Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Differences between ‘Romneycare,’ ‘Obamacare’

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:41 am, Wed Apr 11, 2012.

Last week a reader questioned how a person could support Mitt Romney and yet criticize Obamacare. Since Obamacare is based on Romneycare, I myself wondered what the difference was, and did a little investigating. While I found many similarities, there were three major differences.

Romneycare is for the state of Massachusetts and involves 300,000 people. That makes it very manageable and easy to monitor. Obamacare is meant for 300 million people. Can you imagine the bureaucracy that has to be created to administer such a plan? It could easily become the largest department in the government. Can you imagine the fraud that can be perpetrated on such a system? Can you imagine the cost of such a boondoggle?

The second difference is after several years, Romneycare has cost the state of Massachusetts 1 percent of its budget. The cost of Obamacare is incalculable, because there are fees, costs and conditions still to take effect in 2012, '13 and '14, and who knows how far into the future?

The third difference is that Romneycare was voted on and passed by the good people of Massachusetts. We the people had no say on Obamacare. It was conceived with no input from the people. It is being jammed down our throats regardless if we wanted it or not.

Mr. Romney has said that if elected he would give each state the option to decide what kind of plan they would like to have. That's called choice!

Jim Sugden

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

28 comments:

  • Brian Dockter posted at 4:14 pm on Sat, Apr 14, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2857

    Correction


    Only a small portion of the State of Mass. is covered as reported by John Kerry's office.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 4:13 pm on Sat, Apr 14, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2857

    Ms. Bobbin wrote:

    This is typical Brian Docktor. He doesn't care what the facts are, just that the statements made agree with his own limited knowledge, therefore they are reality to him.

    -Mr Goethel is wrong. The entire stat of Mass is not covered by Romneycare. the information provided by John Kerry's office should be enough alone. but that doesn't kepp Ms. Bobbin and Mr. Schmidt from making fools out of themselves.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:57 pm on Fri, Apr 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    I understand exactly what Ms Bobin is referring to. There are employers who hire illegal aliens. I was not talking about that problem... Ms Bobin was. Unfortunaely, she was stating that I was talking about what she perceived. I was correcting her inability to comprehend what I was talking about.

    I think it is a problem. I do think the solution is to make it easier to work in this country and speed up the legal immigration process . The law should be followed by all, but current government involvement and complexity hurts us all.

    It is however, extremely naive to think there is not an underground economy that is vibrant in our country. One of the reasons the IRS has decided to issue TAX ID"S other than Social security numbers are for an economic reality that you obviously are unaware of.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:44 pm on Fri, Apr 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric stated...Darrell what a ridiculous premise construction projects need to be completed by licensed contractors in order to be legal

    Obviously! In fantasy land, everyone follows the law. In United States?
    One also needs to enter this country legally to be legal. If I am not mistaken, are there not 11,000,000 to 20,000,000 people in our country illegally? That is not following the law as well. Yet here you are talking about what is legal. Thanks for the comic relief Eric.

    I live out in the country in Acampo. When my roof was visibly bad, I had no less than 5 different people stop by my house to offer to put a new roof... none had licenses , papers and all were from Mexico. could have saved a ton of money.. but of course I used a local person who was here legally, but are you serious?

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:06 pm on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1591

    Darrell what a ridiculous premise construction projects need to be completed by licensed contractors in order to be legal. Otherwise a property would have violations. If a licensed contractor hires illegal workers they are in violation of there licensing. It may be common place but the problem is created by the employers. this is what Joanne is referencing.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:03 pm on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin... I hope you are intentionally joking. You are not familiar with how it works?

    I am not talking about employees working for a company. I am talking about the 1000's of people who are small businesses with1-5 employees where all are illegal. If you hire someone to pour cement and a man brings 4-5 works with him, the man bringing the workers and the workers do not have Social Security numbers or tax ID numbers. A cement job that normally costs $10,000 cost closer to $5000. It is so prevalent I thought you already knew. Installing roofs, painting, car ports, all sorts of jobs are done under the table. Do you know how many millions of dollars are earned that way and money sent back to Mexico where the US dollar is more valuable?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:56 pm on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "Just ask anyone in construction who pays taxes and attempts to compete with the illegal person that pays no tax and does not pay for workers compensation insurance. Its hard to compete against such an economic advantage."

    So you are FINALLY blaming employers who hire these illegals? Did I read that correctly? And if the worker gets hurt on the job and the employer cannot cover him under his WC policy because he's not legal?

    Mr. Baumbach wrote: "There, they will issue a tax ID number that is not a social security number. The person I took was not paying taxes but now is. Yes, the IRS makes it easy and participates in supporting illegal activity."

