Switch to normal site

Letter to the editor:

What’s so different about Romneycare?

Mon, Apr 2, 2012 (2 a.m.)

Regarding the health care law and the recent arguments in the Supreme Court:

Can anyone tell me the difference between the health care legislation signed into law by Mitt Romney, when he was governor of Massachusetts in 2006, and the health care legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010? They both have a lot of similarities and both are funded by taxpayers. Romney is opposed to Obamacare and wants to change it. To what?

Back to top


Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Discussion: 32 comments so far…

  1. To begin with Romneycare did not slash 500 billion from Medicare to fund it. The pure size and scope of Romneycare was incredibly smaller than Obamacare. The mandate was at the state level. Its constitutionality was not an issue under the Commerce clause. Most of us are not against every benefit under Obamacare--such as the anti pre existing conditions proviso, the extension of age limits for coverage to 26 and the anti premium increases for insurance. The fact is that Romeycare was well within the rights of a state to enact and it did not create trillions of dollars of costs to Americans to enact it.

  2. Sam,

    There are many similarities between what Romney signed in Massachusetts and the Affordable Care Act. And Romney probably says he wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act in part, because he needs to say that to help him get elected.

    Let's just put that aside for now, along with the hyperbole that Dennis spouts and talk about the two issues that many people, including me, have with the Affordable Care act.

    1) Sometimes Congress just passes poor legislation that costs much more than estimates predicted, doesn't really accomplish the goals set for the legislation and doesn't tackle the most important problems it set out to cure. In my opinion, those are the problems with the Affordable Care Act. The intention was good; the result was poor.

    2) Look at your Constitution. It says that all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States. Therefore, Romney and the state of Massachusetts were allowed to mandate that its citizens must purchase health care insurance or face a fine. Any other state may do the same. This power is not specifically granted to the Federal government in the Constitution unless we use an interpretation of the Constitution and the powers of the Federal government that is almost without limits.

    There is the difference between the Affordable Care Act and what Romney did in Massachusetts.


  3. First of all, Sam, you have bought into the Dumbocrat's spin that what MA has is "Romneycare." It is not! The Legislature, at the time of enactment, was 85% Dumbocratic. Romney couldn't have prevented its becoming law even if he had wanted. Secondly, it was passed with the approval of the people of MA who apparently wanted it, were satisfied with it and were willing to shoulder the burden it would cost. That is exactly the way it should be. Now, if anyone likes the idea of state managed health care, they always have the option of moving to MA. For those of us who do not, we have the option of staying away from a state with voters so moronic they elected guys like Barney Frank, Michael Dukhakis and, of course, Ted "Lady Killer" Kennedy!

  4. Democrats didn't challenge Romneycare's constitutionality.

  5. Can Bob Jack learn?
    "According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which reviewed the Senate version of the health-care law that eventually passed in 2010, the law will wring $492 billion from the projected future costs of Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years. The bulk of the savings would be generated by reining in the growth of payments to doctors and hospitals and from cutting subsidies to the Medicare Advantage program, which pays private insurers to provide Medicare benefits.

    The AARP found the legislation would not cut benefits or increase out-of-pocket costs for Medicare, the federal health-care program for Americans over 65. But Republicans argue that there's no way to cut future costs that much without reducing services. The CBO found it was "unclear" whether the Senate bill could reduce the growth of Medicare spending without reducing care.

    Incidentally, the GOP has found itself on the business end of this claim before: A 1995 plan to cut projected Medicare spending by more than $250 billion over seven years triggered a budget confrontation with the Clinton administration that partially shut down the federal government.

    The verdict:

    Misleading. Though the full impact of the Senate bill the CBO examined may not be known for years, the proposal is aimed at cutting the rate of growth of Medicare spending without cutting benefits."

  6. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/sant...
    If people dont like Romney or Obamacare they better come up with some kind of care. The wealthiest in the country can't afford the current care. If you look at Santorums tax filings he earns a million a year a can barely pay for his kids.
    Over $200 billion a month in a country where most can't come up with a grand and we are down from 2500 emergency rooms to 1774 in the last 20 years.
    Picture 123 million people jamming 1700 emergency rooms and most not paying. 70% in Vegas. That's healthcare in America. A complete joke.

  7. http://www.politifact.com/subjects/healt...
    Over 700 statements from pundits and politicians about Obamacare, Romneycare and care in general. Almost none completely true and people make decisions based on statements by these buffoons.
    These people say what gets them votes and viewers. They could care less that millions live in discomfort due to medical issues that aren't propery treated.
    According to the AMA half of the 150 million with chronic illness aren't taking the medication they need to treat the illnesses properly because of cost issues.

  8. "Over 700 statements from pundits and politicians about Obamacare, Romneycare and care in general. Almost none completely true and people make decisions based on statements by these buffoons."

    Ah yes, PolitiFact, the liberal biased website.


  9. Jerry,You do come up with some Interesting feed back on letters to the editor. However do you think you might consider doing so with less name calling of our elected officials.Readers might take your comments more seriously,try It.

  10. Many thousands of fact checks and one possible error??? No wonder they one the Pulitzer prize.
    If you don't like that one check the Kaiser Foundation or Factcheck.org. They all report the healthcare nonsense.

  11. Carmine, How many of the 26 states who's Attorney Generals are Involved In this petition are Republicans?

  12. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/more-ma...
    This is what factcheck had to say about the legislation.
    Obamacare has nothing to do with controlling the people. It's about millions refusing to pay for care and driving the system to the brink of bankruptcy. Out of 5700 hospitals only about 950 still make money. Most in plastic surgery.
    If the GOP has a solution they better spit it out. Millions have made changes relative to provisions that have been implemented. If these folks get kicked to the curb they won't be happy.

  13. Sam, the State's are not restricted by the U.S. constitution. Some States have chosen a social welfare role rather than supporting the individual right to pursue individual happiness.

  14. Sam, call me a cynic when it comes to politicians. For too many years I have seen what they say and what they do are generally two different things and I have little respect for them. However, since we do have to live with them, I try to pick ones I think have a vestige of honesty somewhere in their beings. I picked Dumbocrats for some 35 years then switched to Republicrats all the while voting for independents when they convinced me they were better. Since LBJ, this country has descended into a welfare and entitlement state regardless of my attempts to stop that from happening but I will continue my Quixotic quest of fighting windmills to return the USA to the greatness it once stood for. No bowing to foreign leaders for this guy!