PDA

View Full Version : Obama More evidence ObamaCare has to go.


HonestChieffan
05-30-2012, 10:56 AM
Six Solyndras: Obamacare Blows $3 Billion on Faulty CO-OP Insurance Loans

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/05/30/six-solyndras-obamacare-blows-3-billion-on-faulty-co-op-insurance-loans/

A lot of people have been justly offended by the Solyndra scandal, in which the Obama administration squandered $535 million in a failed solar-energy company backed by one of Obama’s largest donors. But $535 mill in failed loans is chump change for this administration. Obamacare, according to the White House, will waste over $3 billion on faulty loans to state-sponsored health insurers called CO-OPs. It’s bad enough that taxpayer funds are going down the tubes. But internal documents show that the administration isn’t particularly bothered by it.

First, some of the backstory. When moderate Democrats balked at the government-run “public option” in their health-care bill, they compromised by creating state-sponsored insurers called Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans, or CO-OPs. These CO-OPs, however, are not to be confused with private co-ops, which are privately sponsored cooperative enterprises. The Obamacare CO-OPs were designed to fail.

The Obamacare CO-OPs were allocated $6 billion in subsidized, cut-rate loans, so as to ensure that they would meet state capital requirements. (Insurers have to have a certain amount of money in reserve in order to pay out the claims of their beneficiaries.) Interest on the loans would be a point or two less than Treasurys—a nice deal, if you can get it. But the bigger problem, as Bradford Gray of the Urban Institute explained last summer, is that the CO-OPs aren’t built to function like normal insurers.

Structural flaws in the design of CO-OPs

For one thing, the plans are prohibited from marketing. So there isn’t an obvious way for the plans to make consumers aware of them. The plans are prohibited from working with insurers already in operation, hence limiting their ability to gain from the experience of existing market players. The plans will have to enroll members and contract with providers—but unless they are able to enroll a good mix of healthy and sick people, they’ll pay out more in claims than they take in premiums: the classic problem of adverse selection. Since healthy people have plenty of options already, it’s sick people who will be most likely to sign up for the CO-OP plans.

Because of these problems, Congress last summer stripped $2.2 billion from CO-OP appropriations, leaving the program with $3.8 billion in subsidized loans. Nevertheless, last July, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services made public their projection that 36 percent of the remaining loans would go unpaid: a staggering $1.4 billion. When Congress demanded answers from HHS, the agency replied that “we believe that the changes we have made…improve the potential viability of CO-OPs,” but maintained their previous insolvency projections.

White House projects 91 percent of CO-OP loans will fail

Then, in early 2012, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget projected that 91 percent of the CO-OP loans would go unpaid: $3.1 billion of the now-$3.4 billion program.

Rest assured that taxpayers will be stuck with the bill. As a letter from the House Energy & Commerce notes, “Because the CO-OP regulation does not specify any collateral for the loans, and, as mentioned above, holders of surplus notes are usually at the bottom rung in terms of priority if an insurer goes into rehabilitation or liquidation, the Federal taxpayer would be among the last in line for repayment should a CO-OP experience financial distress.” (Emphasis added.)

It’s not just Republicans who are concerned about the CO-OP disaster. Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D., W.Va.), an advocate of single-payer health care, has pointed out that “there has been no significant research into consumer co-ops as a model for health insurance. What we do know, however, is that this model was tried in the early part of the 20th century and largely failed…This is a dying business model for health insurance…I believe it is irresponsible to invest over $6 billion in a concept that has not proven to provide quality, affordable health care.”

Labor union giveaways

Over at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, however, it’s full steam ahead. Earlier this month, CMS awarded $137 million to two new CO-OPs in Michigan and Nevada. I’ve obtained an internal CMS document containing talking points regarding the two giveaways.

The talking points concern, among other things, the fact that the Nevada plan is “sponsored by a Taft-Hartley (union) plan.” This, despite the fact that existing plans are specifically barred from receiving CO-OP loans. “The Affordable Care Act excludes pre-existing issuers from CO-OP participation,” CMS acknowledges, but because the union plan in this case is not licensed in Nevada, but in another state, according to CMS, they’re eligible to receive funds directed to Nevada. Okay then.

The funniest part of the document is when CMS asks itself, “aren’t loans like this risky?” Contrary to the agency’s own projections, let alone those of the White House, CMS says everything’s copacetic. “Loans will only be made to private, nonprofit entities that demonstrate a high probability of becoming financially viable.” According to the government, it seems, if you have a 9 percent chance of repaying your loans, you’ve demonstrated a “high probability” of success.

