Politics

[wizards8507]

I didn't want to politicize the Veteran's Day thread yesterday, so I'll leave this heart-breaking statistic here instead:

So we lose as many veterans every year to suicide as have been KIA overseas since 9/11.

Hug a veteran.

I remember reading a statistic somewhere that with all the waste in the Veterans' Administration, we could give every single veteran $1 million cash and we'd still spend less than the amount we're flushing down the toilet with the current system. It's sad how bureaucracy destroys what we're able to do as a country for the one group of people who flat out deserve to be taken care of by the country.

And vote a chickenhawk out of office.

#StandWithRand

 

[phgreek]

I didn't want to politicize the Veteran's Day thread yesterday, so I'll leave this heart-breaking statistic here instead:



So we lose as many veterans every year to suicide as have been KIA overseas since 9/11.

Hug a veteran. And vote a chickenhawk out of office.

...I spend time honoring the fallen...maybe they'd be honored if I spent more time on the upright.

thanks for sending...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Bump.

How has Obamacare affected you?

I recently left a company that had paid upfront to prevent their workers from being affected. They paid 100% the insurance premium for family also.

I left for a better position up the totem pole.

Crazy, but I went from making $125K to not even close to that and I'm paying my family's insurance premium.

But I'm home with my family a LOT more now.

My thoughts are, that if you're in a line of work or working for a predatory company and the service you provide is in high demand, you're immune,

As people opposed to ACA have been expressing since 2008, this was NEVER about health care. It was one of the biggest power grabs in American government history. It was about redistribution of wealth, about forcing one group of people to subsidize another group, it was about central planning, and it was the DC elites taking more control over the individual.

You see, as the architect noted publicly, the American people are not smart enough to make these decisions on their own or understand health care. It has to be planned or decided for them by a small group of people in Washington.

Everything opponents to ACA said would result has happened:

Is everyone "covered"? No. Remember last year at this time? Please

Have costs gone down? No.

Has "access" increased? No.

Has quality increased? No.

Are we living in utopia? No.

Are employers hiring more? No.

Obamacare Architect Apologizes: "I Regret Having Made Those Comments" | Video | RealClearPolitics

 

[T Town Tommy]

I think the Republicans are going about ObamaCare all wrong. Over the next two years, instead of working to try and repeal the law, they should work to enforce every aspect of it. That way, people will see just how devastating it really is. There was a reason a lot of the mandates were "postponed." Once the American people see just how much it really hurts, then the Republicans can throw out their zero vote record on it. Spend the next eight years after that blaming the prior administration all the while repealing it one layer at a time with control of both Houses and the Executive.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Obamacare 2015: Higher costs, higher penalties - CBS News

Here comes the boom...suckers

 

[irishff1014]

The President is still very much a team effort but has the imagine of one man. With that said he failed himself with a bad team.

 

[connor_in]

I need to ask a question.

On election day a few days back, R's won, or at least D's lost (both sides did not run for anything, R's ran on "that D is like Obama" and D's ran on "no I'm not"). Many of the articles and pundits came out saying, as they always do when R's win, now the R's will be in charge of Congress and will have to work with Obama (if not just D's in general) in the spirit of compromise (see the little summit luncheon a couple days after the election)...ignoring the fact that when D's won and had control of both houses the articles and pundits said now the D's can get things thru and never mentioned D's working with R's, only R's having to work with D's because they won majorities.

Anyway, so Obama said, "We got beat." Then he says I heard the voters, including the 2/3 that didn't vote (How he knows what those voters are thinking is amazing isn't it?). Then he says he's still going to do amnesty on his own, then he commits to a AGW/global warming/climate change/whatever they want to call it this week deal with China. Then he says he's going to do net neutrality.

The question I ask is how is he not getting belittled if not even questioned by the press. The age old execise comes to mind. Imagine that you turn the tables and put W where O is and what do the press and the pundits say. Let's not imagine it. Let's look back in history and you can see it. How can anyone who has been politcally coherent for at least 10 years question that the press and punditry are biased toward D's and their agenda?

(note: this rant obviously excludes the farther reaches of either parties media pals...but still includes those supposedly MSM that believe themselves to be unbiased and claim it all the time)


/end rant borught on by http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/us/politics/down-but-not-out-obama-presses-ahead.html

 

[NDohio]

I didn't want to politicize the Veteran's Day thread yesterday, so I'll leave this heart-breaking statistic here instead:



So we lose as many veterans every year to suicide as have been KIA overseas since 9/11.

