Why is Romney care popular with the Gop but Obama care isn't ?

Plenty of republicans have grave doubts about the Mass plan and romney as well. I am not at all so sure that the Mass plan is financially viable over a longer period. The one thing we should have learned is that once you start taxing one group to subsidize another, the subsidies never seem to be enough and there is endless pressure to raise taxes to pay for them. I am also not convinced that it is constituitional to compel people to buy a private service.

Obama clearly plans to give amnesty to upwards of 40 million illegal immigrants. Guess who will be paying for their insurance?

In any case, if obama had shown any leadership and presented some form of the romney plan, perhaps with romney's backing, it would have passed with bipartisan backing. Instead, he let Pelosi et al go with a draconian far left plan that frightened voters.

 

"There is this widespread assumption, that is treated as fact, that it's breaking the bank in Massachusetts ... it's not breaking the bank at all." said Michael Widmer of Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

http://www.masstaxpayers.org/public...s_health_reform_the_myth_uncontrollable_costs

 

WSJ editorial on the success of Massachusetts health reform!

http://www.masstaxpayers.org/files/wsj_editorial_mjw.pdf
(73kb)

"While reforming health care for a whole country is vastly more complicated, the overwhelming success of the effort in our state makes a compelling statement that national reform can succeed. One wonders why critics have been so zealous in distorting the facts to “prove” that the Massachusetts reform is a failure. This is not some theoretical discussion but a real achievement and lifeline for hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts citizens."

 

Relax, relax. We tax one group to subsidize another, for public education, and currently we're forecasting dozens of districts getting funding cuts and thousands of teachers losing their jobs. See? It can all be reversed if it's not working out!

 

Tim Cahill slams Barack Obama, Dems on health care

By Jessica Van Sack
Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - Updated 3m ago

State Treasurer Tim Cahill, taking swipes at both Gov. Deval Patrick and President Obama, boosted his bipartisan chops yesterday, telling Herald columnist Howie Carr on WRKO, “I voted for John McCain, believe it or not.”

Cahill, saying he was barred from the 2008 Democratic National Convention because he wouldn’t endorse either Obama or Hillary Clinton, said, “My own party basically voted me out.”

“I was afraid of what we had already been getting in Massachusetts, and at that point in 2008, I was aware that it wasn’t working,” he said. Separately yesterday, Cahill accused Obama of “propping up” the Bay State’s health plan with federal aid in order to help push the Democrats’ plan through Congress.

“The real problem is that this . . . sucking sound of money has been going into this health-care reform,” Cahill said. “And I would argue that it’s being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through.”

Gov. Deval Patrick argues the state’s universal health care program has added 1 percent to the budget, but Cahill said the real impact is buffered by federal dollars.

Meanwhile, Republican Charles Baker’s campaign said Patrick “has consistently failed to address rising health-care costs in Massachusetts.” Baker, the former Harvard Pilgrim CEO, advocated for years for greater transparency on the part of medical service providers.

Cahill called on congressional Democrats yesterday to go “back to the drawing board,” saying he fears they will “bankrupt” the country.

Patrick’s campaign yesterday used Cahill’s health-care smackdown in its latest fund-raising pitch, e-mailing supporters that Cahill “is advocating policies that could put that access, and their health, in jeopardy.” Patrick, whose administration held a hearing on health-care costs yesterday, said exorbitant premium increases and medical service costs need to be curbed through legislation he has proposed.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1240176

 

This is like asking why was it that only Nixon could have gone to China. The answer is, of course, only a rabid anti-communist could have had the credential to negotiate with the communist.

It would take a corporate subsidizing, insurance company lobbied, 'government-is-the-problem' espousing Republican to be able to produce a health care reform bill that is acceptable by the right. That kind of Republican bill turned out to be a health care bill that doesn't cover many and doesn't save much and doesn't reform much.

 

Tell him to run for Patrick's seat on the platform to end Romney care and see how far he gets.Romney care is very popular in Mass and Romney is very popular in the GOP

As far as rising costs,its a national problem,not a Romney care only problem

 

Once the government starts subsidizing something, do you think the cost is more likely to go up or down?

Luckily, we don't have to speculate. We have the example of education costs. The federal government started subsidizng those in a small way after WW II with the GI Bill. Then it expanded with some loans and grants. Very popular, so itwas expanded to cover middle class parents and greatly ramped up.

Guess what happened? All along the way, university "costs" kept rising at a rate far above inflation. Tuition increases escalated fara bove inflation or anything else. The universities managed to grab for themsleves all the increases in government "aid" to parents and students. The poor parents were better off before the government started "helping" them, because their own ability to pay put a lid on what universities could charge.

You need only drive around any big university tosee the resluts. Palatial buildings, world class resort type recreational facilities, tenured professors who teach a few hours a month, vast reams of useless "research" paid forby government grants and an attitude of entitlement that any Wall Streeter would be comfortable with.

 

"An excerpt from his interview with Chris Wallace: ROMNEY: A big difference — a state plan versus a federal plan. No new taxes, unlike his plan. No cut in Medicare, unlike his plan. And no controls over insurance premiums, price controls, cost controls like his plan. So very, very different in that regard. It’s the difference between a racehorse and a donkey, if you will, so — they both have four legs, but one works pretty well and the other’s not working and would not work at all."
. . .

 

Exactly...........Big difference in a state enacting programs and the central bureaucracy enacting them. I am very pleased to see that some states are starting to flex their "states rights" muscle back at the feds.