Remember that the next time someone tells you that government-run health care is “more efficient” than the private sector.

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 12:55 PM
Believe it or not, there are actually some idiots who think that Obamacare and Romneycare are virtually identical. I know, it's hard to believe that ANYONE could be that ignorant, but they do exist and some of them even post on this forum.

Hey Direckshun, how about if you show us where Romneycare flushes 3 Billion dollars down the drain on co-ops?

Fairplay
05-30-2012, 01:00 PM
Direckshun is googling furiously for a response as we speak.

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 01:04 PM
Hey Direckshun, how about if you show us where Romneycare flushes 3 Billion dollars down the drain on co-ops?

Romneycare uses money that has already been provided to deal with uninsureds.

Obamacare did not have that luxury.

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 01:27 PM
Romneycare uses money that has already been provided to deal with uninsureds.

Obamacare did not have that luxury.
That's the best you can do????

I thought you said the plans are identical. I guess what you meant is that they're identical except where they're NOT.

I also liked how you dismissed the fact that Obamacare costs a trillion dollars whereas Romneycare didn't raise taxes at all by saying, "Well, that's just the funding aspect of it". A trillion dollar price tag is a pretty big f*cking difference.

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 01:32 PM
That's the best you can do????

I thought you said the plans are identical. I guess what you meant is that they're identical except where they're NOT.

I also liked how you dismissed the fact that Obamacare costs a trillion dollars whereas Romneycare didn't raise taxes at all by saying, "Well, that's just the funding aspect of it". A trillion dollar price tag is a pretty big f*cking difference.

If you applied Romney's plan to the whole country, it's probably cost the same. Massachussetts isn't that big of a state.

Tax money was already allocated for uninsureds in MA prior to Romneycare. Obamacare never had that luxury.

It doesn't change the fact they are the same plan. The funding differs, but that wasn't what you were contending -- you were contending that Obamacare's gameplan of individually mandating individuals into private insurance was a replication of Romneycare. Which you're wrong about, because it does.

HonestChieffan
05-30-2012, 01:36 PM
Tax money was already allocated for uninsureds in MA prior to Romneycare. Obamacare never had that luxury.


I must be dreaming or just age doing it but last time I was in emergency room there were signs everywhere saying no one could be denied care due to lack of funds or insurance.

Chocolate Hog
05-30-2012, 01:36 PM
Brainiac doesn't know what he's talking about? Shocking.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 01:38 PM
If you applied Romney's plan to the whole country, it's probably cost the same. Massachussetts isn't that big of a state.

Tax money was already allocated for uninsureds in MA prior to Romneycare. Obamacare never had that luxury.

It doesn't change the fact they are the same plan. The funding differs, but that wasn't what you were contending -- you were contending that Obamacare's gameplan of individually mandating individuals into private insurance was a replication of Romneycare. Which you're wrong about, because it does.
Perhaps if you see it in the form of a picture you'll understand it.

http://americaneedsmitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/obamacare-romneycare-chart-600.jpg

HonestChieffan
05-30-2012, 01:39 PM
Perhaps if you see it in the form of a picture you'll understand it.

http://americaneedsmitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/obamacare-romneycare-chart-600.jpg


Nitpicking.

mikey23545
05-30-2012, 01:40 PM
Romneycare uses money that has already been provided to deal with uninsureds.

Obamacare did not have that luxury.

I wonder if Romneycare had to bleed taxpayers of revenue for four years before they could even start the program?

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 01:41 PM
Brainiac doesn't know what he's talking about? Shocking.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2
If you can't add anything to the discussion in this thread, you'd be better off if you didn't post at all.

All you're doing is showing that I really got to you in some other thread, and you're still upset about it.

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 01:44 PM
If you applied Romney's plan to the whole country, it's probably cost the same. Massachussetts isn't that big of a state.

Tax money was already allocated for uninsureds in MA prior to Romneycare. Obamacare never had that luxury.

It doesn't change the fact they are the same plan. The funding differs, but that wasn't what you were contending -- you were contending that Obamacare's gameplan of individually mandating individuals into private insurance was a replication of Romneycare. Which you're wrong about, because it does.
That is preposterous to the point of being stupid. You're now claiming that Romneycare would cost ONE TRILLION DOLLARS if it were implemented nationwide, yet you have absolutely NOTHING to back up that assertion other than your statement of "probably".

You are embarrassing yourself now.

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 02:03 PM
http://americaneedsmitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/obamacare-romneycare-chart-600.jpg

First of all, it should be noted that you've already cited some website by a ballroom-dance instructing hypnotist on this topic, and now you're citing America Needs Mitt. You really need to get on the ball, because it's not clear that you're getting your information from credible, dispassionate sources.

