[so_real]

Remember, FRiends, Romney has absolutely no intention of "repealing" ObamaCare without also "replacing" it with RomneyCare. The RINO's will favor it. The conservative Republicans will be brow beat into going along for sake of "party unity". And the Democrats will rant loudly against it, but accept it quietly as a compromise that solidifies the socialization of medicine in this country in perpetuity. Any chance we have of fully and permanently repealing ObamaCare ends with Romney's election.

[tatown]

One thing I’m 100% certain of, our chances for getting it repealed/gutted are better with Mitt than the Marxist in Chief. With that said, guess which one gets my vote?

[Diogenesis]

The GOP HERO WAS NEVER HAPPIER:

---

THE REAL DEAL:

"RomneyCare 2.0 With costs rising fast, Massachusetts moves to dictate medical care
Under the plan, all Massachusetts doctors, hospitals and other providers must register
with a new state bureaucracy as a condition of licensure—that is, permission to practice.
They'll be required to track and report their financial performance, price and cost trends,
state-sanctioned quality measures, market share and other metrics."

---

Emergency room visits grow in Mass. New insurance law did not reduce number of users
The number of people visiting hospital emergency rooms has climbed in Massachusetts,
despite the enactment of nearly universal health insurance that some hoped would reduce expensive emergency department use."

---

Back to the ObamaCare Future (price controls in Massachusetts)
Natural experiments are rare in politics, but few are as instructive as the prototype for
ObamaCare that Massachusetts set in motion in 2006.
Last month, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick landed a neutron bomb, proposing hard
price controls across almost all Massachusetts health care. State regulators already have
the power to cap insurance premiums, which Mr. Patrick is activating. He also filed a bill
that would give state regulators the power to review the rates of hospitals, physician
groups and some specialty providers.

It doesn't even count as an irony that former Governor Mitt Romney (like President Obama) sold this plan as a way to control spending"

---

"The Huge Middle Class Tax Increase Coming Our Way With ObamaCare
The former CBO director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, warns today on the effect ObamaCare
will have on our economy and health care. These facts should be painfully obvious to
those with even one iota of common sense. This bill will lead to a huge middle class tax increase:
Remember when health-care reform was supposed to make life better for the middle
class? That dream began to unravel this past summer when Congress proposed a bill that
failed to include any competition-based reforms that would actually bend the curve of
health-care costs. It fell apart completely when Democrats began papering over the
gaping holes their plan would rip in the federal budget.

As it now stands, the plan proposed by Democrats and the Obama administration would
not only fail to reduce the cost burden on middle-class families, it would make that burden significantly worse.

The bill creates a new health entitlement program that the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) estimates will grow over the longer term at a rate of 8% annually, which is much
faster than the growth rate of the economy or tax revenues. This is the same growth rate
as the House bill that Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) deep-sixed by asking the CBO to tell
the truth about its impact on health-care costs.

To avoid the fate of the House bill and achieve a veneer of fiscal sensibility, the Senate
did three things: It omitted inconvenient truths, it promised that future Congresses will
make tough choices to slow entitlement spending, and it dropped the hammer on the middle class.

One inconvenient truth is the fact that Congress will not allow doctors to suffer a 24% cut in their Medicare reimbursements. "

---

"DEATH PANELS OPEN FOR BUSINESS IN MASSACHUSETTS
In August Sarah Palin wrote extensively about the incredible danger that ObamaCare
would lead to what amounts to "death panels." This of course caused great controversy
with many claiming Palin was either "crazy" or talking about the "end of life"
discussions that were provided for within House Resolution 3200, the prototype
ObamaCare bill.
As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan
that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is
dropping, and we're saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of
health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care
will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the
most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The
America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down
Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can
decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether
they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil. .
Now we have news from Massachusetts, the home of RomneyCare, which should be
looked at as a shining example of why ObamaCare will be an epic failure. Soaring costs
both to the taxpayers and patients was inevitable, and now the effects of these are coming home to roost.
You can't reap these savings without limiting patients' choices in some way,"

---

"You can't reap these savings without limiting patients' choices in some way," said Paul Levy, CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess.

The state's ambitious plan to shake up how providers are paid could have a hidden price
for patients: Controlling Massachusetts' soaring medical costs, many health care leaders
believe, may require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any
hospital and specialist they want.

Efforts to keep patients in a defined provider network, or direct them to lower-cost
hospitals could be unpopular, especially in a state where more than 40 percent of hospital
care is provided in expensive academic medical centers and where many insurance
policies allow patients access to large numbers of providers. ."

