Obama versus Romney healthcare : What are the differences?

1. 69

   alexandriaruthkposted 11 years ago

   Obama versus Romney healthcare : What are the differences?
   
   I want to know the differences between the two - Obama's healthcare and Romney's while he was still the governor in Massachusetts.

   replyreport
2. 82

   Deborah-Dianeposted 11 years ago

   I really can't tell the difference between Obama's healthcare and Romney's plan.  Both are designed to save the government money by requiring that everyone contribute something towards healthcare.  In addition, if people have a personal physician they are less likely to go to the emergency room for the flu, strep throat and other non-emergency health problems.  When they get free or low-cost preventative care, people are more likely to cost the healthcare system less money since their problems will be caught and treated when they are less expensive. Finally, both plans allow people to choose their own insurance plans, doctors, etc.  If there are differences, they are very small.  My daughter moved to Massachusetts from Texas a year ago, and so far she has been very impressed and happy with the Massachusetts healthcare plan.

   replyreport
3. 82

   Author Cherylposted 11 years ago

   Obama care was Romney care first when he was govenor of Massachusettes.  Romney supported it then and supported it when it first became Obama Care so that shows ya how much of an idiot Romney is.  He flip flops on his own healthcare plan that he created.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Judah's Daughterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Common, Romney's plan is 100 pages; Obama's is 2,000!  Romney promised to repeal Obamacare as soon as he's in office.  Does it mean we're back to square one?  No.  He will keep the 100-page 'heart' of the plan and dump the debt to our children.

      replyreport
4. 71

   CR Rookwoodposted 11 years ago

   Who knows?
   
   It sounds like no matter who gets elected it will still be up to my insurance company how much gets paid and for what with whom.
   
   It works like this: I go to the doctor. He charges $127 for the office visit. The insurance company has decided $60 is a fair price. They pay 80% of what they decide is fair AFTER I meet the deductible. Let's say I met it. Theoretically they pay 80% of $60, except they don't, because the doctor's office filed the wrong form or filed the right form the wrong way, so they pay $0. This goes on for several months. The doctor's office sends me a final bill saying if I don't pay the $127 I'm going to collections. I call the insurance company for the 40th time and two more months pass. Finally they mail the doctor $48.
   
   That's when everything goes well. Often it does not.
   
   President Obama, Mitt Romney--I expect more of the same. I hope I don't get sick.
   
   Best health care system in the world...Not.

   replyreport
5. 79

   Rain Defenceposted 11 years ago

   US sounds a nightmare. I'm glad I live in the UK where healthcare is free for everyone. Yeah it gets paid for with public taxes. Who cares? Taxes are inevitable no matter what they're spent on and it's not like you even notice them being spent on healthcare in your day to day life, or worry about it. At least with free healthcare you don't have to worry about whether you can afford to be ill.

   replyreport
   1. 38

      ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I totally agree and it's such common sense, but unfortunately our population are afraid of that whole "socialism" thing - even though most of them can't define the word and collect SS when they retire.. smh.

      replyreport
6. 69

   recappers delightposted 11 years ago

   One plan is a state plan advocated by Mitt Romney, and the other is a federal plan advocated by Barack Obama. That's ALL.

   replyreport
7. 64

   iamageniusterposted 11 years ago

   Not much difference. They just want to run their own version of the healthcare. It's either gonna be called Obamacare or Romneycare.

   replyreport
8. 65

   MarcoPolo16posted 11 years ago

   Short answer:  Obama's healthcare plan is national, Romney's healthcare plan was state.
   
   The key question is whether or not it is constitutional for the federal government to pass restrictive health insurance laws.  By law, states are allowed to do pretty much whatever, so long as it isn't a power given to the federal government in the Constitution, which is the key issue.  Is regulating healthcare and health insurance covered by the Constitution or not?
   
   P.S.  I'm not trying to answer a question with a question, but there aren't many legal precedents for this particular case.  It's probably something for the Supreme Court to decide.

   replyreport
9. 71

   lone77starposted 11 years ago

   One begins with "O" and the other begins with "R."
   
   I've heard rumors that Obamacare will require microchips to be implanted in patients. I can find no such reference in the law. Such chips are available, now. Even James Bond has one in the latest 007 thriller, but we are not going to be forced to have the things,... yet.
   
   According to the late Aaron Russo, the Rockefellers have been planning to have us all microchipped as part of their one-world government control system. Yeah, I guess George Orwell was right. We already have surveillance cameras on nearly every street corner in major cities, the government can enter your house without your knowledge or consent (and without a warrant), and now it's a felony to protest against what the government is doing. With Obama's signing of the NDAA, with its indefinite detention clauses for American citizens, anyone can be detained forever without charges, without an attorney, without a trial and without a phone call. Obama even made it clear that he would not let anyone out of Gitmo, even if they are found innocent!
   
