Thread: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills

Seems like theres no choices left for the right in the Presidential election...either or is for the personal mandate you all so hate on the right..
Oh WAIT...Romny has now CHANGED HIS TUNE and hes against it and wants to repeal Obamacare..but he didnt repeal ROMNEYCARE...whos the liar folks lol

Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills

One of the few individuals who worked on health care reform under both Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama said on Friday that the controversial individual mandate provision was virtually identical in the bills signed into law by each of them. "They are very similar," said Jonathan Gruber, a professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an interview with The Huffington Post. "They aren't the same exact mandate, but they have the same basic structure."

Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills

Originally Posted by lpast

Seems like theres no choices left for the right in the Presidential election...either or is for the personal mandate you all so hate on the right..
Oh WAIT...Romny has now CHANGED HIS TUNE and hes against it and wants to repeal Obamacare..but he didnt repeal ROMNEYCARE...whos the liar folks lol

Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills

One of the few individuals who worked on health care reform under both Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama said on Friday that the controversial individual mandate provision was virtually identical in the bills signed into law by each of them. "They are very similar," said Jonathan Gruber, a professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an interview with The Huffington Post. "They aren't the same exact mandate, but they have the same basic structure."

Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills

What? A politician doing a flip-flop? Obama would NEVER do that, or would he? Do you not find it strange that Obama has not cut the defict in half, as he stated BEFORE getting into office, but instead has doubled it? Is it not strange that Obama, claimed that the "Bush" FIT rates have caused the economic problems, yet Obama not only keeps those rates but cuts SS withholding too? Obama claimed that ObamaCare would "save" money, yet the CBO NOW says not so (increased their initial 10 year cost projections by 70%), and has not yet even recalculated without the medicaid extensions mandated, but declared a no go by the SCOTUS. Obama has not kept many of his hope and change campaign promises; how is that open and honest gov't that he promised doing?

Originally Posted by lpast

Seems like theres no choices left for the right in the Presidential election...either or is for the personal mandate you all so hate on the right..
Oh WAIT...Romny has now CHANGED HIS TUNE and hes against it and wants to repeal Obamacare..but he didnt repeal ROMNEYCARE...whos the liar folks lol

Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills

You are leaving out a VERY important bit of all of this. One is at a state level, one is at a federal level. At a state level, such a program is fine in terms of the Constitution, since the powers not granted to the federal government are left to the states and the people.

It's really not that hard to read the constitution every now and then man.

Originally Posted by ttwtt78640

What? A politician doing a flip-flop? Obama would NEVER do that, or would he? Do you not find it strange that Obama has not cut the defict in half, as he stated BEFORE getting into office, but instead has doubled it? Is it not strange that Obama, claimed that the "Bush" FIT rates have caused the economic problems, yet Obama not only keeps those rates but cuts SS withholding too? Obama claimed that ObamaCare would "save" money, yet the CBO NOW says not so (increased their initial 10 year cost projections by 70%), and has not yet even recalculated without the medicaid extensions mandated, but declared a no go by the SCOTUS. Obama has not kept many of his hope and change campaign promises; how is that open and honest gov't that he promised doing?

None of that has to do with the topic... I think someone is deflecting.

Originally Posted by Arbo

You are leaving out a VERY important bit of all of this. One is at a state level, one is at a federal level. At a state level, such a program is fine in terms of the Constitution, since the powers not granted to the federal government are left to the states and the people.

It's really not that hard to read the constitution every now and then man.

The SCOTUS declared it constitutional under the Congressional authority to tax, now you may disagree with that ruling however there's no doubt that Congress has the power to tax.

Originally Posted by lpast

Seems like theres no choices left for the right in the Presidential election...either or is for the personal mandate you all so hate on the right..
Oh WAIT...Romny has now CHANGED HIS TUNE and hes against it and wants to repeal Obamacare..but he didnt repeal ROMNEYCARE...whos the liar folks lol

Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills

One of the few individuals who worked on health care reform under both Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama said on Friday that the controversial individual mandate provision was virtually identical in the bills signed into law by each of them. "They are very similar," said Jonathan Gruber, a professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an interview with The Huffington Post. "They aren't the same exact mandate, but they have the same basic structure."

Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills

Oh wait, Romneycare was for Massachusetts only, NOT THE WHOLE ****ING COUNTRY. And maybe your knew that already, and this thread is a just a hackjob.

Originally Posted by American

Oh wait, Romneycare was for Massachusetts only, NOT THE WHOLE ****ING COUNTRY. And maybe your knew that already, and this thread is a just a hackjob.

As far as its legality goes because of the SCOTUS ruling there is no difference, the scale doesn't matter. Besides, the OP is talking about the structure of the law and I think everyone agrees that the individual mandate in the Ronmey/Obamacare is basically the same thing. Which begs the question if someone keeps bringing up the scale of the law, does the scale really matter? If requiring someone to buy health insurance or pay a tax if they don't is unconstitutional at the federal level, why wouldn't it be unconstitutional at a state level? Or if you want to use the state's rights argument and separation of powers, then I'd ask does the scale make one good and the other bad?

Yes, the scale does matter. The fed has the power to tax, but where is 'the power to provide healthcare' in the constitution?

Originally Posted by Arbo

Yes, the scale does matter. The fed has the power to tax, but where is 'the power to provide healthcare' in the constitution?

The Individual Mandate doesn't provide healthcare, hell to be technically correct it doesn't even legally require you to have healthcare, it does tax those who do not have it of course with some exceptions. If you want to simplify the individual mandate to its most basic level, all it is now is a tax on those who do not have health insurance.

It seems to me that this thread is a nearly perfect example of what is wrong with this country (and most others): blind adherence to political ideology based on self-identification. A truly objective person can tear apart the policies of every single president and every congress since the inception of the United States based on the simple concepts of individual freedom as espoused in the DoI.

With regards to the individual mandate, the similarities are not terribly relevant other than to point out the obvious lunacy of believing anything a politician claims. The important aspect to keep in mind regarding the SCOTUS decision is that they have affirmed the ability of the government to tax individuals who choose not to purchase a privately produced good. For those who do not see the big picture, this adds a crucial piece to the journey towards a command economy. The government first required hospitals to provide a good for free (because they must provide the service without regard to the ability to pay) and now they are requiring that citizens pay for their free lunch regardless of whether they eat it. This is just the beginning. (Thankfully, though, the harsh realities of the laws of economics will not allow the full realization of these insidious regulations.)