You are hereBlogs / John Martin's blog / "Zero Difference" Between Romneycare & Obamacare

"Zero Difference" Between Romneycare & Obamacare

By John Martin - Posted on 17 November 2011

This should already be clear, but it's still nice to be reminded. Jonathan Gruber, an MIT Professor and an architect of Obamacare, has some choice words about Mitt Romney and other Republicans with regard to their shifting stances on healthcare reform.

Asked about the differences between the Democrat's plan and the plan that was supported by the likes of Newt Gingrich and ultimately signed into law by Governor Romney, Gruber responded that there is:
"Zero difference. This is, to my mind, the most blatantly obvious case of politics trumping policy I've ever seen in my life. Because this is an idea, that four or five years ago, Republicans were touting. A guy from the Heritage Foundation spoke at the bill signing in Massachusetts about how good this bill was."
"[T]hey're the same fucking bill. He just can't have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it's the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he's just lying. The only big difference is he didn't have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes."
As Gruber sees it, if the Supreme Court rules against the individual mandate next year, we can kiss any hope of universal coverage goodbye:
"Basically, this is the last hope for a free-market solution for covering the uninsured. If this fails, then you either give up on the uninsured or you go to single-payer. Those are the only two options left. And the Republicans, if they're willing to stand up and say, 'We give up on the uninsured,' then great, let them say that and let the voters come to the polls and decide, but they won't say that.

Maybe not worded in the most diplomatic of ways, but well said, Mr. Gruber. It's something we all know but it needs to be pointed out over and over. "Obamacare" is just a glorified package of Republican ideas. The mandate had overwhelming support from the GOP before Obama supported it and they had to be against anything he supported. Remember how they used to stress that personal responsibility stuff?

Another perfect example of The GOP resistance to anything and everything President Obama brings to the table. Even though the Health Care Reform he wants to pass, is the same reform they supported in the past..its still  " No". REALLY ???? The GOP needs to really look at what they are doing to the reputation of  The Republican Party as a whole. Hypocrites.

Wow!!! I can't believe the only reason the far right want to usurp the healthcare bill is because they want to be antagonistic towards anything that Obama stamps his name on!! What an utter shame and sadness. My problem with this notion is if their policy is closely in relationship with  President Obama's Plans then why so much antagonism against him???  What is their deep vitriol against the President other than policy differences?? -- there has always been differences between the parties but  I have never seen this outright defiance against the President of the United States!! hmmmmm!!! I can only imagine that the motivation behind these actions are about the breaking away from the good ole boys club and entitlements!!

And we all know it's not just healthcare reform. Cap and trade was originally a conservative answer to climate change. Just about all of Obama's jobs bill was a collection of Republican-supported initiatives. To me, it all comes down to the GOP wanting to protect the Bush tax cuts and a few other pet projects of the hard right. They know that if Obama wins a second term, their base will be asked to suffer a teenie tiny bit.

You've hit the nail on the head, latrece!

I don't think the issue is whose idea it was orginally but whether Obamacare or Cap and Trade are good policy.   The flaws in Obamacare are epic and the entire bill should be edited for clarity, cost, efficacy and to remove all special interest caveats on virtually every page.  Fighting constitutionality is a waste of time especially when there are easy changes that could be made.  One suggestion would be to have a set annual enrollment period at a reasonable cost and a much, much higher premium for anyone who attempts the free ride. The other major problem is the inflated cost of having a one-size-fits-all policy covering too many items that a majority don't need or want.  The delusion of "free" annual preventative care is insulting as we all would be paying for it whether used or not.

I have already seen enough corruption, malfeasance, cronyism and horrendous government decision-making to not want to give them $$$trillions more to control energy policy.  Even after Al Gore turns on corn ethanol, the subsidies and irrational mandates can't be stopped.  An EPA that spews regulations without careful study of the effect on each geographical area or cost/benefit analysis interferes with smart decisions.   Does anyone believe that the EPA should control every drop of water even a puddle in your backyard?  They already control "navigatable" water and municipal water supplies, that's enough control.   Am I the only one who wondered how Al Gore was worth $100 million after being vice president?  I know now but there are too many dubious"green" deals to list. Amyris Biotech for a $63 million profit was the last on the list before I was too disgusted to keep looking.

Neither party is offering the best possible solutions.  But I'm sure that the more absolute control unelected bureaucrats wiith no accountability have over every facet of the economy and life, the worse we will be.  The American people must demand absolute transparency, integrity and fiscal soundness, none of which we are getting now.


Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook




RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for We will never share or sell your email address.