ObamaCare Still Toxic In Swing States

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by pspr, Mar 9, 2012.

  1. pspr


    Gallup surveyed voters three weeks ago in the dozen swing states that will decide this year’s presidential election and found that the 2010 Democratic health law was still a toxic asset in President Obama’s political portfolio.

    In the swing states, 53 percent of registered voters had negative views on the law compared to 38 percent who saw the new slate of regulations, entitlements and welfare benefits positively.

    Worse, 72 percent in swing states and 69 percent nationally said the law had so far not affected them. The outlook for the future was grim – 34 percent of swing staters said the legislation would not make much difference and 42 percent said the law would make things worse for their family.

    Just 11 percent think the law has helped them already and only 20 percent think that the law will ever do them any good, with identical findings nationally and in swing states. That’s dire.

    This was not the plan. The idea was that the goodies of the law were to be frontloaded so that skeptical voters could be convinced that the “death panel” monstrosity that Republicans and Tea Party activists had described was a myth.

  2. Good news for Obama is that he is running against Obamacares original creator :)
  3. Romney Urged Obama to Adopt the Individual Health-Care Mandate

    At BuzzFeed, Andrew Kaczynski breaks the news that, in a 2009 op-ed for USAToday, Mitt Romney encouraged President Obama that he’d be well-served by adopting elements of the Massachusetts Romneycare plan, particularly the individual mandate.

    In the context of urging on the president “the lessons we learned in Massachusetts” that “could help Washington find” a better way to reform health care, Governor Romney explained, “We established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibility for themselves, rather than pass their medical costs on others.”

    This seems very significant. A number of us have expressed concerns that Romney cannot effectively confront Obama on Obamacare, the wrongheadedness and unpopularity of which make it the Republicans’ most crucial issue in the campaign. In response, Romney posits that he is a Tenth Amendment guy who saw what he was doing as right for his state, and perhaps other states, but certainly not a national model to be adopted at the federal level. For what it’s worth, I’ve contended that those claims are utterly unpersuasive (some are downright frivolous). But that hardly matters now. The op-ed demonstrates that Mitt regarded Romneycare precisely as a model the federal government ought to adopt, and that the “tax penalties” by which Massachusetts’s individual mandate are enforced were a good fit for Congress and the Obama administration to impose by federal law.

    Besides the individual mandate, Governor Romney’s op-ed also proposed government-managed cures to address the government-caused cost spiral generated by the government-designed fee-for-service structure. Patients, he suggested, should be “required to pay a portion of their bill, except for certain conditions” — to be chosen, of course, by the government. Providers would be “paid an annual fixed fee for the primary care of an individual and a separate fixed fee for the treatment of a specific condition” — said fixed fees to be fixed by the government.

    Nowhere does the op-ed suggest that government involvement is the principal cause of cost inflation, and that maybe prices would come down if people paid all their ordinary health expenses out of pocket and had insurance, purchased in a truly free market, for catastrophes and other high-expense conditions. (Romney does argue that the current un-free market in health insurance is preferable to a “single-payer” system of government-provided coverage.) Nowhere does the op-ed consider whether the federal government’s role ought to be limited to policing against interstate fraud, with the states left to deal with other issues — without federal interference and without passing the costs of their solutions along to the rest of the country. And nowhere does the op-ed make any mention of the Constitution.

    I’ve asked this question before — and it’s one that ought to be addressed by all the GOP candidates, not just Mitt. But while Romney made much of Rick Perry’s assertion that Medicare is unconstitutional, no one ever asked Romney to explain his theory for why it is constitutional. Do the GOP candidates all accept the premise that the federal government has an open-ended power to do anything in the “General Welfare,” unrestrained by the specifically enumerated powers assigned to Congress in Article I — none of which endows Leviathan with authority over the regulation of health care
  4. 377OHMS


    There is a good chance that Obamacare will be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

    Romney has said repeatedly that the federal constitution prohibits the mandate that Obamacare is based on and that he will repeal it.
  5. pspr


    SCOTUS is supposed to hear arguments later this month and rule by sometime in June.

  6. 1.Possible,I think they wont though

    2.In 2009 during the healthcare fight Romney supported a individual mandate.Suggesting that there be a individual mandate while thinking its unconstitutional just makes him look worse imo


    Mitt Romney pushed health care mandate for US in 2009 article

    WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney, slammed repeatedly by both Democrats and his Republican rivals for the GOP nomination for perceived flip flopping on universal health care, got hit again Monday ahead of Super Tuesday.

    Andrew Kaczynski, a journalist from Buzzfeed, has unearthed three television news clips from the summer of 2009 in which Romney bragged about taking on health care reform in Massachusetts and said the federal government could learn from the Bay State and use it as a model to get everyone insured.

    Kaczynski also dug up a USA Today op-ed penned by Romney in July 2009 that urged President Obama to adopt an individual mandate to purchasing health insurance as part of national reform.
  7. jem


    Its funny everyone not a paid shill for Obama, knows he will be lucky to get 40 percent of the vote.

    Yet the shill are out there acting likes its close.

    And no I don't care about intrade... you don't think money can rig that?
  8. pspr


    One would think that between gasoline prices, which 70% say is their #1 concern in election 2012, and ObamaCare that his numbers would be closer to 30% approval than 50%.
  9. Its funny that someone would think that a guy with a 46-53 % approval rating and a rock solid base of supporters thinks that he will only get 40 % of the vote :confused:

  10. 'paid shill for Obama'? Weird note, I'm sure no one here on ET gets paid for any of their thoughts.

    As far as Obama's healthcare, I'll repeat that it should have been single payer, not the health insurance company welfare that it morphed into.

    As far as who is winning, well, since all the R candidates are helping Obama win, he's got a great chance unless the R's come in with Jeb and Christie, or similar.

    I doubt Intrade is being manipulated. Each side would have enough money to swing the votes, so neither would likely try to win an unwinnable war. Well, we would hope not anyway.

    #10     Mar 9, 2012