    So presumably the illegal was working without documents, meaning the employer knowingly hired an illegal and therefore was not paying the required tax obligations for said employee. But it's all the fault of the guy who wanted to do what the IRS lets him do legally?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:53 pm on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    I do however disagree with you about how many do this. Most I have met are afraid to approach the IRS as they fear deportation. Most in my experience do not pay taxes and work under the table. Just ask anyone in construction who pays taxes and attempts to compete with the illegal person that pays no tax and does not pay for workers compensation insurance. Its hard to compete against such an economic advantage.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:50 pm on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Mr Lucas stated...Gary, The vast majority of illegal aliens work and pay taxes. How the government signs them up I have not a clue but if we had Medicare for all they would be paying into the system.

    Let me help you out Mr Lucas.

    Since I have direct real experience in this, a person who is in this country illegally can contact the IRS...in fact, I drove such a person directly to the IRS office in Stockton. There, they will issue a tax ID number that is not a social security number. The person I took was not paying taxes but now is. Yes, the IRS makes it easy and participates in supporting illegal activity. The ends jusitfies the means many times in our society.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:40 pm on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin...Ironically, in the past he has claimed that he will be better off under Obamacare because he will be able to sell so many more health insurance policies...

    Ms Bobin and Mr Schmidt seem to know things about me that I am unaware of. I did say insurance industry will be very happy if people are forced to buy insurance. Of course they are. That means they will make more money. Making more money makes any company in any industry more happy. Nothing nefarious about that.

    Imagine the joy in the construction industry if it became law that everyone had to buy a house. That once a house is 30 years old, it is declared unsafe and must be torn down and rebuilt... that would mean more money for construction. So of course an industry will enjoy forcing the public to buy the product they make. I do not think it is ethical and would rather the insurance industry made less money. They make too much money as it is.

    As far as licenses, yes, I have contracts... but I can not remember the last time I marketed insurance.
    I also have an international drivers license, but have never driven a car over seas here in Thailand.
    Do either of you know what section 125 cafeteria plan administration is? Have either of you participated in claims adjudication? You both seem so bitter and delusional that it is a shame.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:59 pm on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Goethel stated...In addition, my daughter goes to college there and is covered by the provisions of it, so I have to deal with it every time she gets a tuition bill. You see, she is covered by my plan here and have to opt her out as an out of stater.
    So, in reality, I guess I know a lot more about it and how it works than you do.

    As a person involved with healthcare claims adjudication and section 125 cafeteria plan administration, I am a little confused about your thought that you must opt out for your daughter as she is an out of stater. Current law is that you can cover family members to age 26 weather they are a student of not. There is never a requirement that one must opt out a dependent if they go out of state. The dependent (your daughter) is covered by the HMO for emergencies only, but does not have to opt out. If you change your family health plan to a PPO, you can cover your daughter nationwide for all conditions. Your daughter should be able to opt out of Massachusetts health care ( saving you money) as long as she can demonstrate she is covered by you. There is no reason you cannot iclaim her as a dependent as long as she has not attained age 26.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 3:07 pm on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Gary,
    The vast majority of illegal aliens work and pay taxes. How the government signs them up I have not a clue but if we had Medicare for all they would be paying into the system.

    In response to someone in another thread I said:

    In 1986 a bill was passed and signed by Ronald Reagan the mandated that emergency rooms must treat patients whether they can pay for it or not. Judging from the reaction of the audience in a Presidential debate when Ron Paul was asked about this very thing it is clear that people on your side of the street are perfectly content with denying care and letting people die if they cannot pay for treatment. In the recent Supreme Court proceedings Judge Scalia questioned whether we should mandate treatment in this manner. That being said the law now is that everyone in America can get treatment in an emergency room. If you want to have an argument about the 1986 law that is fine but as long as that law exists we have Government mandated healthcare for every one in this country just like every other developed nation in the world.

    If you are working and paying extra for heath insurance you are also paying for those who do not and hit the emergency room. It is because of a bill Ronald Reagan signed that we have a national heath care system that covers everyone. Having decided that the only question is what system is cheaper, cover everyones, and is most efficient. Clearly our present one is an abject failure. Obamacare is a step up but we can do better.

     
  • Gary Musto posted at 2:31 pm on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Gary Musto Posts: 506

    How exactly will those 10-20 million illegal aliens pay for Obamacare and how does the government propose to have them sign up??

    John Lucas, "Would you rather pay $800 more in taxes?"

    $800 more, no, but if you want to kick in my share feel free to do so, who is going to pick up the cost John of those that can't afford to pay, someone is going to pay, who's it going to be, oh right, those evil millionaires and billionaires huh??

