So how would Romney-care look different?

I think it has something to do with re-labeling it with the new name, RomneyCare.  

Seriously, I haven't the foggiest what Romney thinks because the GOP has purposefully avoided specifics.  Honestly, I thought the Republicans were opposed to ObamaCare, period?  I guess that's a good example of how the rhetoric used in a GOP primary softens come general election time.

Congress will not have an option for another plan.  They will be stuck with the same plan as everyone else.

This is just one example.. The torch will be passed on to the states who will have greater control over Medicare.   So states will be somewhat of a scapegoat for a program that is need of a serious trim.   Overall, I agree with this being effective since states work off of an actual budget and will have to closely monitor the spending.  

dp

I thought you were British.

My gut feel is that if Romney wins (and the R's take over the Senate) he will repeal the ACA right away, but in his attempt to replace it he will try to push through some Romneycare variant with more state control.

Even as a fiscal conservative I'm not opposed to national healthcare, but it has to make sense financially and ACA was a bloated fiscal disaster that still leaves many uninsured and does little to control costs (which is the real problem).

I doubt they would get a better version passed. I don't think Dem's wanted the bill they got, but in order to appease everyone such as lobbyists, they got the disaster we have. Rep's are far from immune to those same lobbyists. It will be another disaster if they do repeal and replace. 

Agree

Apparently one thing that would be different would be pre-existing conditions would only be covered if you have always been covered. So, basically, if you would benefit from the clause, you are excluded from the clause? 

Also, his funding seems suspect - if you COULD get coverage, you would go through a state funded high-risk pool. Which, currently exist, only in some states (others have one funded by the fed), and operate at a loss. 

Sounds like Romney is see-sawing between trying to appeal to the middle and to the right, who have very different views about the ACA. Either we should keep the law, and make adjustments if they are needed, or we are should ditch the law, and go back to having people with existing conditions be at risk for losing coverage, adult children go without coverage even if they are in school, and hide the costs to all of us for providing catastrophic care to the uninsured.

While I do not know how Romneycare will look I can imagine rolling out some federal Mandate to all states to create their own healthcare system that meets certain federal standards (covers as many people as possible, no denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, letting adult children stay on parents insurance etc) and then ending up with 50 different systems that work to a greater or lesser degree. This could have a lot of potential repercussions though depending on how they are funded - federal money or all from state coffers? In a lot of state who still have budgets that are hurting or even in crisis from the economic issues of the country (and world) funding for any federal mandated state programs will only lead to cuts in other areas of necessary service (I could see a state saying to fund healthcare we have to cut funding to primary education, supporting food banks, supporting free or reduced meals etc.)

     Personally I wish we had gone with a universal healthcare system run federally.

x2. But clinton couldn't get it through, and neither would Obama. But if we HAD, at least then the discussion would likely focus on the funding as opposed to the benefits.

x3 I think that is the only way you are going to control costs. Hopefully couple that with tort reform of some kind. I have no idea what that would look like, caps on judgements? My wife sat on a jury for three weeks this summer sad case but they found for the Doctor 9-3. The plaintiff was asking for 20M. 

The other part of this though, as I thought about it more, would be a look at the insurance industry itself. How many people would loose jobs if we suddenly had universal healthcare? How many companies would close? Every large business has an HR department, and most probably have whole sections of that department dedicated to managing benefits such as health insurance which are even more potential jobs lost. Some of these people might get jobs in the new federal system but I could still see a huge spike in un employment from the government almost shutting down an entire industry. How would those hospital and MD contracts look too? I think no matter what, if we go with the ACA still en effect, switch to some type of Romneycare or somehow passed universal healthcare - there would still be a significant period with additional pain and stress to the system that may even remain unresolved.

Canada looks better all the time 

There would be jobs lost in a single payer system- not 100% (someone still needs to review the need for services and approve the care/payments), but a lot. But where do you think that any reduction in medical as a part of overall expenditure will come from? Are you personally willing to have fewer tests or procedures done to follow up on that "funny looking shadow" or "unusual lump", or "unexpected lab result"? Will you happily accept that older med that works just as well, as long as you don't mind the constipation, blurry vision, weight gain, urinary hesitancy, and sedation that goes along with it, not to mention the monthly blood tests and semi-annual EKG so that we know we aren't going to stop your heart? Because that will save us $30-100/month over the newer med that has none of that.

At least in my hospital, the UR people are RN's - their training and skills would be still very useful in clinical settings. As for the insurance people, I don't know what to tell you, except that if your skill set is primarily denying people funding for care, maybe you need to be retrained in something more productive.

It may be a pittance but how small? Is it a Billion dollar pittance with litigation costs insurance costs etc. I don't know just asking the question.