---

"State plan may place limits on patients' hospital options( Mass. RomneyCare )"

---

"Paying the Health Tax in Massachusetts [Romneycare]
My husband retired from IBM about a decade ago, and as we aren't old enough for
Medicare we still buy our health insurance through the company. But IBM, with its
typical courtesy, informed us recently that we will be fined by the state.
Why? Because Massachusetts requires every resident to have health insurance, and this
year, without informing us directly, the state had changed the rules in a way that made
our bare-bones policy no longer acceptable. Unless we ponied up for a pricier policy we
neither need nor want-or enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan-we
would have to pay $1,000 each year to the state.
My husband's response was muted; I was shaking mad. We hadn't imposed our health-
care costs on anyone else, yet we were being fined ("taxed" was the word the letter used).

We've spent much of our lives putting away what money we could for retirement. We
always intended to be self-sufficient. We've paid off the mortgage on our home, don't
carry credit-card debt, and have savings in case of an emergency. We also have a regular
monthly income of about $3,000, which includes an IBM pension. My husband, 61, earns
a little money on the side, sometimes working as an electronics consultant on renewable
energy projects. I'm 58 and make some money writing science books. We are not
wealthy, but we aren't a risk of becoming a burden on society either. How did we become outlaws? "

---

"National Health Preview - The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood."
"Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country.
It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.
In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.
As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget.
The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic.
The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less expensive if everyone were covered.
But reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues.
Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional.
Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers."

---

A Very Sick Health Plan; Bay State's 'Grand Experiment' Fails [RomneyCare]
"The Daily News Record, Harrisonburg, Va. - 2009-03-31 "
"For folks increasingly leery of President Obama's plan to radically overhaul America's health-care system,
or 17 percent of the nation's economy, all this could hardly have come at a better time -
that is, fiscal troubles aplenty within Repubican Mitt Romney's brainchild, Massachusetts' "grand experiment" in "universal" health care."

"Initiated on Mr. Romney's gubernatorial watch in 2006, this "experiment" has fallen on hard times, and predictably so.
Even though the Bay State commenced its program with a far smaller percentage of uninsured residents than exists nationwide,
"RomneyCare" is threatening to bankrupt the state. Budgeted for Fiscal Year 2010 at $880 million,
or 7.3 percent more than a year ago, this plan, aimed at providing low- or no-cost health coverage to roughly 165,000 residents,
has caused Massachusetts' overall expenditures on all health-related programs to jump an astounding 42 percent since 2006.

So what does Mr. Romney's successor, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, propose as a remedy for these skyrocketing costs?
Well, whaddya think? The standard litany of prescriptions (no pun intended) - price controls and spending caps, for a start, and then, again predictably, waiting periods and limitations on coverage.
As in Europe and Canada, so too in Massachusetts. And, we feel certain, everyone from Mr. Romney to Mr. Patrick said, "It would never happen here."
But then, such things are inevitable when best-laid plans, with all their monstrous costs, run smack-dab into fiscal reality.

---

Health care in Massachusetts: a warning for America [Romney brings Mass. to its knees]
The Bay State's mandatory insurance law is raising costs, limiting access, and lowering care.
Sedalia, Colo. - In his recent speech to Congress, President Obama could have promoted
healthcare reforms that tapped the power of a truly free market to lower costs and
improve access. Instead, he chose to offer a national version of the failing
"Massachusetts plan" based on mandatory health insurance. This is a recipe for disaster.

Three years ago, Massachusetts adopted a plan requiring all residents to purchase health
insurance, with state subsidies for lower-income residents. But rather than creating a
utopia of high-quality affordable healthcare, the result has been the exact opposite -
skyrocketing costs, worsened access, and lower quality care.

Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily define what
constitutes acceptable insurance. In Massachusetts, this has created a giant magnet for
special interest groups seeking to have their own pet benefits included in the required
package. Massachusetts residents are thus forced to purchase benefits they may neither
need nor want, such as in vitro fertilization, chiropractor services, and autism treatment -
raising insurance costs for everyone to reward a few with sufficient political "pull."

Although similar problems exist in other states, Massachusetts' system of mandatory
insurance delivers the entire state population to the special interests. ."

---

"'Severe' doc shortage seen hiking wait time The Boston Herald ^ | 9/15/09 | Christine McConville As the state's shortage of primary care doctors grows, people are waiting longer for medical care, according to a new survey by the Massachusetts Medical Society. "The shortage is getting more severe," said Dr. Mario Motta, the medical society's president. The state's health care dilemma can serve as a valuable lesson for a nation whose residents are locked in a frenzied debate about health care reform, he added."