   America fought the big, bad boogeyman of Communism for decades and now we're becoming a Communist totalitarian nation. Obamacare is only one of the hundreds of symptoms of this.
   
   The Corporate government is playing our egos like finely tuned instruments -- playing off of our fears and desires, but mostly fears. Problem-Reaction-Solution. Before 9/11, the government already had the solution written up. Aaron Russo said that Nick Rockefeller told him, in October, 2000, of a "Big Event" that would give us Iraq and Afghanistan, plus an unending war on terror. That "Big Event" occurred eleven months later, and it changed everything. Americans did exactly what Ben Franklin warned us not to do -- accept a little "security" in exchange for our "liberties."
   
   Both Obamacare and Romneycare are two sides of the same coin, just like Obamney and Rombama; just like Demopublicans and Republicrats.
   
   If you don't already know how far gone America is, you need only look at the following 2 short videos to see how voting and Roberts Rules of Order no longer matter at the presidential conventions:
   
   RNC Scripted:
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKaXqoC4DjE
   
   DNC Scripted:
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmaE2Aez_XY
   
   It's all scripted. Votes no longer matter. Like Bill O'Reilly says, "Shut up!" Obey our new masters.
   
   It's Germany 80 years ago, all over again! Sieg heil!

   replyreport
10. 83

    Skarletposted 11 years ago

    When all is said and done the big difference is that the Obama plan requires you to buy healthcare, and if you don't you will be fined. Too many people are being led to believe that they will have FREE healthcare. If you do not buy the insurance you will be fined. The choice will be buy the healthcare or pay the fine. That is why you have probably heard people say we would be actually taxed to breath air.
    
    Also, the Obamacare is a tax. It was considered unconstitutional as healthcare because it forces people into a market place that they do not wish to participate in. So it was passed by calling it a tax. This information alone says it all.

    replyreport
11. 0

    Larry Wallposted 11 years ago

    The Romney plan deals only with insurance, such as a voucher plan that most people believe would raise the cost paid by individuals for Medicare. The plan he is proposing (not too many details) may be similar to what he did as governor. However, he does not address one issue, at least I cannot find any language on it, and that is guarantee insurance coverage for those whose income is too high for Medicaid, are too young for medicare and cannot buy private insurance because of pre-existing health conditions. I am a type II Diabetic, no pills for it, no insulin. If I changed doctors, the new doctor would never discover it because I manage it very well. However, that is an automatic disqualification by all major insurance companies. One company offered to cover my wife, who has some back trouble. They were going to require a $65,000 deductible for any procedure associated with her back (that was not a typo). Romney has not addressed those issues, to my knowledge. If he has, I would like to see the proposals.

    replyreport
12. 0

    Justsilvieposted 11 years ago

    One is state and one is federal... My state is poor already expecting them to take on healthcare at state level is joke.
    
    Obamacare has both advantage and disadvantages but it is easier to adjust and fine tune something when you have something to work with.
    
    The Republicans never had a health care plan and Romney’s plan in Massachusetts would not have been put into place if he had not had a democratic majority to push it, he likes to take credit for a lot done in Massachusetts that he really does not deserve, but don’t take my word for it, do your own research. 
    The Republicans have never even addressed the health care issue until Obamacare or to kill it when it was brought it up. It has always been business as usual and some major profits for large corporations and the Pharma Industry, but all the people got was an increase in payments and a decrease in coverage. As far as the claim Obamacare has increased our premiums… My husband’s have gone up every year for the last 20 nothing new here.
    So why should anyone trust them on this subject now.
    As for Romney’s statement he will repeal Obamacare…to actually repeal the health care law, the bill would have to pass the Senate and then be signed by the president. So that would mean the Republicans would have to control the Senate since the Democrats who are currently in have said they will not bring the bill up for a vote.  And it is looking more and more like their self assured takeover may not happen.

    replyreport
13. 83

    kathleenkatposted 11 years ago

    I believe Romney's healthcare didn't impact people who were already on their own healthcare plans; it simply made healthcare available to those who did not have it. Private insurance companies still continue to run as they always have. Romney's heathcare was obviously state-level, and catered to the needs of the people of that state at that time, by helping those in need, and not hurting those who were not in need. Obamacare is national...And doesn't cater to the needs of everyone in the nation. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I do not yet know. There are some negative affects on people, and it's hard to determine if the good outweighs the bad; on a national scale, it is damn near impossible to cater to the needs of everyone, without intruding on the needs of some.

    replyreport