Second of all, your image is terrible. Its factually inaccurate by wild amounts at a couple points.

Third of all, what are you disputing?

Are you disputing the idea that Obamacare and Romneycare are both based off the idea of mandating private insurance for their constituents?

Are you disputing that?

Because your own image doesn't.

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 02:06 PM
That is preposterous to the point of being stupid. You're now claiming that Romneycare would cost ONE TRILLION DOLLARS if it were implemented nationwide, yet you have absolutely NOTHING to back up that assertion other than your statement of "probably".

I'm basing it on the idea that if you were to apply Romneycare on a national scale, it would look a lot like Obamacare. Since Obamacare is Romneycare, but on a national scale.

Doesn't get much plainer.

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 02:17 PM
First of all, it should be noted that you've already cited some website by a ballroom-dance instructing hypnotist on this topic, and now you're citing America Needs Mitt. You really need to get on the ball, because it's not clear that you're getting your information from credible, dispassionate sources.

Second of all, your image is terrible. Its factually inaccurate by wild amounts at a couple points.

Third of all, what are you disputing?

Are you disputing the idea that Obamacare and Romneycare are both based off the idea of mandating private insurance for their constituents?

Are you disputing that?

Because your image doesn't.
If you can't refute the substance of an argument, attack the source. Got it.

To answer your question: No, I am not disputing the idea the Obamacare and Romneycare both include a private mandate. OBVIOUSLY there are going to be similarities between government plans that address health care and health insurance. But YOU are trying to claim that because both plans include a mandate, they are IDENTICAL. That's like saying that The Communist Manifesto and the US Constitution both contain nouns and verbs, so they MUST be IDENTICAL.

The fact that both plans include a private mandate does not overshadow the more compelling facts that Obamacare is a 2,000 page plan that increases taxes by $500 Billion and takes an additional $500 Billion away from Medicare, whereas Romneycare is a 70 page plan didn't increase taxes by a single dollar and didn't take a single dollar away from Medicare.

Stop being obtuse.

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 02:23 PM
I'm basing it on the idea that if you were to apply Romneycare on a national scale, it would look a lot like Obamacare. Since Obamacare is Romneycare, but on a national scale.

Doesn't get much plainer.
Saying "Obamacare is Romneycare" is not an argument. It's an unsupported assertion.

FD
05-30-2012, 02:26 PM
If you can't refute the substance of an argument, attack the source. Got it.

To answer your question: No, I am not disputing the idea the Obamacare and Romneycare both include a private mandate. OBVIOUSLY there are going to be similarities between government plans that address health care and health insurance. But YOU are trying to claim that because both plans include a mandate, they are IDENTICAL. That's like saying that The Communist Manifesto and the US Constitution both contain nouns and verbs, so they MUST be IDENTICAL.

The fact that both plans include a private mandate does not overshadow the more compelling facts that Obamacare is a 2,000 page plan that increases taxes by $500 Billion and takes an additional $500 Billion away from Medicare, whereas Romneycare is a 70 page plan didn't increase taxes by a single dollar and didn't take a single dollar away from Medicare.

Stop being obtuse.

Of course the plans aren't "identical" but there isn't a single person in health policy on the left or the right who wont tell you that Romneycare was the model for Obamacare. This includes Romney's advisers, who also advised Obama later on. There are some differences of course but they are relatively minor. Obamacare is Romneycare at the federal level, thats just a fact.

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 02:29 PM
Of course the plans aren't "identical" but there isn't a single person in health policy on the left or the right who wont tell you that Romneycare was the model for Obamacare. This includes Romney's advisers, who also advised Obama later on. There are some differences of course but they are relatively minor. Obamacare is Romneycare at the federal level, thats just a fact.
No it's not a fact. The "advisers" you refer to were paid consultants who were hired by the Romney administration and later hired by the Obama administration. They were not part of Romney's team and in no way were they affiliated with the Romney administration, other than being paid employees who have offered the same opinion on multiple consulting engagements.

Anyone who calls the differences "relatively minor" either doesn't understand either bill, or is being deliberately deceptive. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just don't understand either bill.

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 02:29 PM
If you can't refute the substance of an argument, attack the source. Got it.

Under some circumstances, maybe. But you're just posting propaganda from Romney supporters and you're citing a Mormon hypnotist. That's not exactly the bedrock of a strong understanding of public policy -- surely you know this.