Hug a veteran. And vote a chickenhawk out of office.

Wow - thanks for posting this Whiskey.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think the Republicans are going about ObamaCare all wrong. Over the next two years, instead of working to try and repeal the law, they should work to enforce every aspect of it. That way, people will see just how devastating it really is. There was a reason a lot of the mandates were "postponed." Once the American people see just how much it really hurts, then the Republicans can throw out their zero vote record on it. Spend the next eight years after that blaming the prior administration all the while repealing it one layer at a time with control of both Houses and the Executive.

So, to hell with the millions of people who now have health insurance that did not before? Dismantle the mechanism that allowed them to take their kids to the doctor, removes the obsticle of access to those with pre-existing conditions? Makes it possible for young people under 25 to remain on parents insurance plans? Sounds like a sound plan to attract voters in 2016. If there are things that the Republicans think is wrong with the law, work to correct them. It would be a political mistake for them to try to unbake the Obamacare cake, but I suspect that they will not be able to resist the temtation to score quick political points with their base, which will push the issue front and center again in 2016. If I'm a candidate, I would not want to defend my record of stripping poor people of their insurance plans. There is a reason that it was not a major issue during the mid-term elections -- because it is working. People like it, and unlike the mid-term cycle, Democrats come out to vote when there is a presidential race.

 

[Rack Em]

I don't usually post around these here parts, but just a few inconsistencies:

So, to hell with the millions of people who now have health insurance that did not before? Dismantle the mechanism that allowed them to take their kids to the doctor, removes the obsticle of access to those with pre-existing conditions? Makes it possible for young people under 25 to remain on parents insurance plans? Sounds like a sound plan to attract voters in 2016.

No one in these groups vote Republican anyway. So that's not a loss.

If there are things that the Republicans think is wrong with the law, work to correct them.

So Obama can enact an executive order over top of it? He's done that several times already so what's the point?

There is a reason that it was not a major issue during the mid-term elections -- because it is working. People like it, and unlike the mid-term cycle, Democrats come out to vote when there is a presidential race.

 

[wizards8507]

Removes the obsticle of access to those with pre-existing conditions?

Do you understand how insurance works?

I'm not going to buy car insurance until after I get in an accident.
My wife will get some life insurance on me, but only after I die.
My house burned down, so I better sign up for a homeowner's policy.

Not covering a "preexisting condition" is the very definition of insurance. You're INSURING yourself, IN CASE something happens. You pay a little bit every week/month/year, so that if something goes wrong, you're covered. You don't see how it's unsustainable if the government says insurance companies MUST cover you, even if you haven't been paying that little bit every week/month/year?

If Insurance Companies Can't Utilize Pre-Existing Conditions, Then They're Not In The Insurance Business - Forbes

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't usually post around these here parts, but just a few inconsistencies:



No one in these groups vote Republican anyway. So that's not a loss.



So Obama can enact an executive order over top of it? He's done that several times already so what's the point?

There were a lot of people on both sides of the isle who didn't vote in the mid-terms. 2016 won't be decided by the bases of either party. Attracting those who did not vote to your side will be key for candidates, and how each party performs over the next two years will play a big role in which side voters land. Gut Obamacare, safety nets, ignore people's desire for raising the minimum wage, not delivering comprehensive immigration reform ... all of these and many other actions on issues have political consequences.

 

[tussin]

Do you understand how insurance works?

I'm not going to buy car insurance until after I get in an accident.
My wife will get some life insurance on me, but only after I die.
My house burned down, so I better sign up for a homeowner's policy.

Not covering a "preexisting condition" is the very definition of insurance. You're INSURING yourself, IN CASE something happens. You pay a little bit every week/month/year, so that if something goes wrong, you're covered. You don't see how it's unsustainable if the government says insurance companies MUST cover you, even if you haven't been paying that little bit every week/month/year?

If Insurance Companies Can't Utilize Pre-Existing Conditions, Then They're Not In The Insurance Business - Forbes

...if only it worked like that. No health insurance for me!

 

[GoIrish41]

Do you understand how insurance works?

I'm not going to buy car insurance until after I get in an accident.
My wife will get some life insurance on me, but only after I die.
My house burned down, so I better sign up for a homeowner's policy.

Not covering a "preexisting condition" is the very definition of insurance. You're INSURING yourself, IN CASE something happens. You pay a little bit every week/month/year, so that if something goes wrong, you're covered. You don't see how it's unsustainable if the government says insurance companies MUST cover you, even if you haven't been paying that little bit every week/month/year?

