Dissecting Romney’s Obamacare Interview on Leno
I wanted to take a moment and dissect and digest some of the statements made by Mitt Romney on his interview with Jay Leno and give you my take on them. For those of you who have not seen presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s quick interview on Jay Leno, you can check it out at the end of this post). My comments do not, in any way, endorse any candidate or their views on fixing our health care system. You can draw your own conclusions when the polls open!
I will grant a waiver from “Obamacare” for all 50 states. […] And I’ll also file legislation to repeal it entirely and replace it. It’s not just getting rid of “Obamacare.”
The whole premise of “Obamacare” is that everyone plays. All states, all residents. Keep in mind that granting a waiver to all 50 states would mean that any cost/return projections made would no longer be accurate since the law is no longer mandatory across the nation. Repealing ACA will be easier for Romney to sign than will be for the states to “un-implement.”
I am glad, though, that regardless of political belief or affiliation, everyone is in agreement that our health care system needs fixing!
People who have been continuously insured […] as long as you’ve been continuously insured, you ought to be able to get insurance going forward. […] People with pre-existing conditions as long as they’ve been previously insured before.
This is basically a pay-to-play deal. Really, Gov. Romney? Really? Shouldn’t basic health insurance be available for all, regardless of pre-existing conditions? Do we just let people with pre-existing conditions die because they can’t afford insurance? Is this really ethical? And, if our current health care delivery system doesn’t change any time soon, guess who would be paying in the end anyway? THE TAX PAYER. If people with pre-existing conditions can’t afford to go to the doc because of no insurance, they won’t. Then, when their condition aggravates, they go to the ER, uninsured, EMTALA kicks in, and the tax payer is slapped with the bill once more.
If they are 45 years old and they show up and they say “I want insurance because I have heart disease”, it’s like “Hey guys, we can’t play the game like that. You gotta get insurance when you’re well, and then if you get ill, you’re gonna be covered.”
I can see two sides to this story. My parents have pre-existing conditions and had them when we first got to the states (legally). They are employed by large companies, so pre-existing conditions don’t necessarily affect them, however, if they were to be self-employed, health insurance would probably be unattainable for them due to either denial of coverage or exorbitant, over-the-top premiums. At the same time, I understand and agree that it’s not ethical to make use of a system when you are not paying into it. Oh, and by the way, did you know that a 2009 Time Magazine poll found that 80% of Americans favor a requirement that insurance companies cover people regardless of pre-existing conditions? (* need to disclose the fact that Romney did mention that we should look at circumstances when granting insurance, not just pre-existing conditions).