To answer your question: No, I am not disputing the idea the Obamacare and Romneycare both include a private mandate. OBVIOUSLY there are going to be similarities between government plans that address health care and health insurance. But YOU are trying to claim that because both plans include a mandate, they are IDENTICAL.

I haven't argued they're identical. I've argued that they are based on the exact same core of an idea: the individual mandate. Which is not just a similarity, it's the heart of both bills.

The fact that both plans include a private mandate does not overshadow the more compelling facts that Obamacare is a 2000 page plan that increases taxes by $500 Billion and takes an additional $500 Billion away from Medicare, whereas Romneycare didn't increase taxes by a single dollar and didn't take a single dollar away from Medicare.

Again, the funding was already in place for Romneycare, because Bay Staters had long provided for their uninsureds.

Americans as a country do not and have not.

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 02:36 PM
Again, the funding was already in place for Romneycare, because Bay Staters had long provided for their uninsureds.

Americans as a country do not and have not.
What you refuse to acknowledge is that the TRILLION DOLLAR COST of Obamacare is an important difference. When Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he might have implemented a completely different plan if it had meant a huge tax increase AND a huge cut in Medicare.

You ignore MASSIVE differences, cite a single similarity, and call the plans equivalent. What do you think was in the other 2,000 pages of Obamacare? Nothing?

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 02:39 PM
What you refuse to acknowledge is that the TRILLION DOLLAR COST of Obamacare is an important difference. When Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he might have implemented a completely different plan if it had meant a huge tax increase.

That's fair.

Doesn't change the fact that his plan, inherited from Republican dogma of the previous 15 years, born from the Heritage Foundation, became the foundation for Obamacare.

You ignore MASSIVE differences, cite a single similarity, and call the plans equivalent.

It's not a single similarity. It's the heart of the legislation.

FD
05-30-2012, 02:49 PM
No it's not a fact. The "advisers" you refer to were paid consultants who were hired by the Romney administration and later hired by the Obama administration. They were not part of Romney's team and in no way were they affiliated with the Romney administration, other than being paid employees who have offered the same opinion on multiple consulting engagements.

Anyone who calls the differences "relatively minor" either doesn't understand either bill, or is being deliberately deceptive. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just don't understand either bill.

Are you seriously going to dispute the fact that Romneycare was used as the model for Obamacare? If so theres no point continuing this discussion. Nobody thinks it wasn't, including Romney's own people.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2012, 02:49 PM
Perhaps if you see it in the form of a picture you'll understand it.


See that last one under RomneyCare—Mass is one of the states with a lot of people who have left.

Where will people go if RomneyCare is nationalized?

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 02:56 PM
Are you seriously going to dispute the fact that Romneycare was used as the model for Obamacare? If so theres no point continuing this discussion. Nobody thinks it wasn't, including Romney's own people.

To be fair to Brainiac, you haven't met Dr. Matt (http://www.calldrmatt.com/MeetDrMatt.htm).

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 03:06 PM
See that last one under RomneyCare—Mass is one of the states with a lot of people who have left.

Where will people go if RomneyCare is nationalized?
Romney has said repeatedly that RomneyCare was a solution for a specific state and that the states should be the political entities that address this problem.

If the remaining 49 states implement something similar to Romneycare after President Romney abolishes Obamacare, then that will mean that 49 other states have implemented plans that they like. That doesn't sound like a bad outcome.

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 03:09 PM
Are you seriously going to dispute the fact that Romneycare was used as the model for Obamacare? If so theres no point continuing this discussion. Nobody thinks it wasn't, including Romney's own people.
Romneycare was obviously a starting point for Obamacare. But the 2,070 page plan that is Obamacare is VERY different from the 70 page plan that is Romneycare.

If you can't understand that, then you're right about one thing: there's no point in continuing this discussion.

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 03:10 PM
It's not a single similarity. It's the heart of the legislation.
Then why the need for an additional 2,000 pages of legislation for Obamacare?

La literatura
05-30-2012, 03:10 PM
Romneycare was obviously a starting point for Obamacare. But the 2,070 page plan that is Obamacare is VERY different from the 70 page plan that is Romneycare.

If you can't understand that, then you're right about one thing: there's no point in continuing this discussion.

What are some of the main differences, as you see it?

La literatura
05-30-2012, 03:11 PM
Then why the need for an additional 2,000 pages of legislation for Obamacare?

The federal government uses a larger font size.

Brainiac
05-30-2012, 03:12 PM
What are some of the main differences, as you see it?

See post #9.

La literatura
05-30-2012, 03:14 PM
See post #9.

No, I'm asking you for your thoughts, not an inaccurate chart by Mike Sage for its thoughts.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2012, 03:19 PM
See post #9.

