Thursday, February 16, 2012

Evading REAGANCARE, Santorum lies about Romneycare


The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act [EMTALA] is the mandate enslaving lifegivers and coddling freeloaders.

The United States Congress passed the EMTALA in 1986, under Ronald Reagan’s watch. The EMTALA requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. The EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S but includes NO PROVISIONS FOR REIMBURSEMENT. The law is therefore considered an "UNFUNDED safety net program" for patients seeking care at the nation's emergency rooms. As a result of the 1986 EMTALA legislation, HOSPITALS ACROSS THE COUNTRY FACE UNPAID BILLS AND MOUNTING EXPENSES TO CARE FOR THE UNINSURED.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act


Romneycare mitigates REAGANCARE, but the dishonest, like Santorum, lie.

The choice of Governor Romney was the bankruptcy and closure of MA hospitals, or a mandate for those who can afford and would be buying insurance were it not on their reliance on the unearned: e.g. the EMTALA.

Honest critics offer alternatives. How would you fund unfunded entitlements while convincing others to end them? How would you avoid the closure of hospitals?

http://ilynross.blogspot.com/2011/09/mitt-romney-thomas-jefferson-and.html


This is Mitt Romney on Romneycare, and its difference with Obamacare @ 18:48 –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_wuYjV1RZs&feature=share

What Romney calls the FREE RIDER option [21:00], where many who can afford health insurance but get emergency or major medical treatment paid for by the government, i.e., you pay for it through taxes, is REAGANCARE.

REAGANCARE [EMTALA] is the mandate for healthcare providers, the mandate enslaving lifesavers and rewarding freeloaders. Romneycare does not favor freeloaders to the detriment of lifesavers and the responsible who buy insurance.

15 comments:

Ilyn Ross said...

What Romney calls the FREE RIDER option, where many who can afford health insurance but get emergency or major medical treatment paid for by the government, i.e., you pay for it through taxes, is REAGANCARE.

REAGANCARE [EMTALA] is the mandate for healthcare providers, the mandate enslaving lifesavers and rewarding freeloaders. Romneycare does not favor freeloaders to the detriment of lifesavers and the responsible who buy insurance.

http://www.ilynross.blogspot.com/2012/02/evading-reagancare-santorum-lies-about.html

Ilyn Ross said...

From a Heritage Foundation article on Romney's plan in 2006:

"… to allow people to go without health insurance, and then when they do fall ill expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney proposes to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: Either buy insurance or pay for your own care. Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values."

In 2003, [Obama] said, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan." From that speech:

I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/15/obamacare-vs-romneycare-a-cruc

Ilyn Ross said...

Romney's Stance on Health Care - The Untold Story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aKEW3YCZO8&feature=share

Ilyn Ross said...

http://americaneedsmitt.com/blog/2012/03/03/buzzfeed-misinterprets-romneys-advice-obama/

USA Today: Romney Healthcare Op-Ed: Mr. President, What’s the Rush?
By Mitt Romney July 2008

Jack H. Schwartz said...

Ilyn. EMTALA was passed behind Reagan's back, slipped into a veto-proof bill by Fortney Stark, the male version of Nancy Pelosi. Below are some of the facts (see here for the full version of the post "EMTALA IT WASN'T REAGAN" http://www.medlaw.com/newblog/?s=Reagan&submit

"LETS GET THIS STRAIGHT

Fact 1 – Yes, Ronald Reagan was in office when this bill passed.

Fact 2 – The bill was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Fact 3 – The bill was sponsored by Fortney “Pete” Stark, the powerful Democratic chair of the Medicare Committee, and backed by Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen group along with the National Organization of Women.

Fact 4 – The bill was inserted in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act – a monster “Veto Proof” bill of more than 2200 pages that lumped all of the government spending in a bill that Democrats designed to be impossible for Reagan to veto.

Fact 5 – The EMTALA provisions were not in the Senate version of the COBRA bill, and just before the Conference Committee session, it was not expected to pass through to the final bill.

Fact 6 – At the Conference Committee, and literally behind closed doors in the dark of night, Stark managed to insert the EMTALA bill into the final version that Congress had to pass in order to find out what was in it. He argued it was “budget neutral” – meaning it did not cost anything to the budget, and in modern terms that meant it was an unfunded mandate.

Fact 7 – The bill was “veto proof” and Reagan signed it.

Virtually no one knew that EMTALA was in the law. It was 4 pages, back behind Agriculture and indexed under Miscellaneous Provisions.

SURPRISE, SURPRISE! "

Jack H. Schwartz said...

