Obama: My Plan Is Like Romneycare

[kpete]

Source: The Plum Line

Obama: My Plan Is Like Romneycare

If you’re Mitt Romney, and you’re trying to put as much daylight as possible between Obamacare and the universal health plan you signed as Governor of Massachusetts, the last thing you want is for Barack Hussein Obama himself to approvingly point out the similarities between your plans.

But in an interview this morning on NBC, that’s exactly what Obama did. He said:

“When you actually look at the bill itself, it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas. I mean a lot of commentators have said this is sort of similar to the bill that Mitt Romney, the Republican Governor and now presidential candidate, passed in Massachusetts.

“A lot of the ideas in terms of the exchange, just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market, that originated from the Heritage Foundation…”

Read more: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/obama-my-plan-is-just-like-romneycare/

[Brickbat]

1. I personally find it embarrassing that this is a DEFENSE for the plan.

Yes, yes, we needed some kind of change, and yes, perhaps we can change it along the line, and yes, I'm happy it passed both because of the plan itself and the political capital it can give Obama (if he uses it)...but, you know, still.

[soleft]

6. I don't know, I think it's kind of brilliant

eom

[Oregone]

Brilliant: My plan is a crusty old Republican idea we used to reject

[emulatorloo]

31. There is a difference between the words "like" and "is". n/t

[Oregone]

37. Not much of a difference

It fits nicely into the framework that the Nixon plan was built on. Its idealogical capitalistic foundations stands in conflict with the very services its purported to promote to all.

[emulatorloo]

43. I missed the speech where Obama said he was going to overthrow capitalism?!?!

(we can all do hyperbole, but it isn't really useful)

Pretty much every positive change in the US has happened incrementally -- President, Congress, Courts. That whole three branches of govt/check and balances etc. I expect HCR will proceed in the same way,

Right now there is a real need to counteract the Republican Lies about the bill. I am happy to see Obama on offense. The more those lies are dispelled, the more likely we are to see this evolve in a positive direction.

[Oregone]

47. I missed where he said it was the perfect economic model for every product & service known to man

Though, with his education privatization effort, its no wonder...

But sure, if you think its worth everyone in the country paying almost double, per capita, what civilized countries pay for real universal health care so that private industry can continue to profit, then fine, I guess Obama shouldn't try to do anything at all about it. Just mandate it.

[emulatorloo]

50. "if you think its worth everyone in the country" Ha Ha, putting words in my mouth

Can we just can the hyperbole and exaggeration around here?

Thanks!

[Oregone]

56. I'm just reciprocating idiocy

Your "I missed the speech" line was more or less the same thing. Such a speech was not necessary, as I was never expecting it nor wanting it. Obama doesn't need to completely renounce capitalism in order to use common sense and know where mixed market approaches can deliver beneficial results.

[No Elephants]

60. Fighting half truths with other half truths, perhaps. Please see Reply #51.

BTW, Romneycare wasn't so much Romneycare, either. Massachusetts had at the time a Democratic Legislature that both enacted "Romneycare" and could have easily overidden any veto by Romney.

Truth is, Romney and the Legislature fought tooth and nail over the state health care program and Ted Kennedy jawboned both sides until they compromised. So, was "Romneycare a Republican bill or a Democratic one?

[No Elephants]

51. The Nixon plan was to the left of Obamacare. It had no individual mandate, only employer mandates.

The Clintoncare proposal, on the other hand, had both individual and employer mandates, as does Obamacare.

Claiming the plan is like Romneycare, with no mention of Clintoncare, is disingenuous.

[Oregone]

59. Off topic, but do you know if the Nixon plan set minimum actuarial values?

Id be curious if it was far higher than what the current plan considers necessary coverage (60%)

[No Elephants]

61. Sorry, I don't know offhand.

[tavalon]

39. You clearly didn't get the memo

We LOVE this historic, radical and sweeping single payer, only not really, plan. It's the most amazing thing since the New Deal. Well, maybe not quite since the New Deal, maybe since NAFTA. Anyway, we fucking love this health insurance bailout, er, I mean, Health Care Reform. Get with it dude, our plan is so much cooler than say, Canada's.

[harmonicon]

67. "...since NAFTA"!!

I honestly did laugh out loud. Oh, shit - that was funny.

[gcomeau]

52. Exactly.

Your options are either to convince the public that THIS is what represents a "liberal" version of health care, in whic h case you dshift perceptions of what is Liberal and what is Conservative so far right they fall right off any map of those orientations we've ever had before...

