Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well...he has to be ambiguous. It's how all politicans are when they're trying to get elected. I also read that he might be adding some more details to his plan soon.
What I'm trying to say is that his plan is actually no plan at all. You cannot promise ending lifetime caps on benefits or coverage of pre-existing conditions without rigorous price controls and a way the pay for them. Also, selling across state lines would automatically trigger commerce clause regulation and wouldn't work without federal oversight or administration. Otherwise you end up with the health insurance companies moving to the states with the weakest coverage and responsibility regulations.
Quote:
His plan was quite a bit different from what was actually implemented in MA. There's a lot in there he didn't want and a lot that wasn't in there that he did want. Not to mention, it was a state program, not a federal program.
Regardless, he managed to cover nearly 99% of all MA residents and the plan has a nearly 70% approval rating. He should be crowing about it.
Just wait until you see the millions who'll leave out the exact amount they would have to pay for the Obama tax. What is the IRS going to do? Go after all of them?
Many Republicans will being paying fines they probably can't afford on principle...
Romney's Plan? He's talking but not saying anything as usual... You can't get any specifics out of this empty suit... Every thing he mentions are enhancements but not a plan... You can't fix a broken system with bandaids...
Quote:
Mitt "I don't care about the very poor" Romney
Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the approaches best suited to their own citizens.
That'll be too bad for the IRS, especially if the numbers are overwhelming.
The IRS will figure out how to get the governments money... You should feel bad for all the rednecks who will have low FICO scores because of their decision to be idiotic...
Those of you screaming Jingle is an idiot, fool, or some other such nonsense do not have any sense about operational costs and timelines to implement compliance to the Medicaid portion of the ACA. If you did, then you would realize that one to one and one and a half years is plenty of time.
The compliance with that portion of the Act does require your state health department to organize, budget for and prepare for go live in 2014. Your state legislature will also need to come to grips with accomodating the additional expense in the fiscal 2014 state budget. Once you understood that you didn't have a clue about running something, much less a state budget, then you'd realize you are incapable of handling his job, or any other job of similar responsibility. You'd sit down, keep your mouth shut and get educated. or, be seen for the mouthy fool that you are.
One does not set up the apparatus, systems and people, for something that might not happen. They have a cost, and tearing down the systems and people, if something does not come to past, carries a cost. Roberts was clear in that while the ACA may be deemed constitutional, the answer to the question of, is it good or wise law, is decided in the political arena. So, there is no reason for states to immediately decide whether or not to engage in the expanded Medicaid portion of the act.
If Obama is reelected, or the Democrats retain a majority in the Senate, regain the house, or some combination, then states will still have one and one-half years to implement the opt in. Plenty of time.
If the Republicans get 50 + 1, then they too can use the reconciliation process to get rid of the tax, that is not a tax. Which very well might render the Medicaid option untenable. I think the count is 23 Dem Senate seats being contested, 10 Repub Senate seats being contested. Natural odds tilt in favor of the Republicans gaining control. But, who really knows the outcome? If you say you do, then it is only so much chest thumping and BS false-bravado.
This is more or less the election history since 2000 - Republicans won the Presidency, Senate and House, and again in 2004; though both the House and Senate majorities began to slip away. 2006, the Democrats got control of both. 2008 Obama elected, majorities in both House and Senate increased for the Democrats. 2010, Republicans regained House majority and whittled away at Democratic Senate majority. What happens in 2012 is still open. The political 'control', ebbs and flows.
One thing for sure, there are lots and lots of folks in the 40K - 100K range who will be paying higher taxes as a result of the ACA. Not the 1%.
Louisiana and other states who have not yet opted into the medicaid portion will wisely be cautious, in seeing how this plays out, before bearing the cost associated with opting in. We are only at intermission.
Well at least Jindel has the balls to say what he feels. Not storm out of Congress foot stomping and pouting about things like a certain white lady and her posse of black pimps
That's not exactly true. That only applies to the Medicaid part, not to the other parts, which the federal government can enforce directly.
The problemm is like Obama discussed in his debates with Hillary;how. One only has to point to the states ignorig federal drug laws and even cities ignoring immgrations laws for decades before Obama dream decision. With the president's decision on ignorig the immagratio law it just adds to the problem when the rule of law is ignored even more.The courts i its decisio to not allow federal governamnt to punish for not passing mediciad laws to confm witht eh orginal law has established a resonable reason that states do not themselves have to do nayhtig to enforce federal laws. Even the administration has taken this stance in sayig states can not enforce federal immagration laws.Should be interesting.
It is ridiculous to even think about implementing anything until after the election. Big waste of time and resources. Nothing has to be set until 2014. Romney said his first day in office he will issue waivers for every state. So the entire election appears to be molded into a healthcare debate. If public polling on the issue has any bearing then the bammer is toast.
That's not exactly true. That only applies to the Medicaid part, not to the other parts, which the federal government can enforce directly.
Yup.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
