About Romney Saying He’d Keep Parts Of Obamacare…
(AP) Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who promised early in his campaign to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, says he would keep several important parts of the overhaul.
“Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place,” he said in an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” ”One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.”
Romney also said he would allow young adults to keep their coverage under their parents’ health-insurance.
Those provisions have been two of the more popular parts of Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
“I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan,” Romney said. “And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people.”
This caused a freakout by some on the Republican side Sunday, and glee from some Liberals. But, should it cause those reactions? No.
Once Ocare was passed, it was always known that certain portions would have to be part of the Republican plan, because those ideas, such as pre-existing conditions and adults up to 26 being allowed to stay on their parents insurance are extremely popular with the American people when polled. Heck, the “up to 26 years old thing” is actually a part of SCHIP, and has been around for years now, and is actually not that bad of an idea. These younger adults are typically the ones that decide they won’t get health insurance because they are “freaking immortal man, nothing can hurt me!!!!!!”. Better that they have insurance and contribute healthy bodies to the insurance pools. Then there is pre-existing conditions. As National Review points out, Romney previously said this
I also want to make sure that people can’t get dropped if they have a preexisting condition. . . . So let’s say someone has been continuously insured and they develop a serious condition and let’s say they lose their job or they change jobs, they move and they go to a new place. I don’t want them to be denied insurance because they’ve got some preexisting condition. So we’re going to have to make sure that the law we replace Obamacare with assures that people who have a preexisting condition, who’ve been insured in the past are able to get insurance in the future so they don’t have to worry about that condition keeping them from getting the kind of health care they deserve.
Just like under O-care, there’s no mention of cost. And under O-care those with pre-existing conditions are being charged out the wazoo for insurance.
The notion that one cannot be actually dropped because they get sick is another notion in Obamacare that is popular. I bet you think this is a good idea. It’s not like getting dropped from your auto insurance because you’re a bad driver who keeps side-swiping other cars. You didn’t have that much choice in getting sick.
Romney also wants to empower consumer choice with
- End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance
- Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines
- Unshackle HSAs by allowing funds to be used for insurance premiums
- Promote “co-insurance” products
- Promote alternatives to “fee for service”
- Encourage “Consumer Reports”-type ratings of alternative insurance plans
And plenty of other ideas, some of which may be popular with Conservatives, some of which are meant to be popular with independents and middle ground voters.
If the law is so bad, so poorly written, so poorly implemented, perhaps it should simply be scrapped and replaced
Plus, Ron Reagan couples “tea baggers” with Murderer Nidal Hasan. In 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Institute (HSPI)
Matthew Balan of Newsbusters posted a very curious/nauseating story about left-winger: and 9/11 truther: Touré Neblett’s new theory surrounding why Romney really