Or you do this and wake people the hell up that this is NOT the Liberal plan, this is the heavily compromised largely GOP plan that the GOP STILL won't vote for because they're petulant little tantrum throwing obstructionists.

Which defense would you prefer he used?


And try to avoid picking option 3... jump in his time machine and manipulate history to get all the votes in the House and Senate you want for YOUR preferred plan. It's not on the table.

[No Elephants]

65. Nah. We don't have either a time machine or Obama's clout with Congress.

He already got all the votes he wanted for Obamacare. Some here try to place blame for that on Congress, which is a joke. The reality of being POTUS and head of the Democratic Party simply does not support that. Nor does the history of this, from the meetings in the WH last year with health insurers, PHRMA and Big Health Care to the Presidential "fixes" to the Senate bill.

Obama has plenty of clout with Congress, both directly and via Pelosi and Reid. And Obama used it, not for single payer and not for a public option, but for this POS.

[Jefferson23]

131. +1

[dotymed]

160. No Shit

"I didn't have the balls to give America what it really needs, Single Payer, so I used this wealthy people plan instead." Actually, does anyone here believe that, in our life-time, America will ever re-visit health care in a way that helps common folks? Look...the toothfairy...

[emulatorloo]

20. this isn't about defense, -- It is about showing Republicans for the hypocrites they are

And that includes Mittens

[No Elephants]

69. True, but only in part. Please see Reply ##s 51 and 60.

[harmonicon]

70. how does that help when it also shows the Democrats to be hypocrites?

They campaigned on one thing and then - even when they had the ability to enact that plan they campaigned on and for - passed another... not just different, but a Republican idea. There is enough hypocrisy to spread around.

[No Elephants]

53. It's not his defense of the plan in general. It's his defense of the plan to REPUBLICANS.

and independents. And maybe not even so much a defense of the plan as it is a way to make Congressional Republicans and other party leaders who have been knee jerk opposing the plan look bad to independents.

[aquart]

2. Obama gets his ideas from the Heritage Foundation?

Oh. How nice.

[Lil Missy]

13. Yes. And he's a Kenyan. And he fathered 2 Black children.

Run for your life.

:eyes:

[rudy23]

46. To be fair, Obama did brag that his bill contained ideas from the Heritage Foundation

While those other two things, he did not claim himself.

[No Elephants]

72. Anything but praise for Obama is ficiton and probably motivated by racism. Is that your point?

If so, it's pure bs, much like the claims that criticism of Israel's actions are all erroneous and likely stem from anti-Semitism.

[Iowa]

128. Nonsense...

First, he's not Kenyan. He's American.

And based on your post, it would appear that you have no problem with the Heritage Foundation.

Furthermore, you are accusing a fellow DUer of being racist.

It's quite a feat to squeeze so much ignorance and obnoxiousness into 15 words.

[No Elephants]

54. Maybe, but Clintoncare was a lot like Obamacare. Hard to know which came first, Clinton's ideas

(or those of Clinton's advisors) or those of the Heritage Foundation.

Nixon had a plan long before Clinton, of course, but Nixon had only employer mandates, not individual mandates.

[aquart]

78. I didn't like Clinton's plan, either.

Would you be so defensive if there wasn't so much to be defensive about?

[No Elephants]

86. Interesting. What do you think I'm defending? And on what do you base that?

I've criticized what is now known as Obamacare on this board since the House Bill passed with only a lame public option. And criticized Obama for his disingenousness in connection with this "so-called health care reform."

[BeyondGeography]

3. What fun, to fuck with Mittens

who would actually be their best hope in 2012. Given their over-the-top opposition to HCR, they would alienate Teabagger Nation if they nominated him, especially with reminders such as these coming from Obama.

Well played.

[kpete]

4. "What fun, to fuck with Mittens"

priceless!
kp

[frylock]

5. what better way to foil the republican's chances then by acting like them?

is there really any doubt as to the "differences" between the two parties anymore?

[tridim]

8. The fact that you have no doubt tells me all I need to know

If you can't see the difference, you're freaking blind.

[frylock]

17. we just passed romneycare!

woop-de-fucking-doo!!

[tridim]

25. Get back to me when Romney cuts nuclear stockpiles

and uses his power to regulate entire industries for the benefit of the people, for the first time in American history.

Democrats and most Republicans are both human, and that's where the comparison ends.

[No Elephants]

89. We still have more than enough nukes to destroy the world several times over.

As far as using Presidential power to regulate entire industries for the first time in history, you'll have to be a lot more specific.

