Romney care vs obama care -don't mixed them up

	RomneyCare	ObamaCare
Overall Size and Scope	-Whole bill was 70 pages -Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance -Romney favored an “opt out” provision from the mandate -No federal gov. insurance option -Intended as a market driven solution to healthcare	-Whole bill was 2,074 pages -Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance and no "opt out" provision -Leaves open the option of creating single-payer gov. insurance in the future -Intended as a step toward gov. run insurance
Costs	-No new taxes! -Romney balanced the state’s budget first, then passed healthcare law -No cuts to Medicare benefits -Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)	-Increased taxes by $500 billion -Despite massive federal gov. debt, Obama still passed Obamacare -Cuts Medicare by $500 billion -Overall costs unknown!
Popularity	-Very strong bipartisan support -Strong special interest support -Very popular among the public in Massachusetts -Strong consensus of approval was built in the state to support the law -Consensus was built to support an individual mandate	-Absolutely no bipartisan support -Very controversial and divided special interest groups -Unpopular in nation overall -No consensus was built to support a mandate
Constitutionality	-Constitutional -Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare, Romneycare will remain constitutional	-Potentially unconstitutional -Supreme Court has yet to rule on 10th amendment limitations of federal gov. power in regard to this law
Federalism	-A state solution to a state problem -Through collaboration and discussion, Massachusetts created a consensus among stake holders to support the new law	-Federal gov. “one-size-fits-all” plan -Doesn’t take into account that each state is unique in important ways such as: 1)Vastly different debt levels between states (some states can’t afford new spending on health care) 2)Some states have three times the percentage of uninsured citizens (Much greater costs will be imposed on states with a larger percentage of uninusured citizens) 3)Conservative states will reject implementation of federal gov. plan.

所有跟帖： 

• THose who think obama care is good really need to have a seccond -sleepdonkey- ♂ (0 bytes) () 10/04/2012 postreply 20:19:29

• 這才是我們應該學習的方向。 -Wjin2002- ♀ (37 bytes) () 10/04/2012 postreply 20:22:11

• 我比較推崇的全民醫療是德國形式的。 -Warsteiner- ♂ (0 bytes) () 10/04/2012 postreply 20:22:36

• 德國是single-pay system ba? -sleepdonkey- ♂ (167 bytes) () 10/04/2012 postreply 20:28:18

• 德國浪費少，保險公司也有，還挺強，但是垃圾公司少。 -Warsteiner- ♂ (226 bytes) () 10/04/2012 postreply 20:33:47

• 其實如果民主黨不提這事，搞不好共和黨自己也會提出的。 -i751- ♂ (23 bytes) () 10/04/2012 postreply 20:38:01

• 我知道的同樣的治療，德國便宜很多。 -sleepdonkey- ♂ (162 bytes) () 10/04/2012 postreply 20:46:07

• 我了解的可能out of date, 但是最早的越南難民，後來的Guest Arbeiter, -Warsteiner- ♂ (213 bytes) () 10/04/2012 postreply 20:50:29

• 美國是要複雜點。到處是雷區，到處是法律訴訟。 -i751- ♂ (0 bytes) () 10/04/2012 postreply 20:54:12

• 確實不能這麽比， 主要是說明無論州還是fed都因該business driven -sleepdonkey- ♂ (54 bytes) () 10/04/2012 postreply 20:31:21

• 很好，讓全民健保通過，讓共和黨的國會監督完善健保。 -i751- ♂ (0 bytes) () 10/04/2012 postreply 20:34:14