---

"Health costs to rise again.( RomneyCare )
The state's major health insurers plan to raise premiums by about 10 percent next year,
prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers.
The higher insurance costs undermine a key tenet of the state's landmark health care law
passed two years ago, as well as President Obama's effort to overhaul health care. In
addition to mandating insurance for most residents, the Massachusetts bill sought to rein
in health care costs. With Washington looking to the Massachusetts experience, fears
about higher costs have become a stumbling block to passing a national health care bill."

---

"Nation's ill-advised to follow Mass. plan [Health plan a failure]
September 17, 2009 The canary is dead.
Massachusetts, the model for the ObamaCare universal insurance plan, is the canary in
the health care coal mine. Yesterday, its obit appeared on the front page of both The Wall
Street Journal and The Boston Globe-Democrat.

Both papers reported that our Commonwealth Care reform isn't working as planned. A
new law that was supposed to control costs and drive prices down (sound familiar?) has
instead sent costs soaring. "

---

---

"Bay State Insurance Premiums Highest in Country - Boston Globe August 22, 2009
Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country,
according to a new analysis that highlights the state's challenge in trying to rein in medical costs
after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone...
The report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care foundation,
showed that the average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008,
40 percent higher than in 2003. Over the same period, premiums nationwide rose an average of 33 percent..."

---

"Massachusetts: the laboratory for ObamaCare
Cato Institute looks a little farther down the coast to Massachusetts, where the state began its own health-care reform complete
with individual mandates and a government plan.
Cato calls it an "almost perfect" mirror of ObamaCare, complete with promises of reducing cost and extending care - that failed in both respects:
Massachusetts shows that such a mandate would oust millions from their low-cost health plans and force them to pay higher premiums. …

---

"Massachusetts' Obama-like reforms increase health costs, wait times [RomneyCare]
"If you are curious about how President Barack Obama's health plan would affect your health care, look no farther than Massachusetts.
In 2006, the Bay State enacted a slate of reforms that almost perfectly mirror the plan of Obama and congressional Democrats.
.... Premiums are growing 21 to 46 percent faster than the national average
in part because Massachusetts' individual mandate has effectively outlawed affordable health plans."

---

"Mass. Pushes Rationing to Control Universal Healthcare Costs (RomneyCare)
A 10-member Massachusetts state healthcare advisory board unanimously recommended
that the state begin rationing healthcare to keep the state's marquee universal health care program afloat financially.
The July 16 recommendations, the Boston Globe explained, would result in a situation where "patients could find it harder to get procedures they want but are of questionable benefit if doctors are operating within a budget.
And they might find it more difficult to get care wherever they want, if primary doctors push to keep patients within their accountable care organization."
The Globe stressed that the recommendations would "dramatically change how doctors and hospitals are paid, essentially putting providers on a budget as a way to control exploding healthcare costs and improve the quality of care."
"Budget" is a more politically acceptable word for rationing.
The Globe also noted that "consumer advocates said patients are going to have to be educated about the new system." Yes, apparently they will have to get used to having their healthcare rationed.

was the word the letter used).

[bkepley]

If Massachusetts wants public health care that’s up to Massachusetts in my opinion.

[Kazan]

Quoting one of Rush's old monologues after the attack on magician Roy Horn -- a tiger is a tiger. You can train a tiger to behave a certain way but you can never change the tiger's true nature.

And, Romney is what he is. The idea that Romney is going to change and govern as a conservative is an absurd expectation, especially given that he and the Republican establishment know most conservatives will always settle for the lesser of evils.

[ansel12]

We won’t know what Romney’s politics are for sure until we see him in office, unless of course, one wants to do the evidently out dated thing, and look at his Governor’s term.

Maybe one of his followers can pin it down for us and tell the American voters, Mitt’s driving political philosophy.

[Tennessee Nana]

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

As horrible as RomneyCare is, there is a massive difference between states deciding on their own to do something, and being bound by the balanced-budget amendments that most states have, and the one-size fits all budget/business destroyer that ObamaCare imposed on all 50 states.

It should also be noted that Romney did veto (overridden) the $295/employee tax on businesses that was in the Massachusetts bill. ObamaCare includes a $2000/employee tax.