     
  • John Lucas posted at 2:08 pm on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    When Obamacare is fully implemented it will dramatically reduce heath care spending in our nation in terms of percentage of GDP, total costs and cost per capita. The reason is really simple. People who now are not insured will go to the doctor in the early stages of a health problem where treating the problem is relatively low instead of showing up at the emergency room in the late stages of the health problem when the costs skyrocket and are passed on to the taxpayer. It is like driving a car. You ignore the oil light by refusing to put oil in the next thing you are going to be doing is rebuilding a motor.
    That being said I would prefer any of the health systems other developed countries have as they cover everyone, do it cheaper, and have better medical outcomes than we do. If we matched the percentage of GDP that the most expensive of their systems has we would be spending 630 billion dollars less A YEAR in health care costs. This is quite a drag on our economy.
    My preference would be to put everyone on medicare. This would have the benefit of Obamacare listed above but also take the greedy grossly inefficient health insurance companies out of the equation. Medicare administrative costs come in at about 5% as apposed to the health care companies which are close to 20%. Spare me the talk of how this would raise taxes. Would you rather pay $800 more in taxes or would you rather pay $1200 to the health insurance companies?

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 11:21 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Mr Sugen: Don't let the attacks prevent you from writing more letters...defend your position here as well. It is people like you that are starting to come out of the woodwork like the "Silent Majority" once did and the Tea Party is doing today. I am glad to see people speak up...for both sides. Not everyone will agree or disagree but it is good that the conversations and ideas be vetted...unlike our current empty suit in the WH. I personally like what you say.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 11:17 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Fred: "The population of Massacusetts is 6,587,000 people, all of which are covered by Romneycare." I suggest you all check your facts first...especially if you are going to accuse people of misinformation:

    According to the US Census Bureau...As of 2007 5.4% of Mass's adult population was not insured (children 3%). That equals about 400K people who lived there did not have insurance. The median for adults nation wide per state was around 13% (children 3% to 20%). Those children and adults were taken care of by many local, state and federal programs as well as charities and fundraisers (like the one currently going on for Mason Fluty).

    Here is my point...IF someone wants to have a family provide for their family the necessities of life, they get a job. IF they want more than the basic necessities, they thrive to improve their lot in life. IF they want to protect their children, they either get a better job, sacrifice some of their goodies, get a better education or skills or they take on a second or even third job, or start their own business. Like many of us have had to do.

    The couch potatoe/defeatist attitude that many people cling to today will never work, it will only drive those who do work to the brink and over. Remember the old lady the Dems said the Reps were pushing off the cliff? Well...TODAY that is the small business owners and their employees...only BO and his cronies are having to use semi-truck and tractors to accomplish their goals.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:36 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Docktor wrote:

    "-Chuckle,

    Then how can you conclude those figures are wrong? And Darrell listed some sources. Why not just concede you really don't know anything about Romneycare instead of making a foll out of yourself"

    This is typical Brian Docktor. He doesn't care what the facts are, just that the statements made agree with his own limited knowledge, therefore they are reality to him.

    No matter how close you hold Mr. Baumbach's feet to the fire, Mr. Schmidt, he will NEVER admit that he holds over 25 appointments to Health Insurance companies in the State of California. Ironically, in the past he has claimed that he will be better off under Obamacare because he will be able to sell so many more health insurance policies, but he chooses to forfeit the income in the interest of fairness to the American people who would be oppressed by this law.

    Mr. Sugden wrote: "Can you imagine the fraud that can be perpetrated on such a system?"

    We already have one of those - It is called "Medicare." Good documentary on MSNBC last weekend on all of the crooked doctors and peddlers of ancillary services who are billing Medicare for millions and millions of dollars fraudulently. The Obama admininstration has stepped up efforts to combat fraud, more than any other administration in recent years.

    http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/April/12-ag-429.html

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 9:58 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2603

    Darrell, in the interest of full disclosure and context, I think you should make some mention of what, exactly, you do for a living.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 9:55 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2603

    In any case, Romneycare was formulated by the Governor and passed by the Massachusetts House and Senate. At no time was it the subject of a statewide referendum.

    Ooops. I let the cat out of the bag. Now the Dreaded Rear Admiral is going to come down on you like a load of bricks demanding that you admit you know nothing about Romneycare and stop making a FOLL out of yourself. The man is nothing if not consistent.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 9:53 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2603

    Jimmi wrote:"The third difference is that Romneycare was voted on and passed by the good people of Massachusetts. We the people had no say on Obamacare."

    Jimmi, the same objection could be raised to EVERY act of the legislative branch since the Constitution was ratified in 1789. While I congratulate you on your new found understanding of the republican system of government, I don't know how you are going to stop this outrage from occurring on a daily basis, short of holding a constitutional convention.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 9:46 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2603

    Brian scrawled "Why not just concede you really don't know anything about Romneycare instead of making a FOLL out of yourself."

    Irony..... ya gotta love it!

     
  • Frederick Goethel posted at 9:11 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Frederick Goethel Posts: 50

    Mr. Dockter,

    If you really read my comments, you would see they were aimed at the author of the original letter....not at Darrell's comments.