If Insurance Companies Can't Utilize Pre-Existing Conditions, Then They're Not In The Insurance Business - Forbes

So, you are advocating a system in which private insurance companies decide whether or not a person should be granted access to healthcare based on whether or not said companies can make an adequate profit? Sounds perfectly unreasonable for a civilized society. It is why I believe Obamacare does not go far enough. Take the insurance companies out of the mix altogether and provide healthcare for everyone.

 

[ACamp1900]

TTown was totally right ( first time for everything) when he said the republicans should force full implementation of that bill NOW... Let it train wreck the economy and let the country learn from it the hard way...

In a perfect world though the left and right throw that entire bill into the Atlantic, work together, finally, as both sides ( contrary to the narrative) had plenty of workable ideas during that whole debate, and quickly put something together that works for both sides, you can even keep the pre existing stuff just to calm the emotional pansies on the left... It can be done, but it won't.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Do you understand how insurance works?

I'm not going to buy car insurance until after I get in an accident.
My wife will get some life insurance on me, but only after I die.
My house burned down, so I better sign up for a homeowner's policy.

Not covering a "preexisting condition" is the very definition of insurance. You're INSURING yourself, IN CASE something happens. You pay a little bit every week/month/year, so that if something goes wrong, you're covered. You don't see how it's unsustainable if the government says insurance companies MUST cover you, even if you haven't been paying that little bit every week/month/year?

If Insurance Companies Can't Utilize Pre-Existing Conditions, Then They're Not In The Insurance Business - Forbes

While I understand what you are saying in the above, I think that analogy is flawed. With each instance you were talking about, there comes a point in time where you enter into the insurance agreement. That point typically occurs when you acquire the asset (home, car, etc) or have something to protect (Life insurance when you are trying to protect loved ones from your ultimate demise). Conversely, health insurance is needed from birth. However, if you were born with a "pre-existing" condition, you may never be able to acquire health insurance.

While I loathe Obamacare, there are bright spots here and there. The pre-existing conditions is one place where I am happy there was a change. Doesn't mean I agree with how it is handled today or within the law itself (I actually think it is idiotic), just that it is improved from what it once was.

 

[connor_in]

I have an quick exercise for all involved in the above debate:


1) Define Health Care
2) Define Health Insurance
3) Compare and contrast the two

 

[wizards8507]

So, you are advocating a system in which private insurance companies decide whether or not a person should be granted access to healthcare based on whether or not said companies can make an adequate profit?

See you're conflating two different ideas. Access to health CARE is not the same as access to health INSURANCE.

Do you realize that the average person actually loses money by having insurance? Think about it. If insurance companies make a profit, that means they pay out less than they take in. People would (generally) be better off if they saved all the money they paid for their insurance premiums and then paid for their own care. They'd be even further benefited by the fact that they could shop care with price as a consideration.

Take the insurance companies out of the mix altogether and provide healthcare for everyone.

I assume you think health care is a right? If you do, please see the argument below. If you don't please ignore it.

An individual's rights cannot impose a burden on another individual. I have the right to life and liberty because I don't need anyone to do anything in order to enjoy those rights. Conversely, healthcare cannot be a right because it requires that someone else provide me with a service. My rights cannot impose a burden on you (the doctor, nurse, or society at large). Rights come from nature and from God, not from Government.

 

[GoIrish41]

See you're conflating two different ideas. Access to health CARE is not the same as access to health INSURANCE.

Do you realize that the average person actually loses money by having insurance? Think about it. If insurance companies make a profit, that means they pay out less than they take in. People would (generally) be better off if they saved all the money they paid for their insurance premiums and then paid for their own care. They'd be even further benefited by the fact that they could shop care with price as a consideration.

Access to health CARE is largely dependent on access to health INSURANCE.

I realize the average person loses money by having insurance ... which means that insurance companies are making a fortune off of individuals waiting for the inevitablility of declining health. Independent, third parties who have a vested interest in saying "no" to those who are, by no fault of their own, stricken with a pre-existing condition, is an embarrassingly bad system for the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world. I hear lots of complaints about how the Democrats overreached with Obamacare, but I hear little about how politicians (particularly the GOP) did absolutely nothing about fixing the system that, like most other things in the country these days, benefits the extremely rich at the expense of the poor. People, on average, might be better off not having insurance in any given year, but old age and diminishing health catches up to everyone, and eventually EVERYONE will require access to health care.