:LOL:

BucEyedPea
05-30-2012, 03:20 PM
Romney has said repeatedly that RomneyCare was a solution for a specific state and that the states should be the political entities that address this problem.

If the remaining 49 states implement something similar to Romneycare after President Romney abolishes Obamacare, then that will mean that 49 other states have implemented plans that they like. That doesn't sound like a bad outcome.

Except for those who want no govt in it. I'm movin' to Tahiti.

Direckshun
05-30-2012, 03:33 PM
Romneycare was obviously a starting point for Obamacare.

Was the Heritage Foundation's endorsement of the individual mandate the obvious starting point for Romneycare?

La literatura
05-30-2012, 03:37 PM
Except for those who want no govt in it. I'm movin' to Tahiti.

Do they have internet down there?

Chocolate Hog
05-30-2012, 08:14 PM
If you can't add anything to the discussion in this thread, you'd be better off if you didn't post at all.

All you're doing is showing that I really got to you in some other thread, and you're still upset about it.

Please you do this in every thread with nothing to backup your bullshit.



Anyone who calls the differences "relatively minor" either doesn't understand either bill, or is being deliberately deceptive. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just don't understand either bill.

You obviously don't understand the bill.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/11/how-mitt-romneys-health-care-experts-helped-design-obamacare/



Johnathan Gruber helped design Romneycare as well as Obamacare. He says both are similar.

"The two laws are, in the words of Jonathan Gruber, who helped design both the Romney and Obama plans, ‘the same f------ bill."


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/06/romneycare-and-obamacare-differ-only-in-inconsequential-ways.html

More proof you are full of shit.

Brainiac
05-31-2012, 07:10 AM
Please you do this in every thread with nothing to backup your bullshit.

You obviously don't understand the bill.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/11/how-mitt-romneys-health-care-experts-helped-design-obamacare/

Johnathan Gruber helped design Romneycare as well as Obamacare. He says both are similar.

"The two laws are, in the words of Jonathan Gruber, who helped design both the Romney and Obama plans, ‘the same f------ bill."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/06/romneycare-and-obamacare-differ-only-in-inconsequential-ways.html

More proof you are full of shit.
Did you even read the article you linked to?


From the article Billay linked to:

That’s the part that will get play in his opponents’ ads. But, in fairness to Romney, later in the piece, he did argue that federalism and experimentation were the best way forward. “One great thing about federalism is that states can innovate, demonstrate and incorporate ideas from one another,” he wrote. “Other states will learn from our experience and improve on what we’ve done. That’s the way we’ll make health care work for everyone.”

Romney has changed his mind on quite a few things since his days as governor. And many of his arguments distinguishing Romneycare from Obamacare are nonsensical. But it’s accurate to say that he has consistently supported state-based health-care reform over a one-size-fits-all approach. On that narrow point, perhaps, conservatives should cut him a break.
And by the way, Jonathan Gruber was never part of the Romney administration. He was a consultant who was hired first by Romney in Massachusetts and later by the Obama administration. Of course he is going to say that both plans are the same. He has a very strong vested interest in being consistent. And in his defense, the plans he proposed to both administrations probably were very similar. The difference is that the Obama administration and the filibuster-proof Democratic majority passed a completely bastardized version of Gruber's plan that was full of political payoffs and so much idiotic bullshit that the price tag is a trillion dollars.

The mistake you are making is relying on the "appeal to authority" fallacy. You ignore the evidence that's right in front of you (2,070 pages vs. 70 pages, $500 Billion in new taxes vs. no new taxes, $500 Billion taken from Medicare vs. nothing taken from Medicare). Instead, you say, "Well, Johathan Gruber says so, that makes it so".

Those are three arguments that you cannot rebut, and they are MAJOR DIFFERENCES between Romneycare and Obamacare.

Instead of worshiping authority figures and letting them do your thinking for you (Ron Paul, Jonathan Gruber), you really ought to try thinking for yourself for a change. You might find it refreshing.

Brainiac
05-31-2012, 07:36 AM
What are some of the main differences, as you see it?

See post #9.