I hate RomneyCare, but then, I could care less what happens in Massachusetts. If Romney pushes reforms that give more states more discretion at their level, that's much, much better than being stuck with ObamaCare.

[mojito]

I’m still going to vote for this idiot, but in the last couple of weeks I’ve become utterly fatalistic about the election.

Because of nonsense like this, I harbor serious doubts that Mittens can win. Even if he does, I doubt whether he has the ability or even the desire to halt the rot eating this country away at the foundations.

I think we’re in for an old-fashioned biblical chastisement, and that America will have to feel the wrath before we can again see the light.

[TheBattman]

Sigh.....

Dear Candidate Romney,

Quit being an

[conservaterian]

Big surprise. I find it hard to believe all the Romneybots on this site. Yeah, I’ve heard it all - ABO, the country will be destroyed in 4 years, etc. etc. I heard the same old arguments in ‘08 and that worked out so well for us, didn’t it? I’m supporting Virgil Goode - go to his web site and read his platform. Sounds like Free Republic used to be. If we don’t send a message to the Republican Party this time, just WHEN will we do it? I heard the same old arguments in ‘08 and that worked out so well for us, didn’t it.

[Gator113]

“Any chance we have of fully and permanently repealing ObamaCare ends with Romney’s election.”

I don’t like Romney and I have not planned to vote for him. However, when I read a position such as yours, that I agree with, I still have to ask myself, how it would be better to let Obama continue.

I can’t stand Romney, but I hate Obama’s guts....

More and more, I do not think that I will be able to not vote against Obama. If I trusted the Republicans, and I certainly don’t, I would hope that impeachment proceedings would start the very day that Obama wins the election, BUT those balls-less cowards will not lift a finger.... so we would be stuck with 4 more years of hell from that dictator POS.

Now, if that GOP-e RINO Romney would at least.... Never mind, I made myself sick.

These dark times suck.

[Diogenesis]

[what's up]

And I know how to make a better setting than the one we have in health care

If the "setting" is one in which each State decides for itself (which is what Romney has said and I'll believe him for now), that's a good thing.

If he has in mind a "setting" which is a Massachussetts-type framework for all we will depend on a GOP Congress to change his mind.

Either way, it is far better than what we have under the Won.

[ejonesie22]

I can tell you exactly what he will do. He will get rid of Obamacare and all the Mitt loving “conservatives” and such will cheer and accuse the rest of us of being too negative..

Then he will wait a year and submit Romneycare.

Of course now we have the Democrats in congress who will be smart enough to realize this is everything they want to begin with and the squishy republicans in the majority who will not want to go against a sitting president of their own party.

So while Obamacare was originally blocked, the same thing sold by a “Republican” president and a “Republican” congress will make it the law of the land...

And we so called “Obama lovers” and “DU plants” will get a big I told you so...

[TheBattman]

Some of our founding fathers were so wise (probably because many were well-trained and conversant in God's Word). The philosophy of those wise men was that they saw the need for a moral and responsible citizenry for our form of government to succeed. Many recognized the evils of a government's heavy hand.

Flash forward - now we have a nation (and a government that not only willingly hands out $billions in freebies to the irresponsible and lazy, but actually actively PROMOTES such behavior!

Since when did it become the responsibility (Constitutionally) of the government (Federal, State, or Local) to provide medical care (or education)?

When did it become the responsibility of the government (IE - taxpayers) to fund the lifestyle or bad decisions of those with less initiative, lower work ethic, or the idiots?

It all started with the "feel good"... Like the Clinton-era "for the kids" strategy, the US was hitting hard economic times, so the solution - start up such programs as Social Security, Medicare, etc. The sales pitch - a "helping hand" to be a "bridge" until they can again support themselves. After all, even most conservatives I know can be quite generous in helping those who are doing all they can to make it. But all along, it was a ponzi scheme to set up future generations of dependents. There has NEVER been an intention to move people from "welfare to work". That was yet another scam of the Clinton administration. They renamed programs and threw in some marginally useful requirements to stay on welfare over a certain time (a requirement which Obama has now killed).

It all has been about dependency and government power. With nearly 50% of Americans paying ZERO Federal taxes - and over 1/3 drawing welfare-related benefits. With record numbers on food stamps (of which the requirements to receive them continues to weaken), is it any wonder that there are enough voters now to basically guarantee future "free" income and healthcare on the backs of the diminishing "producer" class?

I guess one of my biggest frustrations - I know people who have hit absolutely rock bottom economically, who still never asked for a check or other handout from Uncle Sam. They picked themselves up by the boot straps and worked their way back.