 

[ACamp1900]

It should be my right not to pay taxes... I mean it affects my adversely, makes me sad and stressed and impacts my health negatively... Not Paying my taxes makes me feel good,... So yeah, my right.

 

[wizards8507]

I hear little about how politicians (particularly the GOP) did absolutely nothing about fixing the system that, like most other things in the country these days, benefits the extremely rich at the expense of the poor.

1. The "very rich" don't have insurance because they use the world class doctors that don't accept it.

2. Poor people already had Medicaid. Why do you lefties always ignore this point? If you were poor or disabled, you ALREADY HAD government-provided health insurance.

3. The people who have signed up are not people who always wanted insurance but couldn't get it (see #2). The people who signed up are people who didn't want it in the first place but are now forced to get it.

4. "Fixing the system" means lowering costs, not shuffling around who pays for the higher costs (whether higher premiums, individual mandates, or taxation to fund a national system). Lower costs means tort reform, competition among providers, and giving individuals the ability to shop for care with price as a consideration.

The economics of a healthcare transaction are complicated and they're the reason costs are so high. When you go in for a checkup, you don't care how much the doctor charges because you're not paying for it anyways. The doctor just wants to get paid and the insurance company wants to pay as little as possible. The goals aren't aligned. If you were shopping based on price (by removing the insurance company from the picture), the doctor would have to shift his focus into providing the best service at the best rates because he's going to lose business if he doesn't. The insurance model is based on flawed incentives.

EDIT: You're providing valuable insight into the mind of the rank-and-file Democrat base. I always wonder what percentage of progressives are "in on it" when it comes to making up these lies and how many of them just fall for it. People like Obama and Professor Gruber know that Obamacare, environmental regulations, and amnesty are all about control, but they trick you "true believers" into thinking you're supporting access to healthcare, prevention of global warming, and social justice.

 

[irishog77]

Access to health CARE is largely dependent on access to health INSURANCE.

I realize the average person loses money by having insurance ... which means that insurance companies are making a fortune off of individuals waiting for the inevitablility of declining health. Independent, third parties who have a vested interest in saying "no" to those who are, by no fault of their own, stricken with a pre-existing condition, is an embarrassingly bad system for the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world. I hear lots of complaints about how the Democrats overreached with Obamacare, but I hear little about how politicians (particularly the GOP) did absolutely nothing about fixing the system that, like most other things in the country these days, benefits the extremely rich at the expense of the poor. People, on average, might be better off not having insurance in any given year, but old age and diminishing health catches up to everyone, and eventually EVERYONE will require access to health care.

That's because in addition to nobody reading the obamacare bill passed by congress, republicans weren't even allowed in for any type of discussion or negotiations by obama and the democrats.

The law of the land regarding healthcare in the U.S. was literally rammed down the throats of all her citizens.

 

[GoIrish41]

An individual's rights cannot impose a burden on another individual. I have the right to life and liberty because I don't need anyone to do anything in order to enjoy those rights. Conversely, healthcare cannot be a right because it requires that someone else provide me with a service. My rights cannot impose a burden on you (the doctor, nurse, or society at large). Rights come from nature and from God, not from Government.

How do schools operate in this mythical liberarian system you seem to be operating in? When I was single, long before I had kids, I still paid school taxes. That certainly seemed to impose a burden on me so that others in the society who were guaranteed an education could could receive one. When I had a part-time job in high school and before I ever owned a car, I paid taxes that were used to build and maintain highways -- a burden on a non-driver to benefit all those who drove. When we require voters to jump through hoops in order to exercise their right to vote placing a financial burden on citizens to find the issuance of voter ID cards, that seems like laying a financial burden on citizens, especially those who don't think need such a law. But, in another thread you advocated for that. And, from my perspective you are wrong about where rights are derived. They don't come from nature or from God, but from the people of this country who have collectively shaped what are rights, priveledges, etc. through their representative government.

 

[tussin]

1. The "very rich" don't have insurance because they use the world class doctors that don't accept it.

2. Poor people already had Medicaid. Why do you lefties always ignore this point? If you were poor or disabled, you ALREADY HAD government-provided health insurance.

3. The people who have signed up are not people who always wanted insurance but couldn't get it (see #2). The people who signed up are people who didn't want it in the first place but are now forced to get it.

4. "Fixing the system" means lowering costs, not shuffling around who pays for the higher costs (whether higher premiums, individual mandates, or taxation to fund a national system). Lower costs means tort reform, competition among providers, and giving individuals the ability to shop for care with price as a consideration.