No, I'm asking you for your thoughts, not an inaccurate chart by Mike Sage for its thoughts.
I've said this over and over again, but I'll repeat it one more time for you. The main differences are:


Obamacare will cost a trillion dollars. Romneycare has cost $442 million after 5 years. That's an ENORMOUS difference. True, the Romneycare cost is for a single state. But if you assume the same cost for all 50 states and multiply that 442 million by 50, you get $22 Billion. If Obamacare cost $22 billion instead of a freaking trillion dollars, nobody would be complaining about Obamacare. Hell, Obama would be a shoo-in for re-election if that were the case, and people from both sides of the aisle would be building statues of him.
Romneycare was passed with bi-partisan support, and even after 5 years a majority of Massachusetts citizens still support it. Obamacare was pushed through a Democratic Congress with NO support from Republicans, and a majority of American citizens are bitterly opposed to it.
Obamacare will consume an additional $500 billion of tax dollars. Romneycare did not raise taxes at all because the Romney administration found savings in other areas and used those savings to fund Romneycare. The Obama administration didn't do that with Obamacare.
An additional $500 billion will be taken away from Medicare and used for Obamacare. Romneycare did not affect Medicare at all.
Romneycare was intended to be a solution for a single state. At the time the bill was passed, Romney even said that this solution might not work for every state, and that other states will have the opportunity to learn from the experiences in Massachusetts and come up with their own plans. Obamacare is a one-size-fits-all mandate that is forced upon everybody at once.
See #1. Obamacare will cost a trillion dollars. I can't say that often enough.

Oh, and the fact that one bill is 70 pages long and the other bill is 2,070 pages long is prima facie evidence that the bills are vastly different from each other. Anyone who won't admit that is simply being a partisan hack.

Chiefshrink
05-31-2012, 08:54 AM
Perhaps if you see it in the form of a picture you'll understand it.

http://americaneedsmitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/obamacare-romneycare-chart-600.jpg

Either or, Romneycare is still considered a failure in Mass for many 'statist' reasons. Can't imagine how bad OMarxist care will be once fully implemented but 'son of bitch' they have no problem 'already' collecting taxes for it.

Bottomline: Repeal NOT "Tweeking" is the only answer. If Romney does not totally repeal and decides to 'tweak' for political sake which is what I fear, "We The People" are ****ed ! This is like allowing a malignant tumor(that can be cut out) to hang around that has gone into remission if you only "tweak" it.

Chiefshrink
05-31-2012, 08:58 AM
[QUOTE=Brainiac;8649128]I've said this over and over again, but I'll repeat it one more time for you. The main differences are:

[LIST=1]
Obamacare will cost a trillion dollars.

It will be almost 2 trillion. Paul Ryan ran the numbers back when the Dems disingenuinely(lied) massaging the numbers to get them below 1 trillion for psychological marketing purposes.

Brainiac
05-31-2012, 09:52 AM
It will be almost 2 trillion. Paul Ryan ran the numbers back when the Dems disingenuinely(lied) massaging the numbers to get them below 1 trillion for psychological marketing purposes.
A trillion here, a trillion there, it almost doesn't matter any more because there's no freaking way to pay that first trillion, let alone subsequent trillions.

That's the part that's really annoying. The liberals always talk about the benefits that they want and they don't give a damn the costs are, even when the costs are incredibly outrageous.

Direckshun
05-31-2012, 10:02 AM
Was the Heritage Foundation's endorsement of the individual mandate the obvious starting point for Romneycare?

Brainiac?

Brainiac
05-31-2012, 10:37 AM
Brainiac?

Why are you ignoring the major differences and focusing your attention on this? Do you think it's going to result in some sort of "Gotcha!" moment?

My answer is this: Probably, but that's not really important or significant. I've already conceded that both plans include an individual mandate. Unfortunately for your side, that single similarity is dwarfed by the enormous differences I've been pointing out throughout this thread.

There are at least a trillion differences between the two plans. Each of those differences is represented by one US dollar.

Direckshun
05-31-2012, 10:42 AM
Why are you ignoring the major differences and focusing your attention on this? Do you think it's going to result in some sort of "Gotcha!" moment?

Because it's the source of our entire discussion.

You said this.

stop saying that it was largely invented by the Heritage Foundation or that it's "just like" Romneycare. It wasn't, and it isn't.

Now you say this.

Probably

Took you a full day and two threads to get there. But you're there. Good on you.

Amazing what a little knowledge does.

Brainiac
05-31-2012, 10:52 AM
Because it's the source of our entire discussion.

You said this.



Now you say this.



Took you a full day and two threads to get there. But you're there. Good on you.

Amazing what a little knowledge does.
Ah yes, another meaningless declaration of victory from Direckshun. The crux of the discussion is whether or not Romneycare is "just like" Obamacare. It was obvious you were going for that "Gotcha!" moment. The problem for you is that you've actually lost the debate because you can't explain away the fact that there are trillions of differences between the two plans, each of which costs a dollar.

Direckshun
05-31-2012, 10:54 AM
Ah yes, another meaningless declaration of victory from Direckshun. The crux of the discussion is whether or not Romneycare is "just like" Obamacare.

