I've never seen it said better

[ttwtt78640]

Well ObamaCare (PPACA) is largely based on RomneyCare, passed in Massachusetts in 2006. Has that depressed salaries??

Let's take a look ....

Median household income in Massachusetts:
2006: 55,330
2011: 63,313

Median Household Income by State - Single-Year Estimates

Nope, it hasn't. Salaries are up 14½% since RomneyCare went into effect. In fact, they've increased every year except during the recession. You have any evidence this trend will be any different on a national level?

Romney care did not mandate the same minimum/maximun "out of pocket" expense levels, prevent all preexisting condition "bans" or apply to the same (very low in MA) percentage of the uninsured population. Also MA gets gobs of federal subsidies making that magic appear to "work".

The most recent renewal was last December 2011, when the state secured $26.75 billion in federal funds over the course of three years. It will, among other programs, continue to finance the universal coverage program.

“The milestone agreement also ensures the ongoing success of Massachusetts’ historic health care reform initiative, through which more than 98 percent of the Commonwealth’s residents, and 99.8 percent of children, have health insurance,” Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary JudyAnn Bixby wrote at the time. “The waiver fully funds our ongoing health care reform implementation.”

How Romney paid for Romneycare, with federal help

Obamacare vs Romneycare - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Romney care did not mandate the same minimum/maximun "out of pocket" expense levels, prevent all preexisting condition "bans" or apply to the same (very low in MA) percentage of the uninsured population. Also MA gets gobs of federal subsidies making that magic appear to "work".



How Romney paid for Romneycare, with federal help

Obamacare vs Romneycare - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

The differences don't equate to depressed salaries nationally where there was growth in Massachusetts. The numbers vary, that's about it. the penalty to companies is higher with ObamaCare, but RomneyCare hits smaller companies. I still see no evidence of your claim? Merely listing differences between the two plans does nothing to explain why one plan works while the other doesn't.

 

[specklebang]

Sounds like an abject failure of a savings plan.

You save money to spend it later. If you never stop saving, all you have when you die is a bank account. I guess if you value numbers written on paper over a nicer lifestyle, you win.

There are many reasons for saving money and each person must choose their own pathway.

First, and probably foremost, you don't know how long you are going to live. Being broke at 20 is a hell of a lot less painful than using food stamps when you're 70.

Second, you may or may not want to invest in matters that you won't live to see. Family and Charity are 2 that come to mind.

Third, being a saver does not mean that you are a miser. A miser will deprive themselves of proper food and care. A saver can enjoy anything that the richest man in the world can enjoy, just on a more modest scale.

I think I live rather well. I have a nice house (instead of a nice mansion), a nice car (a Scion not a Rolls) and I'm able to assist the less fortunate of my friends and family when appropriate. If I genuinely thought that living more expansively (and expensively) would make me happier, I could afford to do so.

The only "abject failure" of a savings plan is when you don't save anything.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The differences don't equate to depressed salaries nationally where there was growth in Massachusetts. The numbers vary, that's about it. the penalty to companies is higher with ObamaCare, but RomneyCare hits smaller companies. I still see no evidence of your claim? Merely listing differences between the two plans does nothing to explain why one plan works while the other doesn't.

RomneyCare "works" because of the federal subsidies. Giving $9,000,000,000/year in federal money to 500,000 "uninsured" people in Massachusetts ($18,000 each?) is bound to help just a bit.

Before RomneyCare was enacted, estimates of the number of uninsured in Massachusetts ranged from 372,000 to 618,000. Under the new program, about 219,000 previously uninsured residents have signed up for insurance. Of these, 133,000 are receiving subsidized coverage, proving once again that people are all too happy to accept something "for free," and let others pay the bill. That is in addition to 56,000 people who have been signed up for Medicaid. The bigger the subsidy, the faster people are signing up. Of the 133,000 people who have signed up for insurance since the plan was implemented, slightly more than half have received totally free coverage.

It's important to note that the subsidies in Massachusetts are extensive and reach well into the middle class-available on a sliding scale to those with incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. That means subsidies would be available for those with incomes ranging from $30,480 for a single individual to as much as $130,389 for a married couple with seven children. A typical married couple with two children would qualify for a subsidy if their income were below $63,000.

