Yes, Romneycare is the father of Obamacare. But there are diffrences. Obamacare is 2700 pages long and intrudes into more things than even the congress critters know since no one has read the entire thing. Romneycare is what 78 pages?
Another difference, Romneycare is a state’s rights issue. One can move to another state. There is no escape from Obamacare.
Another difference, Romneycare mandates health insurance ONLY via private insurance companies. Obamacare creates and funds government run pools for those who can not afford the ever escalating private insurance premiums.
OK, so if Romney won’t get rid of Obamacare then who? SCOTUS is out of it for good now. If Zero gets 4 more years, then Obamacare gets so deeply entrenched, we will never get rid of it. Michelle Bachmann has been explaining that for many months.
I am perfectly willing to give Romney 2 or 3 days in office to see if he is a man of his words. He has said 100 times he will sign EO on first day in office to all 57 states. If he does not, he is toast in 2016 just like Bush-41 was after “read my lips, no new taxes”.
“Another difference, Romneycare is a state’s rights issue. One can move to another state. There is no escape from Obamacare.”
Sure there is. A lot of folks can’t see this, however.
What’s this business about the Obama administration granting “waivers” that exempt certain companies and organizations (such as labor unions) from some, many, or perhaps all of the provisions of ObamaCare? We read about this again and again in the news. Yes, it’s done for political reasons. But — it’s still done. Just what provisions are these organizations escaping?
Was not a key piece of bait in the original law, the lure that snared Ben Nelson’s vote, something called “The Cornhusker Kickback”, which exempted the ENTIRE STATE of Nebraska from some key provisions of the law? What was that about?
Well, waivers — as “politically tacky” as they may be — can work BOTH ways.
Since they seem to come from the executive bureaucracy, who gets what depends on who is sitting in the Oval Office.
Maybe it’s impossible to “repeal” ObamaCare (I’m not optimistic about it, I’m a realist). But, if the left can grant “waivers” to whomever it wishes, once the Republicans get charge of the federal bureaucracy, who’s to say that THEY don’t have the right to issue waivers, as well?
If an entire state such as Nebraska can be “waivered”, why can’t OTHER states apply and be granted such waivers, also?
Surely a state like Vermont would NOT want any such thing. Indeed, their legislature recently passed a “single payer” law.
But what about a state like North Dakota? If it’s Constitutional that Nebraska received a waiver, how could it NOT be Constitutional if North Dakota were to receive one?
Can you see where I’m going with this?
Suppose they passed a law, but granted waviers to anyone who asked to be exempted from it?
If the democrats do this when they have the power to do so, it’s going to be difficult for them to argue against Republicans doing the same thing once they have control (I expect the ‘rats to do so, regardless).
Just how many states have passed laws that try to exclude their residents from ObamaCare? Isn’t it up around 25 or so?
Rather than force this issue to the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds, why not “end run around it” by a Romney administration that simply grants waivers to those non-complying states that exempt them from as many provisions of ObamaCare as possible?