I've given you a trillion differences.

I'm telling you that Obamacare was based on Romneycare which was based on the Heritage Foundation.

Do you disagree, or agree.

You agree.

So what the hell are we talking about?

Brainiac
05-31-2012, 10:57 AM
I'm telling you that Obamacare was based on Romneycare which was based on the Heritage Foundation.

Do you disagree, or agree.

You agree.

So what the hell are we talking about?
(sigh)

You're being intentionally obtuse again. I'm done. It's like trying to explain economics to a third-grader.

Direckshun
05-31-2012, 11:05 AM
(sigh)

You're being intentionally obtuse again. I'm done. It's like trying to explain economics to a third-grader.

Call Dr. Matt (http://www.calldrmatt.com/) if you're feeling down.

I'm sure he's got some hynotherapy designed to soothe your nerves. LMAO

FD
05-31-2012, 12:48 PM
I'm telling you that Obamacare was based on Romneycare which was based on the Heritage Foundation.

Do you disagree, or agree.

You agree.

So what the hell are we talking about?

It seems that he agrees that functionally Obamacare is the same as Romneycare, but is different because its larger and financed somewhat differently. Obamacare is financed from Medicare and from new taxes. Romneycare is financed from Medicaid, preexisting taxes, and some new taxes.

The major difference he sees, though, is that Obamacare is larger, both in terms of the number of pages used to describe it and the amount of money it requires.

So I think we can all just agree that Obamacare is Romneycare writ large, on the federal rather than state level. Some people, like Brainiac here, oppose it for that reason, others like yourself dont consider that a downside.

From my perspective, the jury is still out on Romneycare/Obamacare, but I think it would be worthwhile if we at least acknowledged that one is just a larger version of the other.

Brainiac
05-31-2012, 01:20 PM
It seems that he agrees that functionally Obamacare is the same as Romneycare, but is different because its larger and financed somewhat differently. Obamacare is financed from Medicare and from new taxes. Romneycare is financed from Medicaid, preexisting taxes, and some new taxes.

The major difference he sees, though, is that Obamacare is larger, both in terms of the number of pages used to describe it and the amount of money it requires.

So I think we can all just agree that Obamacare is Romneycare writ large, on the federal rather than state level. Some people, like Brainiac here, oppose it for that reason, others like yourself dont consider that a downside.

From my perspective, the jury is still out on Romneycare/Obamacare, but I think it would be worthwhile if we at least acknowledged that one is just a larger version of the other.
That's like saying a Tyrannosaurus Rex is just a larger version of a 3-inch lizard. After all, they're both reptiles, right?

Romneycare cost the state of Massachusetts $442 million over a 5-year period. If you divide that $442 million by the number of residents in Massachusetts (6.6 million people), you get a cost of $67 per person. Obamacare will cost anywhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. There are roughly 312 million people in the United States. The cost of Obamacare is over $3,200 per person. That may not sound like much at first glance, but when you multiply that $3,200 by 312 million people, you get a trillion dollars.

If the plans were the same, the cost per person would be roughly the same, and the total cost of Obamacare would be roughly $21 billion instead of somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. In other words, Obamacare costs 48 times as much PER PERSON as Romneycare.

That's a significant difference, and that's why nobody will ever be able to make a truly convincing argument that the two plans are the same.

That's because the plans aren't the same, and it's not even close. A dinosaur is not the same thing as a lizard.

If President Romney chooses to abolish Obamacare and replace it with Romneycare, and as a result he reduces the cost of a national health care system from over a trillion dollars to 21 billion dollars, I'm guessing that most people would be on board with that.

Direckshun
05-31-2012, 01:25 PM
That's like saying a Tyrannosaurus Rex is just a larger version of a 3-inch lizard. After all, they're both reptiles, right?

Romneycare cost the state of Massachusetts $442 million over a 5-year period. If you divide that $442 million by the number of residents in Massachusetts (6.6 million people), you get a cost of $67 per person. Obamacare will cost anywhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. There are roughly 312 million people in the United States. The cost of Obamacare is over $3,200 per person. That may not sound like much at first glance, but when you multiply that $3,200 by 312 million people, you get a trillion dollars.

If the plans were the same, the cost per person would be roughly the same, and the total cost of Obamacare would be roughly $21 billion instead of somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion.

Not the best comparison. Massachussetts has a much smaller percentage of uninsured folks than America as a country does.

HonestChieffan
05-31-2012, 01:37 PM
Not the best comparison. Massachussetts has a much smaller percentage of uninsured folks than America as a country does.


really?

