Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on November 12, 2010, 03:56:42 PM
-
Likely Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the former governor of liberal Massachusetts, could be looking at trouble ahead from tea party activists in 2012. Amy Kremer, president of the influential Tea Party Express, says the health law Romney signed when he was governor will "absolutely not" be acceptable to the movement.
Kremer made the comment to David Brody of Christian Broadcasting Network. When Brody asked her if the "Massachusetts healthcare situation" will fly with the tea party movement, she responded, "Absolutely not. I'm being honest here." She added that "the days of people being able to do one thing in their state in front of a microphone, and then going to Washington and doing something else" are over: "The Internet, and 24-hour news cycles changed it all, and these people don't have short memories, they're digging up everything from the past, and they're not going to let go of the health care."
Romney promoted and signed a bill that is similar to the new federal health law in some key respects, including a requirement that everyone buy coverage, subsidies to help low-income people afford the policies, and online exchanges or marketplaces where people can comparison-shop for policies. Democrats have said it served as a model for the bill President Obama signed.
More than 50 million Americans are uncovered. Under the new federal law, an additional 32 million people are projected to have health insurance by 2019. The law also tightens regulation of insurance companies, adds consumer protections and projects a range of savings as a result of, among other things, curbing Medicare growth, coordinating care and offering incentives for better care.
Republicans campaigned this year in part on pledges to repeal "Obamacare," which they called a symbol of big government run amok. Romney and other conservatives initially pitched the purchase requirement as a matter of people taking personal responsibility for health expenses rather than expecting others to foot the bill for care they receive but can't afford. He has said he supports the right of states to do what's right for them and opposes the federal law because it imposes the same system on all states.
More than 97 percent of Massachusetts residents have health insurance, much better than the national rate of about 85 percent. And the system is popular -- a poll last year found that residents of the state support it by a 2-to-1 margin.
The Tea Party Express poured money into Republican primaries and played a key role in the Senate nominations of Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. Both went on to lose.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iBXgOcuP-jE/SYtfcfgD_sI/AAAAAAAAAY4/I1nQc_IbRTY/s400/PALIN-LIMBAUGH+2012.jpg)
-
More than 97 percent of Massachusetts residents have health insurance, much better than the national rate of about 85 percent. And the system is popular -- a poll last year found that residents of the state support it by a 2-to-1 margin.
WOW.
So............ people in MASS are actually happy with romneycare?
-
Benny stick to putting cornrows in your hair and throwing up gang signs. Let the adults discuss politics.
Massachusetts and its nanny state healthcare mandate have turned out to be an utter disaster. The state is practically bankrupt because of it. I'm too lazy and indifferent to teach stupid people about current events, but a google search should reveal several articles explaining why MA is in such dire shape. Their healthcare plan has a lot to do with it.
You know what, I'm in a generous mood-- Here's one just for you Benny. Have someone read it to you.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Universal_coverage_First_look_at_the_disaster_in_Massachusetts_011109.html
Universal coverage? First, look at the disaster in Massachusetts
Examiner Editorial
-
January 11, 2009 To much fanfare from both right and left in 2006, Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to require all residents to buy health insurance. A new state health insurance clearinghouse was created, with taxpayers subsidizing those who couldn’t afford to buy coverage. Then Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, promised that “every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance.” Yet just two years later, Romney’s much-heralded “solution” — touted by many as the model for a national program — has become an embarrassing flop.
Just a year after the universal coverage law passed, The New York Times reported, state insurers were already jacking up rates to twice the national average. According to Dr. Paul Hsieh, a physician and founding member of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, 43 mandatory benefits — including those that many people did not want or need, such as invitro fertilization — raised the costs of coverage for Massachusetts residents by as much as 56 percent, depending upon an individual’s income status. So much for “affordable” health care.
Small businesses with more than 10 employees were required to provide health insurance or pay an extra fee to subsidize uninsured low-income residents, yet the overall costs of the program increased more than $400 million — 85 percent higher than original projections. To make up the difference, payments to health care providers were slashed, so many doctors and dentists in Massachusetts began refusing to take on new patients. In the state with the highest physician/patient ratio in the nation, some people now have to wait more than a year for a simple physical exam.
The irony is that Massachusetts officials reluctantly admitted that, despite increased enrollment, the state is still far from universal coverage — the original goal of the landmark law. To make matters worse, Massachusetts is grappling with a multibillion-dollar deficit while Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick desperately tries to slow down those still-spiraling health care costs, which he said last week were “not sustainable.”
If this sounds just like Canadian-style socialized medicine, that’s because it is. Massachusetts residents now pay more for less access to health care, yet their state still has an uninsured problem!
Government mandates — even those originally billed as “market-based solutions” — always turn into a “rights-violating road to disaster,” Hsieh says. Barack Obama’s health policy advisers should take a good look at the smoldering wreckage in the Bay State before trying to impose any such “universal coverage” on the rest of the nation
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Universal_coverage_First_look_at_the_disaster_in_Massachusetts_011109.html#ixzz15AfyM28P
-
More than 97 percent of Massachusetts residents have health insurance, much better than the national rate of about 85 percent. And the system is popular -- a poll last year found that residents of the state support it by a 2-to-1 margin.
WOW.
So............ people in MASS are actually happy with romneycare?
Apparently so.