And I'm pretty sure many, many Presidents have regulated entire industries--and entire families of industries for that matter. That is the reason agencies like the FDA, the SEC, the FTC, the ICC, etc. etc. were created. Sure, various Presidents and Congresses have weakened them, but they were created originally to benefit the people.

[frylock]

107. i'll get back to you when romney is elected president..

in the meantime, try and stay on topic. thx.

[tridim]

114. You made the claim. Defend it, or get lost.

[frylock]

117. expanded wars, mandated insurance, looking the other way on war crimes..

big FUCKING deal. so now we can only blow up the world 4 times instead of 8. piss off yerself.

[progressoid]

136. For the first time in American history? WTF, seriously?

Well, I gotta give ya points for hyperbole.

[tavalon]

44. Oh there's a difference, they're batshit crazy and we're spineless

I'll take spineless for $100, please.

[No Elephants]

91. We're only spineless if you assume that Dems (in D.C.) are not doing pretty much what they want to

do. That is not my assumption.

Sometimes, people hit pretty much what they aimed at to begin with.

So, you legislate a lot like a Republican, then claim you really believe in something other than what you just legislated, but, eebus, it's hard out there for a pimp, er, Senator or Congressman. That way, you can talk liberal for the Democratic voters and legislate neocon for the fat cats (including yourself). Pretty damned convenient, IMO.

BTW, why do Senate Democrats keep electing "weak" Harry Reid as their leader, whether they are in the minority or in the majority? Could it possibly be that they actually like the results he gets and LOVE that he silently takes the blame whenever the base is unhappy about a Senate vote?

[No Elephants]

74. The gap between the two parties narrows and narrows the more time passes.

Yes, there are still some differences. How else would the DNC raise money?

[BeyondGeography]

12. That's good...after the past year, you still don't see any difference between the two parties

I don't think the rest of the nation is that confused.

[Flying Dream Blues]

14. +1000

[frylock]

19. today's dems are yesterday's repubs..

as a whole. sorry.

[emulatorloo]

22. From a perspective on the moon, sure.

Just like Obama is just like Hitler.

[frylock]

24. we just passed nixon's healthcare..

keep fuckin that chicken!

[BeyondGeography]

30. The one that Teddy wound up wishing he had supported about 40 years ago

Appeaser that he was.

[No Elephants]

95. No, at the time, Teddy proposed his own plan.

Nixon proposed a plan. Ted opposed it, not so much because of the provisions of Nixon's plan, but because Ted did not want the Nixon administration to get the credit for passing health care. (Ted admitted this in speeches much later in life.)

Ted soon repented of that, and introduced his own plan. However, by then, Nixon was distracted by Watergate, then Congress was, then the whole nation was. Teddy rued his political maneuever for the rest of his life. But, he supported his own plan, not Nixon's.

Nixon's plan was to the left of both Clintoncare and Obamacare. And, what Ted should have been able to expect Nixon to sign in the early 1970's should have been way to the right of what Democrats should be able to expect a Democratic President to sign in 2010. But, it's the opposite.

[tridim]

32. Nixon's HC plan was to let Kaiser develop and control for-profit HMOs.

Basically a corporate controlled version of Ted Kennedy's plan at the time.

His other "proposal" never went anywhere because it was cover for his real plan.

[No Elephants]

96. Nixon's plan had no individual mandates, though. And Nixon's plan preceded Ted Kennedy's.

But you'vve only cited one element of Nixon's plan.

For example, what would have happened to the monopoly exemption, which was granted because HMOs initially were not for profits?

[No Elephants]

93. No, Nixon's plan was to the left of Obamacare.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x67338

[global1]

42. So I Guess This Goes As Well - Today's DU Was Yesterday's Freep......nt

[frylock]

58. sans the racist and homophobic posts..

but yeah, the rah-rah my party right-or-wrong isn't too much different from FR during the bush years.

[No Elephants]

97. Both the right and the left here would agree with that line, but for very different reasons.

[No Elephants]

92. Today's Dems are sometimes much to the right of yesterday's Pubs.

If, by yesterday, you mean Nixon. There are even a lot of similarities to even Reagan or Bush I. Even Bush II in some respects.

[No Elephants]

75. See Reply #74. Most of the nation doesn't vote, let alone keep up with all the issues.

And among the small percentage of Americans that do vote, low info voters (and knee jerk, brainwashed voters) abound--on all sides. There is also a portion of voters that doesn't feel it has much realistic choice but to vote for either a Republican or a Democrat. Even unofficial polls don't reflect how much knowledge people responding have about the issues.