The economics of a healthcare transaction are complicated and they're the reason costs are so high. When you go in for a checkup, you don't care how much the doctor charges because you're not paying for it anyways. The doctor just wants to get paid and the insurance company wants to pay as little as possible. The goals aren't aligned. If you were shopping based on price (by removing the insurance company from the picture), the doctor would have to shift his focus into providing the best service at the best rates because he's going to lose business if he doesn't. The insurance model is based on flawed incentives.

EDIT: You're providing valuable insight into the mind of the rank-and-file Democrat base. I always wonder what percentage of progressives are "in on it" when it comes to making up these lies and how many of them just fall for it. People like Obama and Professor Gruber know that Obamacare, environmental regulations, and amnesty are all about control, but they trick you "true believers" into thinking you're supporting access to healthcare, prevention of global warming, and social justice.

The bold is so true. True healthcare reform needs to start with the providers, not the insurance companies.

No one can explain to me why my 90 minute ACL surgery resulted in two claims totaling ~$90K. Seriously, I've asked the surgeon, the office manager, the billing department for the surgeon, the facility specialists, the facility's billing department, and the insurance company....no one can explain why it costs that much.

 

[Rack Em]

That's because in addition to nobody reading the obamacare bill passed by congress, republicans weren't even allowed in for any type of discussion or negotiations by obama and the democrats.

The law of the land regarding healthcare in the U.S. was literally rammed down the throats of all her citizens.

Bingo.

 

[GoIrish41]

That's because in addition to nobody reading the obamacare bill passed by congress, republicans weren't even allowed in for any type of discussion or negotiations by obama and the democrats.

The law of the land regarding healthcare in the U.S. was literally rammed down the throats of all her citizens.

What did they do in the decades before Obamacare was even a thing? What was anyone doing to fix the broken system? Politicians have been talking about universal healthcare for all citizens since Teddy Roosevelt, yet nothing was done to achieve it. I'm tired of all the whining about how Obamacare was some secret conspiracy of the left when I have heard politicians talking about it all my life. For all those years of talking nothing got done ... until Obamacare, which is nothing but a positive first step.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I personally believe politics have destroyed the government and the people's ability to make this country better. Too much bitching and moaning going on instead of actively trying to accomplish something. I think it's wrong and counter-productive to lean too far in one direction. Check the party label at the door. Put your own agenda on hold. Get something done to better America. Soldiers fight to protect the rights and freedoms of every citizen in this country. But the people in power fight to protect their bank accounts and power status. Fix it.

 

[Ndaccountant]

What did they do in the decades before Obamacare was even a thing? What was anyone doing to fix the broken system? Politicians have been talking about universal healthcare for all citizens since Teddy Roosevelt, yet nothing was done to achieve it. I'm tired of all the whining about how Obamacare was some secret conspiracy of the left when I have heard politicians talking about it all my life. For all those years of talking nothing got done ... until Obamacare, which is nothing but a positive first step.

I don't think anyone was arguing that the previous system was perfect. Rather, the change was a one sided change. If you want to point the finger at someone, point the finger at those in Washington (both sides of the aisle) for failing to find common ground, which they failed to do in order to placate their base.

 

[wizards8507]

How do schools operate in this mythical liberarian system you seem to be operating in? When I was single, long before I had kids, I still paid school taxes.

Education is not a right. If we decide as a society (and we have) that education is something we should provide, then so be it. But it is not a RIGHT.

That certainly seemed to impose a burden on me so that others in the society who were guaranteed an education could could receive one. When I had a part-time job in high school and before I ever owned a car, I paid taxes that were used to build and maintain highways -- a burden on a non-driver to benefit all those who drove.

Same as education. Highways and other public goods are not rights.

When we require voters to jump through hoops in order to exercise their right to vote placing a financial burden on citizens to find the issuance of voter ID cards, that seems like laying a financial burden on citizens, especially those who don't think need such a law. But, in another thread you advocated for that.

States with voter ID laws should provide those IDs free of charge, thus no financial burden. As to your claim of "jumping through hoops" to get an ID, give me a break.

Things that require an ID:

Alcohol
Tobacco
Bank account
Food stamps
Welfare
Medicaid
Social Security
Unemployment
Employment
Renting an apartment
Buying a house
Driving a car
Buying a car
Renting a car
Air travel
Marriage
Purchasing a firearm
Adopting a pet
Adopting a child
Renting a hotel room
Buying a cell phone

And, from my perspective you are wrong about where rights are derived. They don't come from nature or from God, but from the people of this country who have collectively shaped what are rights, priveledges, etc. through their representative government.

