Omamacare is Romneycare.

[Jay59]

Excerpted from
Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia .
“The Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a health care reform law in 2006 with the aim of providing health insurance to nearly all of its residents. The law mandated that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a minimum level of insurance coverage, provided free and subsidized health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% and 300%, respectively, of the federal poverty level (FPL)[1] and mandated employers with more than 10 full-time employees provide healthcare insurance”.

Excerpted from
'RomneyCare' Facts and Falsehoods - FactCheck.org .
“Summary
BOSTON — It has been nearly five years since Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney signed the state’s landmark health care law amid the political flourish of a fife and drum corps and 300 guests in Boston’s Faneuil Hall. The overhaul is largely seen as a blueprint for the sweeping federal legislation that followed, making the state a political target for critics of President Obama’s efforts”.

Excerpted from
Lessons from the Fall of RomneyCare | Cato Institute .
“Perhaps the most publicized aspect of the Massachusetts reform is its mandate that every resident have health insurance, whether provided by an employer or the government or purchased individually”.

Was there a point?

 

[I'm Supposn]

Originally posted by I'm Supposn:
The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, (“Omamacare”) is conceptually “Romneycare”.
The federal Patient Protection Affordable Care Act was modeled after the existing medical policy that was signed by the then Massachusetts Republican governor Mitt Romney. ...

Originally Posted by Jay59:
You have presented nothing which contradicts anything I stated, but it appears you think you have. The OP first sentence is still in error.
It would be more accurate to say that there is wide bipartisan opposition. Specific elements have support but the entire law is a trainwreck.

Posted by I'm Supposn; excerpted from
Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia .
[Romneycare] “mandated that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a minimum level of insurance coverage, provided free and subsidized health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% and 300%, respectively, of the federal poverty level (FPL)[1] and mandated employers with more than 10 full-time employees provide healthcare insurance”.

Similar cites from: 'RomneyCare' Facts and Falsehoods - FactCheck.org
and Lessons from the Fall of RomneyCare | Cato Institute .

Was there a point?

Jay59, you're still denying there's little material difference between the federal law and Romneycare? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Jay59]

Originally posted by I'm Supposn:
The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, (“Omamacare”) is conceptually “Romneycare”.
The federal Patient Protection Affordable Care Act was modeled after the existing medical policy that was signed by the then Massachusetts Republican governor Mitt Romney. ...

Originally Posted by Jay59:
You have presented nothing which contradicts anything I stated, but it appears you think you have. The OP first sentence is still in error.
It would be more accurate to say that there is wide bipartisan opposition. Specific elements have support but the entire law is a trainwreck.

Posted by I'm Supposn; excerpted from
Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia .
[Romneycare] “mandated that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a minimum level of insurance coverage, provided free and subsidized health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% and 300%, respectively, of the federal poverty level (FPL)[1] and mandated employers with more than 10 full-time employees provide healthcare insurance”.

Similar cites from: 'RomneyCare' Facts and Falsehoods - FactCheck.org
and Lessons from the Fall of RomneyCare | Cato Institute .


Jay59, you're still denying there's little material difference between the federal law and Romneycare? Respectfully, Supposn

If that is what you meant, why didn't you post something that supported that position?

There is a vast material difference between ACA and Romneycare. Any resemblance is superficial as your posts show.

 

[I'm Supposn]

If that is what you meant, why didn't you post something that supported that position?

There is a vast material difference between ACA and Romneycare. Any resemblance is superficial as your posts show.

Jay59, you posted my citings contending there's little or no significant difference between Romneycare and the federal Affordable Care Act. Both acts attempt to mandate individuals' acquiring sufficient medical insurance.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Jay59]

Jay59, you posted my citings contending there's little or no significant difference between Romneycare and the federal Affordable Care Act. Both acts attempt to mandate individuals' acquiring sufficient medical insurance.
Respectfully, Supposn

I said there was a superficial resemblance. The problem is that the resemblance ends there.

For one thing, Romney care is sort of solvent. ACA never was. Romneycare uses actuarial math to set rates. ACA subordinates rate setting to political interests. There are parts of the skeletal frame that are the same, but Romneycare is not Frankenstein's monster like ACA. They threw everything into the bucket when they passed the law. ACA is well over 1000 pages before you start on the rules and regs. At that, there are many gaps that had to be patched in later. There was a large amount of off-book funding going to insurance companies to prop ACA up.