Bottom line, I don't think you or any of us knows how most of the nation feels about whether there are still dramatic differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, at least insofar as the official actions of elected officials goes. One thing is evident though--a lot of Americans don't bother to vote. You would think they would--if they REALLY perceived a huge diference between the parties. And for quite some time, the popular vote at the Presidential level has been very close--another thing that theoretically should not happen if the few who do vote perceived a huge difference.

[goclark]

11. +1

[emulatorloo]

15. Mittens needs to be spanked at every opportunity

Maybe we should send him to Voyeur

[No Elephants]

62. He isn't fucking with Mittens, who knows better, He's fucking mostly with low info voters.

Please see Replies 51 and 60.

If and when Romney runs again, Mittens will have his reply to this so down pat he'll be able to say it in his sleep. He won't necessarily be totally candid (either),though. He (too) will no doubt spin history to suit himself.

[BeyondGeography]

68. Oh, I'm sure he'll just sail through Teabagger Land aka the Republican primaries, without a problem

You don't have the first clue.

[No Elephants]

81. Who said how he would do in the primaries as far as votes? Straw Man much?

BTW, I live in Massachusetts and know how "Romneycare" came about. I also remember Clintoncare, which preceded "Romneycare" by years.

What clue do you think you have--and about what, besides straw men subjects, that is?

[BeyondGeography]

85. Here's a clue: Post #35 refers to you

[No Elephants]

98. If that's all you've got, you probably can't spare any clues. And see Reply # 69.

ETA: And Reply 41, too. 'Cause so far, we have no clue what Reply #35 means, or if the author of that Reply knows what the point of the thread is.

[BeyondGeography]

105. What it means is some DU'ers wouldn't recognize good politics if it pinched them on the cheek

[No Elephants]

122. Depends on how you define "good" politics. And please see Reply #113.

Some of us are more concerned that our Democratic President and our Democratic Congress actually DID passed a POS than we are gleeful that Obama MAY have cost Romney the Teabagger vote (by making disingenuous remarks).

Now here's a clue for you:

Having a different priority and/or a different set of values from yours does not equal knowing less about politics than you (or Ricardo) do.

[BeyondGeography]

123. Well, we can always deal with reality, can't we?

HCR has happened. Time to defend this first step as well our ability to move forward on this and other fronts by not ceding power to the Republicans.

[No Elephants]

126. Is calling this a "first step" really dealing with reality or with your "hope?" And how is saying,

"The Democratic Congress and Democratic President have just enacted an essentially Republican bill without a single Republican vote)" NOT ceding power to Republicans again?

How much lamer can Democrats possibly ge than ramming a Republican bill through via reconciliation and without a single Republican vote-- and calling THAT a triumph? Wouldn't passing a fundamentally Democratic bill have been much more powerful? And wouldn't that have taught Republicans in Congress to compromise or be damned a lot more than teaching them they have almost nothing to lose by recalcitrance? Just enact whatever the Republicans (via Olympia Snowe) want, even if all of them, including Snowe, end up voting against it?

Please also see Reply 125 (and Reply 99).

[BeyondGeography]

127. OK, your answer is, "No, I can't deal with reality."

Later.

[Zhade]

152. You're afraid to face reality.

NT!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. That is nothing to be proud of Mr, Obama.

This is an embarrassment of a bill and the Dems will (rightfully) have it hung around their necks for years.

[golddigger]

9. well, that makes me

feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. So you admit that you didn't have the guts or the smarts to pass anything but a

Republican-inspired bill?

[emulatorloo]

16. No he is admitting that Romney is a horse's ass, as well as all of the Repubs in congress

when they claim they had no input.

Most people like the idea of bipartisanship.

[frylock]

21. and we're supposed to be happy about this?

is this about sticking it to repubs, or crafting sound legislation?

[emulatorloo]

23. If calling Republicans out on their Bullshit results in more Liberal Senators to improve

the legislation I am for it.

[frylock]

40. how does a continual rightward shift ensure that liberal senators get elected?

help me to understand that plz thx.

[No Elephants]

100. Me, too, but is there any indication whatever that will be the result of these statements by Obama?

[Lorien]

158. Passing a GOP bill isn't "bipartisanship"

it's called screwing over your base; the old bait and switch. Not cool. We worked for him, fought for him, voted for change, and deserve far better than "RomneyCare"!

