This is a thread dedicated to pure speculation, so if it doesn’t belong on this board, feel free to move it to another…
Basically, in an alternate reality, we would be approaching the end of the first year of Romney’s Presidency - and this causes me to wonder how the events of the past year would have played out. Presume that every other election happened the same as in our reality… the House would still be under Republican control, and the Senate would be under Democratic control - it’s just the Executive Branch that is different.
How different would the ACA rollout have been? Would there have been a government shutdown?
No shutdown, but the Obamacare roll out would’ve been a lot worse without any support from the white house. After a disastrous rollout and absolutely no chance of any help from a republican controlled government it would have been quickly repealed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote.
I don’t quite see a complete bipartisan repeal happening… I believe that the Democratic Party would have gotten something in order to go along with that - to at least have certain elements of the Affordable Care Act protected, even if they had to do it as an amendment to a bill that would neutralize vast portions of the act.
The idea of a complete 100% repeal taking us back to the way things were with no attempt at improvement is just a fantasy, I feel.
We are talking about a republican president who would be doing his very best to sabotage the roll out of the law. Nothing about it would work, nothing. It would be a complete catastrophe that could only be solved through a full repeal and anyone not going along would be committing political suicide. Would there even be an exchange website at all with a republican president, a mandate? anything at all? the law would be deemed unworkable because there would be absolutely no one trying to make it work.
Remember many states put their own plans and enrollments into effect that went smoothly. Presumably a Romney presidency would not have changed this. What would Congress and the President say to the people in those states who enrolled in state plans?
Romney would have been completely ineffective at sabotaging the vast majority of the law.
You really think Americans would want to boot their 24 year old kids off their insurance; or start charging women higher premiums again; or let themselves become uninsurable due to a short lapse and pre-existing conditions; or put benefit caps back on their policies; etc, etc., just because some shitty Web site sucked? Most of us never had a reason to use that Web site - it might as well have not existed.
The law doesn’t work without people signing up, i’m sure people would love lots of things but when their rates skyrocket because the shitty web site doesn’t even exist they would have gladly gone back to how it was before. Except those with preexisting conditions, but there wouldn’t be enough of them to make a fuzz. The only way to pay for all the nice things in the law is by expanding the insured base, simply not setting up the exchanges would have been enough to sink the whole thing.
No way. As OldGuy pointed out the states can and have put out their own healthcare exchanges. You’re also putting way too much weight on the healthcare exchange - an important but not critical part of the law - and Romney or any president’s ability to interfere with it. Sure he could muck it up even worse than it was, but it’d just be a minor headache.
There was no chance of the law being repealed once all the protections and improvements went into place - that’s why the Republicans have been so desperate to stop it before people learned about it.
Well, that was the single biggest positive that Romney had, according to his supporters: he isn’t Obama.
But if he had won, people on the fence who had decided to buy the right-wing rhetoric would have started saying to themselves “what the fuck was I thinking?” within a year of inauguration. By the time 2016 comes around, if the GOP hadn’t gerrymandered everything in their favor, Romney would be out on his ass.
I’m trying to recall all of Romneys’ major positions-
There was of course, the repeal of Obamacare.
He would have cut taxes for business from 35% to 25%
Cut the government by 10% and eliminated some departments- Agriculture, Education and ?
Ended federal student loans and grants (‘borrow money from your parents’)
Instituted the Ryan Budget (also ending Medicare for new enrollees)
Given $8,000 ‘vouchers’ to these new seniors to shop for healthcare in the private market
Approved the Keystone pipeline
There would have been no fiscal brinksmanship, the debt ceiling would have been raised whenever it needed to be and Democracts would not have attempted to hold the country hostage over it. No radical destruction of the safety net, Senate Democrats would torpedo any such move. Deficits would not matter, tax cuts galore. Should Romney win a second term, enough Supreme Court appointments would have been his and Roe v Wade would have been reversed.
The US dodged a major bullet. President Romney would have been an unqualified disaster.
A veto of what? Veto only works on new legislation. A president cannot undue bills signed by his predecessor. Obama can veto a law rolling back the ACA, but the veto cannot be used to affect existing law.
Mitt would not have repealed “Obamacare”. Instead, he would have pushed out the deadlines (maybe a year) tweaked around the edges, and managed the implementation better (that is an area he is good at). Then he would take the opportunity to unveil the new and improved “Romneycare!” The Republicans would have taken the credit for the success.
Romney would have delayed some of the provisions of the ACA similar to what Obama has done, and the reaction on this MB would have been… different.
As for the web site, that’s an issue of technology, not ideology. Romney would have been pilloried if he fucked that up, just as Obama has been. Maybe he would have done better, maybe worse, but I doubt he would have done worse on purpose.
Probably no government shutdown, although those TP types are crazy enough that maybe they would have tried to do it anyway.
The Democrats would not have changed the filibuster rule in the Senate.
We would be once more sliding into recession. There would be more tax cuts for the top 5%. There would be no talk anywhere about raising the minimum wage. More deregulation of the fossil fuel industry. Food stamps and unempltment would have been cut even more. And finally, the military budget would have been increased by a half trillion dollars or more, while veterans’ benefits get cut to the bone.