It is a HUGE myth that Romneycare and Obamacare had much in common. Here are the key and essential differences:
1) Romneycare was focused on the needs of just one state alone, where such policies are permitted under the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. Obamacare is unconstitutional and applies to all 50 states.
2) Romneycare only affected the 8% of the population in MA who lacked health coverage. Obamacare effects and impacts all Americans.
3) Romneycare did not raise a penny of new taxes. Obamacare has dozens of new taxes.
Yes Romneycare did mandate the uninsured to purchase health coverage (private insurance)-—something it does have in common with Obamacare-—but states can and do require residents to purchase insurance such as automobile insurance.
It is a big lie to compare Romneycare to Obamacare. They have very little in common. It is like comparing an ant to and elephant.
Gruber designed both plans, he disagrees with you.
I agree with post to certain extent. States do not require motorist to buy issurance for themselves, only the title company does. You are required to carry insurance in the event you hit someone else. This make owning and operating a motot vehicle economically possible. If I chose not to drive, I am not required to buy insurance at all. Otherwise, your posting is informative.
Both RomneyCARE 1.0 and ObamaCARE (RomneyCARE 1.1)
ARE IDENTICAL. They bring fewer docs, higher prices,
longer waits, and in Mass. deaths by pharmacy, too.
Romneycare was the 2006 flagship accomplishment that was going to take Mitt Romney into the White House in 2008, I doubt that he had nothing else in mind in regards to Romney/Obama care for the nation.