I also get frustrated with the growing number of Section 8 housing popping up all over (government subsidized), with residents who can afford the latest $500+ smartphone, can afford a vehicle newer than many actual "working" folks, with $5000 jumbo wheels and tires, $5000 paint jobs, $200 worth of fancy fingernails, another $200 a month worth of hair treatments/extensions, tattoos, $150 shoes, enough liquor to get a whole NFL team drunk every week, cigarettes, illicit drugs, and high-roller monthly trips to the casinos, but they can't pay their own rent? They can't pay for groceries to feed their children? They want me to pay for their health care, and that of their children, grand children....????

But as has been credited to Margaret Thatcher "The problem with Socialism, eventually you run out of other people's money."

And you know what the #1 factor in rising health care costs is? It isn't all the liberal talking points. It is government mandates and regulation. All health care costs are tied to Medicare reimbursement rates. Further, as people are NOT held responsible for covering their health care costs (because taxpayers are paying and/or providers are writing off costs), they utilize it MORE.

Here in Arkansas - Huckabee (the gift that keeps giving) pushed through ArKids First... a Medicaid program to help insure the supposed large number of uninsured children who were somehow being deprived of health care. The program has grown massively, year after year. Doctors/Pediatricians are overloaded, kids going to the HOSPITAL ER for sore throats, tummy aches, headaches, rash, etc.... Stuff that we use to be able to just bandage at home, or call the Dr. and get advice about... now they run to a medical provider fore EVERYTHING. And all for essentially nothing out of the pockets of the parents (or whoever is responsible for the child).

We can no longer buy a insurance like I grew up with. A deductible, then the insurance paid 80/20 for most "necessary and reasonable treatments". No "co-pay" for doctor's office visits. You paid that totally out-of-pocket (it counted against your annual deductible). Even in the mid-late 80's going to the Dr. and seeing a total bill for an office visit at $45-60. I once had a small procedure done on a toe in my Dr.'s office - the bill was $75. Dad just wrote a check (I was a college student). But we can't do that any more... why? Because a basic office visit is well above $100 (the Dr. has to cover his expenses - from malpractice, to compliance with regulations and paperwork, as well as covering his losses for those he never gets paid for). Many consumers, even so-called "middle-class" can't just whip out $120-150 to go hear "take a couple of ibuprofen and check back if you don't start to feel better". So insurance now essentially is mandated to have some low "co-pay" - $15-30 on average. So again, utilization goes up - insurance rates go up to cover that expense.

So we now are going to give medical coverage (mandate) for folks regardless of if they can afford it or not. Utilization WILL go up, yet compliance costs for medical providers will also escalate. Private insurance companies being forced to cover pre-existing conditions without exception, caps on premiums and premium differentials based on risks (weight, prior health conditions, age, etc.). Guess what happens when the insurance companies can no longer turn a profit... Yep - more folks will be relying on the government...

And anyone who cannot see this for what it is - a massive power grab, not a push for better and more affordable health care, is what Moochelle said of those who disagree with her husband - "they are confused"...

Climbing down from my soap box.....

[Varsity Flight]

College, non-health care, permanent-lifetime rental housing payments, and now free blank check to so called “insurance companies”, equity holders of so called “banks”, inventors of no real collateral instruments.

All to be backstopped by the productive assets, or forced work.

Extortion-Care, the new American Gestapo, the plan to condition. No real Ownership, HillaryRomney.

[Random_User_250]

Ah great... just when I was starting to like the guy, he has to go out and remind me of who he really is.

We are so screwed. More so with Obama than Romney, but still...

[vortigern]

Romney said he will repeal Obamacare. If you don’t believe it then don’t vote for him. Maybe he’s a liar? I do know that there’s no ‘maybe’ with Obama being a liar. This is liberal media spin trying to defeat Romney before the voting takes place. Looking at the responses it looks like the liberals are pulling our chain and succeeding. I’ve sent money to Newt and Cain to no avail. So what am I to do – not vote for Romney because my guy didn’t win the nomination? I doubt it.

[vortigern]

In the last week I’ve received mailings from the GOP and from the Romney campaign asking for money. There was NO mention of ‘conservative values’ or even the word ‘conservative’ in any of it. It’s sad these people are not conservatives. But what is the alternative? Cry about it? Maybe next time, if there is a next time, we can get a conservative. But it ain’t happening this time... so I’m getting over it. The choice will be Romney or Obama. That’s the fact, sadly.