If government provides rights, then government can take rights away. The purpose of "rights" is that a legitimate government CANNOT and SHALL NOT infringe upon them.

 

[woolybug25]

I think the Republicans are going about ObamaCare all wrong. Over the next two years, instead of working to try and repeal the law, they should work to enforce every aspect of it. That way, people will see just how devastating it really is. There was a reason a lot of the mandates were "postponed." Once the American people see just how much it really hurts, then the Republicans can throw out their zero vote record on it. Spend the next eight years after that blaming the prior administration all the while repealing it one layer at a time with control of both Houses and the Executive.

TTown was totally right ( first time for everything) when he said the republicans should force full implementation of that bill NOW... Let it train wreck the economy and let the country learn from it the hard way...

In a perfect world though the left and right throw that entire bill into the Atlantic, work together, finally, as both sides ( contrary to the narrative) had plenty of workable ideas during that whole debate, and quickly put something together that works for both sides, you can even keep the pre existing stuff just to calm the emotional pansies on the left... It can be done, but it won't.

That's because in addition to nobody reading the obamacare bill passed by congress, republicans weren't even allowed in for any type of discussion or negotiations by obama and the democrats.

The law of the land regarding healthcare in the U.S. was literally rammed down the throats of all her citizens.

I want to clarify that this wasn't an "Obamacare or no change" type scenario. If Romney would have won the election, he had "Romneycare", which had a ton of similarities to Obamacare. Here are some of those similarities:

State-based exchanges – Both laws create exchange authorities charged with operating health insurance marketplaces. The exchanges are internet websites where residents may compare and purchase private insurance policies that meet minimum levels of coverage. The objective of these exchanges is to drive down premium costs by increasing competition, and provide policies with similar levels of coverage for ease of comparison. Both laws also require guarantee issue, meaning consumers cannot be denied coverage due to pre-existing health conditions.

Subsidies for lower-income households – While the amount of individual subsides vary, and the income levels for eligibility differ, both laws provide financial assistance to lower-income households so that health insurance is affordable. Massachusetts subsidizes private health coverage for families and individuals with incomes up to 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). The ACA provides subsidies for those earning up to 400 percent of the FPL.

The individual and business mandates – Both laws require that individuals who can afford insurance to purchase insurance or face a financial penalty. The Massachusetts law required businesses with more than 10 employees provide health benefits to their workers or pay a $295 per employee “Fair Share” contribution. This provision was repealed in July 2013 in anticipation of the ACA business mandate. Under the ACA, businesses with 50 or more full-time employees must offer health insurance or pay a $2,000 per employee penalty, which excludes the first 30 employees. The ACA business mandate takes effect January 1, 2015.

Here are some differences:

Size and scope – The Massachusetts law applies to the 6.5 million residents of the commonwealth. The ACA covers more than 300 million people spread across 50 diverse states. Massachusetts began its reform with a rate of uninsured that was half that of the nation as a whole, and it was written to meet the unique needs of state residents. These differences led Governor Mitt Romney to oppose the ACA. While Romney’s health reform is working in Massachusetts, he believes one model cannot meet the needs of all 50 states. In addition, the ACA has a much broader scope in that it includes provisions to address healthcare provider shortages, increase wellness and nutrition programs, bolster community health centers, and adjust Medicaid and Medicare.

Cost sharing for preventative services – The ACA requires insurance policies cover preventative services, such as cancer screenings, with no co-pays or deductibles. This provision is designed to promote wellness and diagnose disease in its earliest stages. The Massachusetts law allowed insurers to require co-pays for these services.

Medicaid expansion – In Massachusetts, Medicaid was expanded for children, parents, pregnant women and the long-term unemployed. Under the ACA, states have the option of expanding the Medicaid program to all families and Individuals with incomes up to 138 percent* of the FPL. The District of Columbia and 25 states are currently planning to exercise this option.

Romneycare Vs. Obamacare: Key Similarities & Differences « CBS Boston

So some of your concerns wouldn't have been changed by Romneycare. There was still going to be a huge overhaul of the insurance landscape, albeit some differences (preexisting conditions, mandates, scope).

My concern is that if you listen to both parties talk right now, its all about "beating" the other party. "Fighting tooth and nail", "We'll use the debt ceiling as a negotiating angle", etc have all became a distinct part of the conversation. I wish both sides would simply do their fuqing job and work together. Politics has became almost a sporting event, where you have to root for one side or the other. I just want them to actually do what we pay them to do... govern our country.