Posted on 09/10/2012 6:41:26 AM PDT by bestintxas
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has called for scrapping President Barack Obama's 2010 U.S. healthcare law, said in remarks aired on Sunday that he likes key parts of "Obamacare" despite his party's loathing of it and wants to retain them.
Romney, who faces Obama in the Nov. 6 election, has vowed throughout the campaign to repeal and replace the Obama healthcare law. But asked about the Obama healthcare law on NBC's "Meet the Press" program, Romney said, "Well, I'm not getting rid of all of healthcare reform."
"Of course, there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform that I'm going to put in place," Romney added. "One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like."
The Obama healthcare law, among other provisions, prevents insurance companies from denying medical coverage to people who already are suffering from a medical condition. It also allows parents to keep their young-adult children on their health insurance plans until age 26.
The law is Obama's signature domestic policy achievement.
Elements of the state healthcare reform plan that Romney put in place as governor of Massachusetts served as a model for the federal law passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Obama in 2010 despite unified Republican opposition.
"I say we're going to replace Obamacare. And I'm replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people," Romney told "Meet the Press."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
so it starts, Romney setting the stage to throw the election
He just pissed away the election.
“Insuring Pre-Existing Conditions is like offering post-crash car insurance.”
...it’s like getting the “Pick 3” lottery numbers before buying the ticket. Buying flood insurance after the flood. Going to Vegas and waiting to see what your black jack hand is before laying down money. Going to the movies first, then paying if you liked it.
Romney said:"One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. "
That's not the same thing. Romney said he wants market-oriented solutions in health care. He never said he intends to force insurance companies to provide pre-existing coverage.
I haven't seen his plan, but if he offers to support setting up special (private) insurance companies who offer catastrophic coverage, even in cases with pre-existing conditions, maybe with special tax benefits, that would be fine with me and I think, most conservatives.
he probably just wants to rename it for himself
Count on it.
Buy your fire insurance ONLY after your house is on fire....."pre-existing condition".
When faced with choosing the lesser of two evils, one is forced to consider writing in “SATAN”.
The liberals are not the only ones that sensationalize news articles.
If he keeps the touchy-feelie parts that poll well, but does away with the tax hikes and the cost braking effects of the Death Panels, he is gonna bankrupt the country EVEN FASTER than if this thing proceeds under Obama.
This is not Romney meant.
But anyway it is idiotic for Romney to be even discussing this matter when Americans hate obamacare.
Romney certainly does not understand how the MSm works.
The proposed “reforms” by Mitt Romney aren’t the ‘droids you are looking for....
“Pre-existing conditions” could possibly be handled by placing specific risks in a “pool” (say for cancer or heart disease), which results in a somewhat higher premium to the individual, while the REST of the coverage on that individual may be enrolled like there were no other pre-existing conditions.
Unemployed or never-employed youth are removed AT ONCE from their parents’ policy, when gainfully employed, and not eligible to have their parents’ coverage restored.
Health coverage is no longer a perk that the employer extends. Instead, applicants go directly to the commercial interests that have clientele pools, and enroll in them directly. The sums spent for health coverage are to be treated like home mortgage interest payments or business interest payments, with deductible amounts starting from first dollar.
Health savings accounts, in conjunction with major medical coverage, should be held as the ideal. For those who cannot or will not fund their own health care, the right to vote in Federal elections is suspended. A waiver may be granted if these individuals are able to find a sponsor who WILL cover their health care costs. (I see BIG business for philanthropies to jump in here.)
Patients are free to deal directly with their practitioner of choice, WITHOUT either mandated services, or restrictions of manner or form of delivery of medical services. If the patient is eighty-seven years old, has the means to pay for the procedure requested or indicated, and the doctor agrees to a stipulated amount to proceed, NO procedure should be denied, based on “quality adjusted remaining years”(QARY). There is no way for a third party to objectively make that determination.
The ABR crowd doesn’t care about the truth, just slimming Romney.
Yes, it is what Republicrats do best. And in 2016, they will give us ANOTHER RINO with the same views as SWMNBN.
America needs a second party because the Republicrats ain’t doing their job.
Something is amiss, here.
Pre-existing conditions might be in Obamacare, but they already exist in the HIPAA, which was passed with Republican support under Bill Clinton.
So this is not really an Obamacare thing. Romney can feel free to support it, because Republicans support HIPAA.
As far as the insuring children up to age 26, it has an important omission, due to an oddity in the law.
Because of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, companies that provide health insurance to their workers must cover pregnancies *of their workers*. Importantly, but *not* of their children.
And in Obamacare, the PD Act takes precedence, so children whose parents are covered by it do not get pregnancy coverage under Obamacare.
And for those 26 and under, pregnancy is by far the most expensive medical cost they incur. Otherwise, they just need a tiny amount of coverage, as a group.
So in balance, the parts of Obamacare that Romney embraces either are redundant or don’t cost very much at all.
“I don’t think it is the will of the people or corporations to repeal the entire thing. Regardless of who wins, obamacare is here to stay”
The Obamacare healthcare plan needs to be changed. It is inconceivable that the 2000 page document defining it doesn’t contain some good ideas.
Whether the Obamacare goes through a process of being eliminated and replaced, or just changed, doesn’t matter (except maybe politically). Perhaps replacement legislation needs to be concocted and then Obamacare replaced by the new package.
Romney had better clarify his intentions and the process by which he will implement his intentions. I think he will, and I think as he does it will improve his standing among undecided voters.
I see the pre-existing conditions being based upon having a condition that was covered under insurance and when one changes plans, requiring that condition to continue to be covered. Or to get it after having been a dependent and now is getting one’s own insurance. Example, my daughter who was hearing impaired at birth. Or my own having hip replacement while in the Army and requiring my post-military civilian insurance to include any future hip replacement surgery as part of the plan instead of saying “No insurance, it is a pre-existing condition.”
Versus Having a condition and trying to get it covered by insurance when one never had insurance before is like your getting insurance to pay for car repair after the accident.
Pre-existing conditions are not a problem with employer based insurance. Pre-existing conditions are only a problem with individual insurance. When the government regulations are such that employers dump employees on the government exchanges, that is when it becomes a problem. It’s a big problem, too.
Is Newsmax lying? It’s their headline. FoxNews.com is using a variation of it, too. (”Republican ticket moves to counter Obama-Biden post-convention narrative, offers specifics on what in ObamaCare might survive...”).
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.