My point regarding EMTALA is that it is dishonest, to say the least, to suggest that Ronald Reagan ever endorsed this evil measure, every morsel of which reeks with left-wing progressivism. So the continuous injection of EMTALA as a smear against Reagan, and even worse, as a justification for Romneycare is illogical, ignorant and dishonest. Hardly the appropriate expository technique for a blog entitled Reason Reigns'!

Ilyn Ross said...

Jack, you are the dishonest one. Reagan signed REAGANCARE.

I heard that Romney vetoed eight provisions of Romneycare but six were overturned. Romney VETOED. Reagan signed.

Ilyn Ross said...

Under Reagan's watch, Giuliani gestapoed Wall Street men. Reagan’s SEC chairman, who initiated the explosive growth of insider trading prosecutions in 1981, said about defining ‘unfair use’: “Once you get one, it doesn’t take sophisticated minds long to figure out where the edges are.” Laws without edges, undefined and flexible, are tyrannical.

From March to August 1991, the US Second District Court of Appeals in New York consecutively voided or reversed a slew of Giuliani convictions. Consequently, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial headlined: “The Greed Decade Reversed”.

Despite the reversals, the victims of Giuliani’s prosecutorial excesses greatly suffered. Innocent people and businesses were destroyed.

Ilyn Ross said...

Thomas Jefferson reduced the national debt from $83 million to $57 million while Ronald Reagan quadrupled it from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Jefferson did so while engaging in the Barbary War two months into his first presidency, while abolishing ALL excise taxes including the whiskey tax in the first year of his presidency, and then spending $15 million to double the then size of the USA.

Reagan added $2.3 trillion to the national debt while increasing and expanding the Social Security tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax.

http://ilynross.blogspot.com/2010/01/are-you-jeffersonian-or-reaganite.html

Ilyn Ross said...

"This recording should give pause to those who think that "Romneycare" was just another huge power grab by a government, and that there is "no difference between it and Obamacare" as some of Romney's opponents want you to believe. There are enormous differences. One of the most glaring, which is made clear in this broadcast, is that there was no attempt for MASS government to "take over the MASS health care system," only to find a way for those who were currently uninsured, that were a drain on hospitals financially, to become owners of private health insurance policies. There were no state panels to take control of the insurance industry etc. No raising of taxes, no cutting of funding to programs for the elderly (all of which Obamacare does). It did not and does not destroy the business climate in Mass, if anything it made it more stable. You will find this recording interesting.

This recording was made before political propaganda began to distort the beauty of it's simplicity. Obama wish's his plan was this simple and straight forward, but it's not. But, during the campaign he will follow the well established rule of propaganda, tell a lie often enough and the people will begin to believe it. We must arm ourselves with the facts." Tim Shaw

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/audio/massachusetts-health-care-reform

Ilyn Ross said...

Romney: Why I'd repeal ObamaCare

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-03-22/mitt-romney-health-reform-repeal-obamacare/53711598/1

Ilyn Ross said...

Romneycare v Obamacare

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001418026211&ref=ts#!/photo.php?fbid=2726653455778&set=o.197078247058115&type=1&theater

Ilyn Ross said...

Santorum and the dishonest have been equating Romneycare with Obamacare. They DISHONESTLY evade the following:

From a Heritage Foundation article on Romney's plan in 2006:

"… to allow people to go without health insurance, and then when they do fall ill expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney proposes to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: Either buy insurance or pay for your own care. Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values."

In 2003, [Obama] said, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan." From that speech:

I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House.

Santorum and the dishonest have been equating Romneycare with Obamacare. They DISHONESTLY evade the following:

From a Heritage Foundation article on Romney's plan in 2006:

"… to allow people to go without health insurance, and then when they do fall ill expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney proposes to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: Either buy insurance or pay for your own care. Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values."

In 2003, [Obama] said, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan." From that speech:

I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House.

Santorum and the dishonest have been equating Romneycare with Obamacare. They DISHONESTLY evade the following:

From a Heritage Foundation article on Romney's plan in 2006:

"… to allow people to go without health insurance, and then when they do fall ill expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney proposes to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: Either buy insurance or pay for your own care. Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values."

In 2003, [Obama] said, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan." From that speech:

I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/15/obamacare-vs-romneycare-a-cruc

Ilyn Ross said...

Santorum and the dishonest have been equating Romneycare with Obamacare. They DISHONESTLY evade the following:

From a Heritage Foundation article on Romney's plan in 2006:

"… to allow people to go without health insurance, and then when they do fall ill expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney proposes to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: Either buy insurance or pay for your own care. Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values."

In 2003, [Obama] said, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan." From that speech:

I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/15/obamacare-vs-romneycare-a-cruc

Ilyn Ross said...

Anyone banning Obamacare should ban Reagancare and Bushcare, too, since they are are all thugcare/coercedcare.