    As for knowing something about Romneycare....almost my entire family lives in Massachusetts, so I am quite familiar with the provisions.We discuss it on a fairly regular basis. In addition, my daughter goes to college there and is covered by the provisions of it, so I have to deal with it every time she gets a tuition bill. You see, she is covered by my plan here and have to opt her out as an out of stater.

    So, in reality, I guess I know a lot more about it and how it works than you do.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:51 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2857

    Good Letter Mr. Sugden. And to add: it's going to cost $500 million to hire 17,000 IRS workers to keep track of his juggernaught.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:47 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2857


    Mr. Goethel wrote

    I'm not sure where the author got his figures, but there are some problems with them.


    -Chuckle,

    Then how can you conclude those figures are wrong? And Darrell listed some sources. Why not just concede you really don't know anything about Romneycare instead of making a foll out of yourself.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:43 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2857

    Darrell,

    Thanks for the sources and info on Romneycare.

     
  • Frederick Goethel posted at 6:54 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Frederick Goethel Posts: 50

    I'm not sure where the author got his figures, but there are some problems with them. The population of Massacusetts is 6,587,000 people, all of which are covered by Romneycare....not the 300,000 cited. If you are going to claim 300 million Americans across the nation are affected by Obamacare, you need to use the same parameters for judging it against Romneycare and that would be to use the entire population of the state.

    Secondly, I have no idea where you got the information that the citizens of Massachusetts voted for Romneycare, however that infomation is wrong. There was never any ballot issue about whether to have Romneycare or not. In fact, it is rare for issues to be placed on ballot in Massachusstts at all. The whole subject was voted on the the legislature and then by Romney. Period.

    If you are going to write a letter such as this, I suggest you check your facts first.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:13 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    CONTINUED...

    4. New fees imposed on medical device manufacturers
    The bill imposes a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices, beginning in 2013. It has been opposed by the makers, including Boston Scientific Corp. and Covidien, which have argued that the tax would add to health care costs and would force companies to cut back on research and development.
    5. Immigrants
    Under current federal law, legal immigrants — generally those here less than five years — are barred from federally-funded health coverage. Currently, Massachusetts provides subsidized health insurance to these legal immigrants but does not receive any federal funds for this coverage. Budget shortfalls prompted legislators last year to significantly scale back the immigrants’ coverage, sparking a lawsuit by advocates who say that is unequal treatment under the law. Starting in 2014 under the federal plan, Massachusetts would get federal funds to cover this group of immigrants. Immigrants in the country illegally would not qualify for coverage.


    SOURCES: Offices of Senator John Kerry, Representative Edward Markey, Governor Deval Patrick; US Census; The Massachusetts Health Connector; Community Catalyst; BIO; MassMedic; and the Massachusetts Hospital Association
    COMPILED BY: Matt Viser, Susan Milligan, Kay Lazar, and Robert Weisman

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:11 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Oh my, there are many more differences as well... In Mass alone... here are some...

    1. New tax on high-cost insurance plans
    There would be a 40 percent tax on the most expensive plans, which have been called “Cadillac” plans. The House bill raises the threshold to plans valued at more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The tax would be imposed starting in 2018. About 8,600 out of the 6.2 million people insured in Massachusetts would be subject to that tax.
    2. Cuts to Medicare Advantage
    The measure makes significant cuts to plans under a program called Medicare Advantage, which are offered through insurance companies and provide extra benefits. The cuts could prompt insurers to stop offering many of the plans or reduce benefits, and many elderly people are expected to switch to traditional Medicare fee-for-service coverage. There are about 198,000 Massachusetts residents enrolled in Medicare Advantage.
    3. Eliminating the Medicare ‘doughnut hole’
    The bill would close a coverage gap for Medicare prescription drug plans. Currently, Medicare covers costs up to about $2,700, and it starts paying again after total costs exceed $6,200. The gap in the middle would be closed by 2020. About 80,700 Massachusetts seniors would be affected.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 4 hours ago by Rick Houdack.

article: Letter: Political correctness is decept…

It doesn't really work Shane's way, either. God needs superstitious humans to exist; without ignorance, God is nothing.

More...

Posted 5 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Joe Guzzardi: Millenials still sufferin…

[lol] Mine, too. But, then again, don't we all when we're young?

More...

Posted 5 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Political correctness is decept…

Well said, Mr. Marcus. I couldn't agree more.

More...

Posted 5 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Editorial: State should lead in researc…

Excellent editorial, LNS. [thumbup]

More...

Posted 11 hours ago by Kevin Paglia.

article: Letter: U.S. suffers from total lack of…

Why do I stand against the hate, malice and contempt the Liberals post against cops defending their lives by being authoritative and occasi…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists