I don’t follow too much of politics (not rep or dem) but I hope someone can give me answer or their opinion. Romeny is against Obama care yet he signed into law a similar heath care plan in Mass when he was governor. So why is he against a national one if he signed a state one?
As the 2012 presidential campaign gets under way in just a few months (believe it or not), we expect to see an increasing number of attacks on so-called “RomneyCare.” So as part primer and part preemptive fact-checking, this article is our attempt to set the record straight. We found: ■The major components of the state and federal law are similar, but details vary. The federal law put a greater emphasis on cost-control measures, for instance. Massachusetts is just now tackling that. ■The state law was successful on one big goal: A little more than 98 percent of state residents now have insurance. ■Claims that the law is “bankrupting” the state are greatly exaggerated. Costs rose more quickly than expected in the first few years, but are now in line with what the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation had estimated. ■Small-business owners are perhaps the least happy stakeholders. Cheaper health plans for them through the state exchange haven’t materialized, as they hoped. ■Despite claims to the contrary, there’s no clear evidence that the law had an adverse effect on waiting times. In fact, 62 percent of physicians say it didn’t. ■Public support has been high. One poll found that 68.5 percent of nonelderly adults supported the law in 2006; 67 percent still do.
Anyone that fails to see the burgeoning power of the federal government and its stifling effect going forward that this act represents is incapable of viewing the big picture.
The governor of Massachusetts, who ended up signing the 'Romney' bill, applauds it as overly successful. Duval Patrick was on the news just yesterday discussing how it has not bankrupted the state, more people have affordable insurance then ever before, etc. What damage do you speak of?
What happens to people who can't afford so called affordable insurance and they don't qualify for Medicaid?
As for the mandate, I do find it odd that I can be "taxed" for something that I do not buy. At least my Social Security taxes allow me to buy into something (security?).
Do you know what that insurance will cost yet? No, because the exchanges haven't been set up yet. Reserve judgement on whether or not you can afford it until it is in place.
Here's an explanation chart http://healthreform.kff.org/~/media/Files/KHS/Flowcharts/requirement_flowchart_2.pdf Do any of the following apply? · You are part of a religion opposed to acceptance of benefits from a health insurance policy. · You are an undocumented immigrant. · You are incarcerated. · You are a member of an Indian tribe. · Your family income is below the threshold requiring you to file a tax return ($9,350 for an individual, $18,700 for a family in 2010). · You have to pay more than 8% of your income for health insurance, after taking into account any employer contributions or tax credits. There is no penalty for being without health insurance
If one can start an online church for body modification and use it to circumvent dresscodes and social norms, this oughta be a cinch. I wonder if such a religion exits? And are there other church's with similar tenets? And does one have to have membership or show proof? Hellooooo ACLU
I haven't bought into the whole "Kid" thing, as a consequence I pay more in taxes, also you have the famous "Death Tax".
