Posted on 03/28/2012 11:21:14 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Jim Pethokoukis spotlights a new Health Affairs study on how Romneycare laid the foundation for Obamacare, and what it portends for the federal health insurance scene. In short: Expanded government coverage, higher taxpayer costs. Read here for details and analysis. His conclusion:
The authors conclude that based on the Romneycare experience, Obamacare will improve coverage and not kill employer-based insurance, but containing costs will be a “considerable challenge.” That is probably the avenue Romney should use to a) attack Obamacare and b) present his own national health reform. But this study will perpetuate the meme that Romneycare was the prototype for Obamacare. Santorum hammered Romney on this point at the last debate more effectively than any other candidate throughout this campaign season, probably because he understands the issue better than his rivals. We’ll see if he or Gingrich follows up tonight. No surprises, of course. We already heard from Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber in October:
The Obama administration may have relied much more heavily on Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare legislation as a blueprint for Obamacare than was previously believed.
White House visitor logs obtained by NBC News revealed that three of Romney’s healthcare advisers had up to a dozen meetings with senior administration officials, including one in the Oval Office presided over by President Barack Obama.
“They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model,” MIT economist and Romney healthcare adviser Jon Gruber told NBC. And back in September, I noted the analysis by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute showing the depths of the economic damage that Romneycare did in the Bay State.
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...
Will the decision negate the Law in Mass??
No, it won’t. The Supreme Court is deciding whether a federal mandate violates the U.S. Constitution.
The Mass State mandate does not violate the U.S. Constitution ... because, with a few notable exceptions (Bill of Rights incorporated via the 14th Amedment), States are not bound by the US Constitution.
The Mass law is a completely different Constitutional question than the Fed one.
SnakeDoc
A mandate is merely a dictate. Thus, if we are dictated to, do we then live under a Dictatorship?
If our freedom of choice is taken from us by the dictates of a hostile Federal government, then what Liberty do we have left?
This self flagalation needs to stop. Not to defend Romney but it is not different on one key point: RomneyCare does not violate the MA state constitution. ObamaCare violates the US constitution.
All other comparisons are shooting ourselves in the foot and falling into the DemocRAT trap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.