Lessons from the Fall of RomneyCare | Cato Institute

 

[Fisher]

So, are you supporting or opposing my plan to use 15 year olds as a protein source? You can't have it both ways. Since we are both over 15, I don't see we have anything to lose.

In the spirit of compromise, I say you can eat a 15 year old if they have parented a child by that age, or are in the process of so doing, but spare the chaste ones to replenish the planet with moral fiber at a more responsible age.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

RomneyCare "works" because of the federal subsidies. Giving $9,000,000,000/year in federal money to 500,000 "uninsured" people in Massachusetts ($18,000 each?) is bound to help just a bit.



Lessons from the Fall of RomneyCare | Cato Institute

Umm ... ObamaCare also provides federal aid for uninsured people. The same as it did in Massachusetts for RomneyCare. You still have not demonstrated why this system will depress salaries nationally when it didn't in Massachusetts.

 

[specklebang]

In the spirit of compromise, I say you can eat a 15 year old if they have parented a child by that age, or are in the process of so doing, but spare the chaste ones to replenish the planet with moral fiber at a more responsible age.

You are one of my few sources of sensible compromise and guidance. We'll need to lower the age of consent to 13 to assure a continuity of supply.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Umm ... ObamaCare also provides federal aid for uninsured people. The same as it did in Massachusetts for RomneyCare. You still have not demonstrated why this system will depress salaries nationally when it didn't in Massachusetts.

You noted that the employer "mandate" in MA results in a "penalty" of about $1/day/employee if you don't provide that benefit. Assuming that you have 60 employees that means that it costs you less than $18K/year to simply not provide any of them with insurance, or less than the cost of insuring just 4 of them. MA also had very few uninsured before RomneyCare went into effect, as noted in my prior link, so MA went from 90% of its population being insured before RomneyCare to 95% being insured afterwards yet nearly all of those added were not getting "new" insurance from their employers, but from buying heavily subsidized insurance from the state "exchange".

The breakdown of insurance coverage consisted of that 65.1 percent of state residents being covered by employers, 16.4 percent by Medicare, and 16.6 percent via public plans such as Commonwealth Care.

Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Individual Mandate? Romneycare Insured Only Another 5 Percent by Terence Jeffrey on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

 

[Fisher]

You are one of my few sources of sensible compromise and guidance. We'll need to lower the age of consent to 13 to assure a continuity of supply.

Sounds like a slippery slope. Perhaps we can come up with a keeper size for those between 13-15. Some are mostly blubber, which would be a good source for lamp oil so those might be fair game.

 

[specklebang]

Sounds like a slippery slope. Perhaps we can come up with a keeper size for those between 13-15. Some are mostly blubber, which would be a good source for lamp oil so those might be fair game.

Depending on the methodology, this could be the answer to the problem of childhood obesity.

Every moment is a slippery slope. Not to worry.

 

[Threegoofs]

I think the obvious confounder to why Mass. Is better with Romney Care might have to do with the fact that Romney is not Governor anymore.

Glad we dodged that bullet nationally...

 

[Diogenes]

Yes, you completely understand the system that assures you of a stress free retirement.

Another "tip" is don't use any of your money, surplus or otherwise, to buy ostentatious geegaws. When I see someone wearing a $20K Rolex, all I see is a phony (not a real Rolex) or a fool (rob me please) or an idiot (Timex is just as accurate as Rolex) who wasted their money trying to impress me.

Great tip! Years ago I read a caustic comment that the American way of life was spending money you don't have for things you don't want to please people you don't like. I pondered that for a few minutes, and charted a different course for my own life.

 

[specklebang]

Great tip! Years ago I read a caustic comment that the American way of life was spending money you don't have for things you don't want to please people you don't like. I pondered that for a few minutes, and charted a different course for my own life.

Every one of us goes through a time period where we covet the exotic to satisfy some inherent urge to have our status recognized by others. Many of us outgrow this quickly, others follow the path into bankruptcy.

Your quote sums it up very well indeed. I'll take a fat bank account over an envious glance anyday.