 

[I'm Supposn]

Jay59, Republican Party and their supporters concluded affordable insurance rates without considering applicant's prior medical condition is less feasible unless large numbers of our nation's population are insured and those insured are proportionally representative of our nation's aggregate medical conditions. Romneycare was based upon that conclusion.

Republicans' problem is not denied their own, Massachusetts or the nation's history; politicians often do deny truths.
Their dilemma is the difficulty for them not to own the consequences if the federal Affordable Care Act should be terminated and not replaced with a superior national healthcare policy.
Our nation's voters want to retain their children's insurance on their families' policies' until they reach the age of 26, and they want to retain the concept of no regard for prior medical conditions.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[I'm Supposn]

I said there was a superficial resemblance. The problem is that the resemblance ends there.

For one thing, Romney care is sort of solvent. ACA never was. Romneycare uses actuarial math to set rates. ACA subordinates rate setting to political interests. There are parts of the skeletal frame that are the same, but Romneycare is not Frankenstein's monster like ACA. They threw everything into the bucket when they passed the law. ACA is well over 1000 pages before you start on the rules and regs. At that, there are many gaps that had to be patched in later. There was a large amount of off-book funding going to insurance companies to prop ACA up.

Jay59, despite congressional Republicans efforts to undermine the federal Affordable Care Act, it was extremely similar to Romneycare when it was passed.

I would suppose as each of the federal act's provisions were enacted, their affects upon our nation were similar to Romneycare's corresponding similar provisions' effects when they were enacted in Massachusetts. I also suppose as the federal ACA improves healthcare nation wide, it somewhat additionally benefits Massachusetts to the extents that it bolster's their state's healthcare efforts.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Greenbeard]

I said there was a superficial resemblance. The problem is that the resemblance ends there.

For one thing, Romney care is sort of solvent. ACA never was. Romneycare uses actuarial math to set rates. ACA subordinates rate setting to political interests.

Every state, Massachusetts included, uses actuarial math to set rates. Massachusetts exists under the ACA framework, as does every state. It just happens to have pioneered it over a decade ago.

 

[Jay59]

Every state, Massachusetts included, uses actuarial math to set rates. Massachusetts exists under the ACA framework, as does every state. It just happens to have pioneered it over a decade ago.

But the federal doesn't. Rates are restricted to a 3-1 spread (5-1 is the standard) for purely political reasons. Hence Mass =/= ACA.

 

[Greenbeard]

But the federal doesn't. Rates are restricted to a 3-1 spread (5-1 is the standard) for purely political reasons. Hence Mass =/= ACA.

Rates in Mass are more restricted. If the federal age rating bands are actuarially unsound (which, by the way, they aren't), then the Mass rating bands are more unsound. Mass uses a 2:1 age rating band, meaning younger people's premiums are dragged up relative to what they'd be under the federal standard and older people's are dragged down. The only state with more restrictive rules is Vermont, which doesn't allow age rating bands at all, old and young alike pay the same premium.

You seem to be under the impression Mass doesn't have age rating bands or is somehow exempt from the standards in the ACA. It does and it isn't.

 

[Jay59]

Rates in Mass are more restricted. If the federal age rating bands are actuarially unsound (which, by the way, they aren't), then the Mass rating bands are more unsound. Mass uses a 2:1 age rating band, meaning younger people's premiums are dragged up relative to what they'd be under the federal standard and older people's are dragged down. The only state with more restrictive rules is Vermont, which doesn't allow age rating bands at all, old and young alike pay the same premium.

You seem to be under the impression Mass doesn't have age rating bands or is somehow exempt from the standards in the ACA. It does and it isn't.

Other way around. ACA is not governed by the standards that govern the state plans. I would be tempted to say that the federal plan is unsound that that implies that the state are well found, but that is not true. Many of the state plans show distress. I am not sure about Massachusetts specifically, but a casual glance at news headlines is not calming. Perhaps it is better to say the whole thing is a mess, not just the federal level.

 

[Greenbeard]

Other way around. ACA is not governed by the standards that govern the state plans. I would be tempted to say that the federal plan is unsound that that implies that the state are well found, but that is not true. Many of the state plans show distress. I am not sure about Massachusetts specifically, but a casual glance at news headlines is not calming. Perhaps it is better to say the whole thing is a mess, not just the federal level.

The ACA sets federal floors. States can impose more stringent requirements (in your mistaken parlance, states can choose to be more "actuarially unsound"). Massachusetts has exercised this option. It has one of the most competitive and lowest premium individual markets in the country.