implemented in huge pieces, many of the problems that transpired cascaded into other problems. Had ObamaCare been crafted in the same manner as RomneyCare it would never have left the back of the cocktail napkin it was conceived on as the model fit only 4 or 5 of the 50 states and DC that make up this nation. RomneyCare fit the very specific needs of a state with both severe fiscal problems as well as healthcare problems unlike 80% of the other states in the nation. RomneyCare is a One Size Fits ONE matchup to its state while ObamaCare is a One Size Fits ALL approach that fits the needs of only 4 or 5 states. The one size fits all approach does not and can never address all the specific needs of a particular state and where an adjustment in the law might be needed to better suit one states situation, it can and likely will have an adverse effect on another. ObamaCare is just another example of why complex federalized programs cannot work in a nation made up individual and unique states. So now that it is clear that there is no comparison between ObamaCare and RomneyCare, let’s look at the politics of it all. Forget about the liberal talking heads for a moment and just focus on the President who had, on countless occasions made the claim that ObamaCare was Romney’s plan, when attempting to put Mitt Romney on the defensive during the presidential debates. Certainly the differences between the two healthcare laws just described are not some grand and undiscovered secret while some may pretend they are so they can spin a different narrative. The president is certainly aware of the differences between the two laws but, in his efforts to get re-elected, stood before that American people and mislead them, some might go as far as say he lied to their faces. The president either intentionally mislead (lied to) the American people or he is so grossly incompetent and unknowing to the basic facts of his key presidential accomplishment in which case would make him unfit to be the president. Which is it?
Posted on: Tue, 20 May 2014 16:23:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015