[HughMoran]

18. I like eggs

[tavalon]

45. You're not very imaginative

[HughMoran]

49. Interesting...

[tomm2thumbs]

84. that made me laugh :)

[Oregone]

26. There is only so much that is "uniquely American"

[Lydia Leftcoast]

And much of what is "uniquely American" really sucks

:-(

[bvar22]

27. And All THIS after the voters gave the "Democratic Party"

*The White House

*A veto-roof MAJORITY in the Senate

*A LARGE MAJORITY in The House

*(Most Importantly) A HUGE MANDATE for "CHANGE"

....and The Very BEST The Democrats can do is National Romney Care "incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas."

Ahhh, Mr President....WE voted The Republicans OUT because we were SICK of "Republican Ideas."

I can't count how many times I've been attacked for pointing out how many "Republican Ideas" are in this HCR Bill.

AND, after throwing OUT good "Democratic Ideas", and replacing them with "Republican Ideas", Obama gained Absolutely NOTHING.

[DJ13]

71. Ahhh, Mr President....WE voted The Republicans OUT because we were SICK of "Republican Ideas."

+1111111111111111111111111111

[Iowa]

129. Well said.

[Richardo]

29. Or the votes?

Do votes count?

[No Elephants]

101. One would hope, Please see Reply #71.

Or, are you referring to the convenient fiction that Obama, the POTUS and the head of the Democratic Party, which Party controls the DNC (and its campaign funds), as well as the House and the Senate, had no control over this Congress?

[Richardo]

120. Were you awake for the last 10 months?

If so, were you paying attention at all?

The real world is nothing like the insular bubble that is DU, in case you're not aware.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ixion]

33. so he admits it's a republican plan

thanks, that's all I needed.

[Richardo]

36. See ya!

:hi:

[ixion]

38. Not if I see you first

:hi:

Mitt Romney is a Republican.
Obama just said the bill is similar to "Romneycare"
How is that not a confirmation? :shrug:

[Bodhi BloodWave]

149. you might want to look into all the changes the dems did when romney proposed it

Prosense made a better post then i on this, so take a look at post 137

[Skinner]

34. I think Romney is toast.

I think he was/is their best hope to beat Obama in 2012. But his opponents in the GOP primary are going to hammer him with Obamacare=Romneycare.

So ironic. If the GOP weren't so effing extreme, Romney could embrace the new healthcare law as a personal victory for himself. He's not even president yet, and he already passed health care.

[harmonicon]

73. you and I both know that Palin is more likely to be their nominee.

... and as crazy as it is, I won't listen to things like "She's fucking crazy!! She's an idiot!! She doesn't just have skeletons in her closet, she stole public funds to build a barn for them!! She stands NO CHANCE of actually winning an election", because I remember thinking the same thing about a Republican candidate 10 years ago.

[No Elephants]

106. I don't think she would win an election, but I never count my elections before

the votes of the electors are counted. However, if she is the nominee, how embarrassing for America. How we have sunk since Kennedy v. Nixon. No matter what you may think of Nixon as a person, at least he was intelligent and well qualified for the slot.

[harmonicon]

109. that's just one difference between you and Republicans:

They have a history of counting their elections before electors are counted. In fact, they don't give a shit about electors - if there's someone who they want to be in power badly enough, they'll just rig the election.

[No Elephants]

102. Good point. But if the comparison loses votes for Romney, couldn't it also lose

votes for Obama, both on the left and among left leaning indies?

[Richardo]

35. Man, there are a lot of DUers that are intentionally missing the goddamn point of this thread.

At least I hope it's intentional.

[frylock]

41. please enlighten us

[Richardo]

133. It's not to confer credit...

...it's to make a political point refuting Republican claims that the Democrats' unilaterally rammed through some socialist horror as a health insurance reform measure.

I can't believe people here can't (or won't) see that.

[frylock]

135. so the dem strategy is to enact republican policy so as to shove it in their face..

when the repubs cry socialism? is that what you're trying to say?! well, that is some fucking brilliant 3 dimensional chess play there sir! the dems really showed them!!

fuck my life.

[Richardo]

138. Does it hurt to be that obtuse?

[frylock]

142. then spell it out for me..

you said: it's to make a political point refuting Republican claims that the Democrats' unilaterally rammed through some socialist horror as a health insurance reform measure.

then i said: the dem strategy is to enact republican policy so as to shove it in their face when the repubs cry socialism?

show me the FUCKING difference!

edited so as not to be deleted.