Brainiac
05-31-2012, 01:48 PM
Not the best comparison. Massachussetts has a much smaller percentage of uninsured folks than America as a country does.
Wrong. It's a great comparison.

Massachusetts had 600,000 uninsured folks out of a population of 6.6 million, which means roughly 9% of the people were uninsured. The USA has a population of 312 million. 9% of 312 million is 28 million uninsured people. The estimates of uninsured people in the USA has ranged from 30 million people when Obama took office to 50 million people today. Even if we assume that Obamacare will provide insurance for 60 million people, that means Obamacare should cost twice as much per citizen as Romneycare. If it only cost twice as much, the cost of Obamacare would be $42 billion.

Not $2 trillion. Not $1 trillion. $42 billion. That's a difference that is so significant that no reasonable person can conclude that the two plans are the same.

I apologize for throwing all these facts and figures at you, since you obviously prefer to deal with vague generalities such as "they both include an individual mandate, therefore they are both the same". But sometimes you have to actually look at the details in order to have an informed opinion.

FD
05-31-2012, 02:49 PM
That's like saying a Tyrannosaurus Rex is just a larger version of a 3-inch lizard. After all, they're both reptiles, right?

Romneycare cost the state of Massachusetts $442 million over a 5-year period. If you divide that $442 million by the number of residents in Massachusetts (6.6 million people), you get a cost of $67 per person. Obamacare will cost anywhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. There are roughly 312 million people in the United States. The cost of Obamacare is over $3,200 per person. That may not sound like much at first glance, but when you multiply that $3,200 by 312 million people, you get a trillion dollars.

If the plans were the same, the cost per person would be roughly the same, and the total cost of Obamacare would be roughly $21 billion instead of somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. In other words, Obamacare costs 48 times as much PER PERSON as Romneycare.

That's a significant difference, and that's why nobody will ever be able to make a truly convincing argument that the two plans are the same.

That's because the plans aren't the same, and it's not even close. A dinosaur is not the same thing as a lizard.

If President Romney chooses to abolish Obamacare and replace it with Romneycare, and as a result he reduces the cost of a national health care system from over a trillion dollars to 21 billion dollars, I'm guessing that most people would be on board with that.

What aspects of Obamacare make it more expensive than Romneycare, besides its being larger?

dirk digler
05-31-2012, 03:09 PM
That's like saying a Tyrannosaurus Rex is just a larger version of a 3-inch lizard. After all, they're both reptiles, right?

Romneycare cost the state of Massachusetts $442 million over a 5-year period. If you divide that $442 million by the number of residents in Massachusetts (6.6 million people), you get a cost of $67 per person. Obamacare will cost anywhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. There are roughly 312 million people in the United States. The cost of Obamacare is over $3,200 per person. That may not sound like much at first glance, but when you multiply that $3,200 by 312 million people, you get a trillion dollars.
.

It didn't cost MA just $442 million that is how much it increased over the 5 year period that the state paid for. We paid the remaining half billion.

http://www.masstaxpayers.org/sites/masstaxpayers.org/files/Health%20Reform%20Report.pdf

The gains of health reform have been achieved without placing an unexpected or unmanageable burden on the state's budget. Annual spending for programs affected by Chapter 58 grew from $1.041 billion in fiscal 2006 to $1.947 billion in fiscal 2011, an increase of approximately $906 million (Table 1). The state's share of this spending increase is $453, or 50% of the total. While critics claim the health reform has been a "budget buster." additional state spending attributable to the health reform law accounted for only 1.4 percent of the Commonwealth's $32 billion budget in fiscal 2011.

Brainiac
05-31-2012, 03:17 PM
What aspects of Obamacare make it more expensive than Romneycare, besides its being larger?
I'm not going to go through the 2,070 page bill so that I can show you the differences between it and the 70 page bill.

Brainiac
05-31-2012, 03:30 PM
It didn't cost MA just $442 million that is how much it increased over the 5 year period that the state paid for. We paid the remaining half billion.

http://www.masstaxpayers.org/sites/masstaxpayers.org/files/Health%20Reform%20Report.pdf
You are correct, sir. I should have included the federal matching funds in the figures I quoted, rather than just what Romneycare cost the Massachusetts taxpayers in state taxes.

This means Romneycare cost twice as much as I stated. However, that doesn't change the basic message. Obamacare is 24 times as expensive as Romneycare on a per-person basis rather than 48 times as expensive. Obamacare is still a bloated mess that is very, very different from Romneycare.

I appreciate your taking the time to do some actual research and finding a document with good information in it.