ObamaCare vs. RomneyCare
Measured in percentage points, the Affordable Care Act will, by 2015, add about twelve times more to average marginal labor income tax rates nationwide than the Massachusetts health reform added to average rates in Massachusetts following its 2006 statewide health reform. The rate impacts are different between the two laws for several reasons, especially that: the populations subject to the two laws are different, the Affordable Care Act’s employer penalty is an order of magnitude greater, before either reform Massachusetts had already been offering more means-tested and employment-tested health insurance assistance than other states had, and the subsidized health insurance plans created by the Massachusetts reform were less substitutable for employer-provided insurance than are the subsidized plans to be created nationwide next year.
Means-tested programs invariably create high marginal tax rates that discourage gainful work as benefits are phased out.
Exactly. And that is not what we want.
I get a little tired of hearing about “RomneyCare” and “ObamaCare.” I never hear some catchphrase to identify whether I can shop at Walmart or Target. The reason is that we have a free market in the distribution of consumer goods. When the government proposes to take over an area of consumption, it needs some way to take credit for its failure.
We need a free market in health care also.
Massachusetts is not a typical state, and due to its small size, there are plenty of opportunities for people to avoid the mandate for health insurance, while enjoying quality care.
Massachusetts really is a special case. Maybe other small states will be well-off.
Who cares! They both look pretty bad to me. Obamacare or Massachusetts, no difference.
I just want some kind of care, I don’t care from who!
Unfortunately, it matters. Or else you are liable to get horrible care at an outrageous price.
ObamaCare has won, this is kind of an outdated debate.
? Not even close.
Last time I checked, ObamaCare is based on the mitt romnney’s model from his home state as governor.
and they’ll end up with similar results.
Who do you all believe would create a more efficient system? The Federal govt or individual state govt?
The state would. The economy/demographics are different from state to state. Why would one even begin to think that a “one size fits all” would work?