[fascisthunter]

161. It's Hard to Argue with What You Have Said

I just hope "we the People" can now force this government to build on this by pointing out that private companies are no good, and that due to prices going up, we do need a government option.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Richardo]

144. Just because I disagree with you does not make me right - wing.

Calling me that, however, does make you obtuse. Again. Plus, a tad hysterical.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xchrom]

48. Recommend

[SpiralHawk]

55. Tie the Republicons to the Railroad tracks and run them over with their own train

Lord knows they deserve it...

[bvar22]

57. So Obama admits what many of us already know...

..that he wasted this historic opportunity for REAL "Reform", and instead passed a Republican plan....and people on DU are cheering? :shrug:

[nightrain]

87. ain't that the truth!?!

[frylock]

146. it's fucking sickening..

but a "win" is a win, right?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

150. aside from the fact it was not really a republican plan if you look into the situation

Prosense explained it nicely in post 137

[MarjorieG]

63. Health care is a business that needs regulating, which we did. Also included non-profit as exchange

option, which will get stronger and competitive.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. Non-profit is not a panacea

Minnesota allows only non-profits in the individual market.

They all provide the same lousy high-deductible plans, and their executives are still millionaires.

[KoKo]

66. Blue Cross/Blue Shield is a Non-Profit. So what changed?

[harmonicon]

76. that's not the problem...

the problem is that "we" also decided that individuals can no longer choose to remove themselves from a specific, corrupt, capitalist market-place on threat of monetary penalty. The fact that anyone is ok with this absolutely astounds me. This is very similar to what H. Clinton campaigned on. I remember when she proposed this, it sent chills up my spine. This was the one main reason that I didn't want her to win the nomination.

[No Elephants]

118. The entire industry used to be not for profit. That's why it got an exemption from monopoly laws to

begin with.

[DatManFromNawlins]

140. Health care wasn't regulated whatsoever

Just because politicians use the wrong term to describe what it is they're doing doesn't mean you should accept it.

[bluestateguy]

77. Good move (really). It forces Romney on the defensive

nt

[Oregone]

79. Yeah, its like saying 'We suck as much as you!'

[DJ13]

88. I can see the 2012 Obama campaign bumperstickers already

"Republicanism you can believe in"

[Nite Owl]

80. So this was my first

vote in over 30 yrs of voting for a Republican? Seems that way, we have moved that far to the right.

[MaineDem]

82. LOL. BHO on the offensive!

I love it.

[tomm2thumbs]

83. 'commentators have said this is sort of similar' is hardly saying it's the SAME - this is GOP fodder

How best to suffocate your opponent than to bring him in under your jacket and arms and hold him close to your chest - so close they can't breathe. Good for Obama - but let's call the comment what it is - a description of what some other people have said - not what he saying himself.

[No Elephants]

111. Regardless of who said it, isn't his plan in fact a lot like Romneycare?

I mean, maybe commentators are saying because it's accurate? And he is adverting to commentators exactly because no one can say he actually said it himself--he only said commentators were saying it.

Somehow this reminds me of the Dan Rather firing. The issue became whether the margins were justified, not whether the statements were true or not, to the extent that no one on Bush's side ever had to deny the substance.

ETA: Before adverting to commentators, Obama did say his plan incorporated a lot of Republican ideas.

[Cass]

90. My thoughts about the plan itself aside, this is a great way to highlight republican hypocrisy

about health-care reform. Romney is thought to be a GOP front-runner for 2012, and he's trying to distance himself from his own Massachusetts plan now that the dems have passed a similar version of his plan.

Pres Obama is simply pointing out how hypocritical and hysterical republicans are being right now because their own front-runner passed a very similar plan for his state. Like someone said up above, its like tying them to the tracks so they can run themselves over with their own freight train. Haha.

[Cleita]

94. We knew that and I'm sorry he's proud about it.

It mostly incorporates Republican ideas that were even on Bush's website the second time he ran for President. When the whole thing collapses he will have finished his terms as President, like when Clinton signed on NAFTA and wasn't around to be blamed for the fall out. I hope he does better on other issues because history will not remember him kindly for this unless some real tweaks and changes occur before 2014 that will be real HCR.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

99. WHY this is a bad idea POLITICALLY

By passing a bill that is just Romneycare with a few tweaks, Obama has done the equivalent of saying, "We're the same as the Republicans. We even implement ideas that they first proposed in the 1980s (compulsory purchase of private insurance)."

There is already a considerable bloc of people who are disgusted with both parties, because they feel that their lives don't improve or continue to get worse, no matter who is in charge. They believe that the R's and the D's are exactly the same, and when the D's adopt R policies so wholeheartedly, it only confirms their belief.

