so last night mitt romney's on larry king talking about obamacare, and i watch [not only because romney's been there/done that, but as governor of massachusetts he actually managed to package and deliver universal healthcare for his state (a) cleanly; (b) in an open, carefully deliberative and above-board manner, with a minimum of arm-twisting and/or shady backroom deals; and (3) with full bipartisan support--imagine that, bitches].
despite larry's best efforts to thwart him, he managed to say two very interesting things.
the first was [and yeah, i'm paraphrasing a little--but not much]:
"the healthcare bill that obama just signed is upwards of 2,500 pages, while our massachusetts bill was just 70 pages."
how could that be, you ask? how could romney condense something so complex into so small a package?
he elaborates:
"we looked at the people who didn't have insurance, looked at all the money the state spent every year treating said people in emergency rooms and free clinics, took that money and used it to help those people buy private insurance."
get that, people? 10% of the citizens of his state didn't have healthcare, so romney's plan attempted to deal simply and directly with that 10%.
contrast that with obamacare: 10% of americans don't have healthcare, so he's gonna fix it by massively fucking with the 90% who do.
for those of you naive, sloppy, sentimental, uncritical thinkers who still believe that obamacare is anything but the pure, naked, socialistic power-grab it actually is, stay tuned--i've got a few more things to say on the subject.
5 comments:
Obamacare looks suspiciously just like the system that Romney and the rest of the Massachusetts gang passed.
Simply put, it requires everyone to have health insurance. It contains a MANDATE by law that you purchase health insurance or have someone purchase it for you. If you can't afford it, you get subsidized.
That is the heart of Obamacare.
The 2004 Romney would have endorsed it. But because the 2010 Romney must contend with a Republican party that is so angry it could scream, he must reverse his positions on this as on so much else.
noblesavage: first, this post was in no way an endorsement of romney's healthcare plan--from what i hear, it's a big, tax-sucking mess--but i at least have respect for the way he accomplished it.
second, any similarities between romney's and obama's plans are superficial at best, and you're smart enough to know that.
oh, and the other thing i forgot to mention until just now: romney's plan was tailored to a liberal state which really wanted it. his position (as stated in the interview which i cite--and which is mine as well) is that such decisions as universal healthcare should be left up to the individual states. hell, they wanna go bankrupt? let 'em.
So Texas, with a large concentration of poor uninsured people, can have its ways dictated by a bunch of angry white men?
You think that's fair?
ah, texas--with its low taxes, optimistic outlook, positive job growth, appreciating real estate values...
upon reflection, i realize you're absolutely right, noblesavage--if there really was a god, texas would be just as fucked up, debt-ridden and "fair" as california.
[and since we're speaking of fairness, you seriously wanna tell me that it's "fair" to suddenly force the young people of america to buy expensive health insurance that they in all probability won't need for 30 or more years in order to foot the upcoming healthcare bills of my sick, fat-assed, over-indulged generation?
seriously, rob, please tell me: to whom should our nanny state apportion the greater measure of "fairness"--the poor or the young?]
Post a Comment