It would have been better POLITICALLY for Obama to propose a single-payer system, and then, when it was defeated, tell the American people, "We could have had equal access to health care for every American, regardless of income or state of health, and the Republicans and the dead wood in my own party and the lying corporate media prevented it. Turn off the TV talking heads, turn off talk radio, vote the obstructionists out in 2010, and we'll deliver on that system."

[nc4bo]

103. You know Ms. Lydia that..

there is just too much darned truth in your post, right?

I'd love to hear something like that - just once.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

108. The important thing to remember is that the current Republican leadership are PREDATORS

and who do predators go after? The weak members of the herd. They don't go after the strong, healthy, tough-looking prey. They go after the ones who look sick or weak or confused.

Adopting your opponents position with nary a fight is a sign of WEAKNESS.

I'm sure the Republicans are sharpening their teeth and claws for further predation.

[mvd]

155. Hi, Lydia

Yes, a single payer system would have set the bar high in bargaining.

But I don't know - I think the President is too smart to really think he can make any progress with the Repukes, so either he's calling their bluff, or truly is a centrist New Democrat. There have been signals both ways, but I'm going to be optimistic right now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

159. It's Negotiation 101

Always start by asking for more than you think you can realistically get.

Let the other person say "no."

Don't anticipate the other person's "no" by weakening your own position.

[Haole Girl]

104. I need a moment to process this

:crazy:

I bet Obama is one hell of a chess player!

:rofl:

[Rage Inc.]

110. And he should keep HAMMERING that point!

It not only undercuts Romney, but also makes even clearer just how destructively obstructionist the Republicans in Congress have been, and will continue to be!

[Yavin4]

112. People, Please Separate Politics from Policy

Of course Obama is going to say this, because he wants to neutralize his most likely opponent in 2012. Romney's candidacy is dead in the Republican primaries. Dead. Just like Huckabee's when he paroled that guy that murdered cops or Mark Sanford with his Argentinian fling.

The 2012 Republican nominee is setting up as either Palin or an unknown.

[No Elephants]

113. Please see Reply # 111. If Obamacare (policy) were not in fact a lot like Romneycare

(and Clintoncare) (also policy), then the posts on this thread would all be kvelling over the politics of Obama's statements. Since the policy is pretty much as characterized though, some of us are more upset about the policy than we are triumphant about the politics.

And here's a reality: whether or not Romney is the Republican candidate next time, someone will be. So, it's not as though we've eliminated Republican opposition. Meanwhile, the bottom line reality remains that Romneycare (shorthand for mandate, but no public option) will soon the law of the land, thanks to a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress.

[Yavin4]

115. You Have To Win The Politics In Order To Implement The Policy

The HCR law, although far from perfect, is still a good first step toward good policy. In essence, it strengthens consumer protection against health insurance companies and it gives subsidies to people to buy their own insurance. Now, please listen to me:

I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THIS IS LAW IS CONSIDERABLY FLAWED, AND I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE CONSUMER PROTECTIONS DO NOT GO FAR ENOUGH. I TOO WANTED SINGLE PAYER OR AT THE VERY LEAST MEDICARE BUY-IN.

However, we cannot get to a Medicare buy-in without this first step, and assuredly, we won't get there with a strong Republican candidate. Weakening the political opposition is a major factor toward our common goal.

[No Elephants]

119. They won the politics in 2006 and even bigger in 2008- -based on .CHANGE, ffs,

and they still enacted a corporatist dream, basically RW bill.

As far as all these hypothetical future improvements, that remains to be seen. We had a large majority in the House,60 Senators in the Democratic Caucus and the WH AND the ability all along to resort to reconciliation--and they STILL enacted a RW law. So, when the hell will they enact improvements? When they have the White House, a huge majority in the House and 110 out of 100 Senators?

Please.

[Yavin4]

132. The Dem Victories of '06 and '08 Were Attributtable To The Horrible Leadership of Bush

The Dems won states and districts that voted Republican for years. Obama won NC and Indiana. Now, the question remains. Did the Dems win because of their policies or did they win because of the awful Bush. The political battle has not been won.

[WinkyDink]

116. Good for Romney; for Obama, hmmmmm.......

[Odin2005]

121. Obama says that like it's a GOOD thing?

[QC]

124. Around here, many people got their asses handed to them for saying that.

Now, however, I am seeing posts explaining that it is a very good thing that our new health insurance plan is like Romney's.

[bvar22]

147. The same people who were attacking those here...

...who called Obama's HCR "National RomneyCare" have spun a 180 and are NOW proclaiming the brilliance of passing a Republican Plan.
Go figure.

[QC]

153. Would you have expected something else?

It's all about the googledimensional intergalactic chess.

[No Elephants]

125. This MAY help Democrats in the mid-terms and it MAY hurt Romney in the

next set of Presidenial primaries. Or, it MAY do the opposite. See, for example, Reply #99.

Meanwhile, the nation FOR SURE got stuck with a Republican, corporate wet dream bill from a Democraticc President and a Democratic Congress who got elected in 2006 and 2008 by campaigning on CHANGE.

[Zhade]

130. Checkmate, pro-HIR people. You just got suckered.

We warned you.

[IndianaGreen]

134. Wait until people find out about the exchanges, and their cost to consumers

This cure leaves the disease untreated

March 29, 2010

THE MAIN thing you hear from supporters of the health care law is that it's a historic expansion of coverage for tens of millions of people. But there's an underside that doesn't get as much notice, isn't there?

THE BIG problem with the bill is that so much money and power is being handed to the private health insurance industry, which is the cause of the problem in the first place.

There are two ways that coverage will expand. One is a Medicaid expansion. Now if middle-class Americans want to tax themselves to pay for health care for the poor--and I think we should--we could have done this without the rest of the legislation.

The other big expansion is the so-called individual mandate that basically tells people that they have to buy private insurance. So if you have insurance through your employer right now, you have to keep it--whether you like it or not. If you don't have insurance, you'll be forced to turn over thousands of dollars to the private health insurance industry.

Under the new "exchanges" set up under the law for the uninsured to go to buy insurance, people will have to spend up to 9.5 percent of their income for policies that cover only 70 percent of health care costs. So you would still be in a situation of having insurance that was so skimpy that you would have difficulty getting care when you needed it.

As you know, Massachusetts has the prototype of this reform. If you go on the Internet to look at our insurance exchange, it's called the Massachusetts Connector.

http://socialistworker.org/2010/03/29/cure-doesnt-treat-the-disease

[Lydia Leftcoast]

139. By the time this goes into effect, I will have only a brief period before I'm eligible for Medicare

I may just choose to pay the fine or decide to take early retirement overseas.

I would gladly sign up for compulsory public insurance, as in Canada, or private insurance in a choker collar as in Germany, or a strong public option as in Japan.

But I hate insurance companies with a passion, since their premiums make it impossible for me to buy actual CARE, I have never used up my deductible, and still I get double-digit increases each year.

[ProSense]

137. And that's a good thing

The bill was produced by the Democratic legislature and includes a lot of excellent reforms.

In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care reform bills.

The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers. The legislature also rejected Governor Romney's proposal to permit even higher-deductible, lower benefit health plans.

On April 12, 2006 Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.<19> He vetoed 8 sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.<20> Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.<21><22> The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.

link

This is why Romney doesn't want to take credit for it, but it's impossible for him to run from it. The media has already branded it with his name.

President Obama is turning the tables on the Republicans by attributing elements of the plan to Republicans. He's destroying the critics arguments because despite what they say, Mass is number one in terms of the number of people covered. President Obama can be confident because unlike Mass' plan, which had no cost controls, the bill he signed includes significant cost controls.

[Romulox]

141. Yeah, if you're some phoney-baloney "centrist" faux progressive.

:hi:

[bvar22]

148. We reformed the Democratic Party the Old Fashioned Way.

We BOUGHT it!

Dear Mr President,
Thanks for passing my Republican Plan.
All that "Change" stuff had us scared for a while.

Thanks Again,
Mitt Romney and the RNC

[Bodhi BloodWave]

151. take a look at post 137 n/t

[nightrain]

154. and Obama is proud to state that?? How very sad.

[defendandprotect]

156. Howard Dean has said that . . . but certainly not as a compliment -- !!

[laughingliberal]

157. Yeah, when I said that during the debate, I needed an asbestos suit

One direct quote: "This is NOT Romneycare. Quit spreading BS." As I recall some of us caught a little flack for pointing out the roots of the bill in the Heritage Foundation plan. Oh, well.

edited typo

[fascisthunter]

162. Well, I knew and so did many others... it's passed, so now we must...

demand it be improved. With rising costs, we will be forced to take action as more people die due to private insurance greed. It will become more evident as time goes on, I just hope Democrats realize this should only be a beginning.