"So I told this Muslim to pull my finger..."
Posted on 07/18/2008 8:24:36 PM PDT by Plutarch
And that says alot...
The VAST majority of states in the U.S. rejected Romney in the primary, I wasn't going to list everyone. At least Hillary's supporters can make the claim that she won the states Obama needs in the general election. We don't need Romney to "deliver" Wyoming or Utah, and the Mittwitts seem to forget that McCain won Michigan on his OWN in 2000, and would have won it again in 2008 if it weren't for Romney getting 39% of Michigan Republicans to flip (and he STILL only finshed 8% above McCain in Michigan!).
Also, you ever notice how the media claims a majority of whites supporting Hillary is racist, but 90% of blacks voting for Obama is not? They seem to have same talking points with the Romney crowd. A majority of evagelicals opposing Mitt is supposedly "proof" that Evangelicals were bigoted against Mormons (as if their votes against Mitt had nothing at all to do with him governing as a liberal and changing all his positions in 2008), but when 90% of Mormons SUPPORT Mitt (see Utah primary results), there's nothing wrong with them voting as a bloc for "their guy"
It's how all their “truth” stuff works...
Um ... so you're saying we should vote for Liberalism, that we should continue validating Liberalism with our votes, that we should support a ticket guaranteed to increase Liberalism, in order to increase Conservatism?
You're voting for a sure thing. You just haven't figured out that it's the WRONG thing.
BIGOTRY...BAD!.... "MITT-OTRY"...GOOD!
Here are the actual numbers in question that ConservativeMan asked about:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/
SOME ROMNEY STATES
UTAH (Mormon land)
Romney 255,218 90% 36 delegates
McCain 15,264 5% 0 delegates
Paul 8,295 3% 0 delegates
Huckabee 4,054 2% 0 delegates
MASS. (Romney’s adopted home state)
Romney 255,248 51% 22 delegates
McCain 204,027 41% 18 delegates
Huckabee 19,168 4% 0 delegates
Paul 13,210 3% 0 delegates
MICHIGAN (Romney’s real home state)
Romney 337,847 39% 0 delegates
McCain 257,521 30% 26 delegates
Huckabee 139,699 16% 4 delegates
Paul 54,434 6% 0 delegates
Thompson 32,135 4% 0 delegates
Giuliani 24,706 3% 0 delegates
SOME HUCK STATES:
ARKANSAS (Huck’s home state)
Huckabee 136,216 61% 29 delegates
McCain 45,563 20% 1 delegates
Romney 30,453 14% 1 delegates
Paul 10,740 5% 0 delegates
TENNEESSE (Fred Thompson’s home state)
Huckabee 189,443 34% 24 delegates
McCain 174,763 32% 19 delegates
Romney 129,722 24% 9 delegates
Paul 30,730 6% 0 delegates
ALABAMA (Bible belt baptist land)
Huckabee 230,695 41% 26 delegates
McCain 211,071 37% 19 delegates
Romney 103,318 18% 0 delegates
SOME “PURPLE STATES” CRITICAL TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTION...
OHIO
McCain 636,256 60% 85 delegates
Huckabee 325,581 31% 0 delegates
Paul 49,027 5% 0 delegates
MISSOURI
McCain 194,304 33% 58 delegates
Huckabee 185,627 32% 0 delegates
Romney 172,564 29% 0 delegates
Paul 26,445 4% 0 delegates
IOWA
Huckabee 40,841 34% 17 98%
Romney 29,949 25% 12 delegates (outspent Huck 10-to-1 and still lost by 10,000+ votes)
Thompson 15,904 13% 0 delegates
McCain 15,559 13% 3 delegates
Paul 11,817 10% 2 delegates
Giuliani 4,097 4% 0 delegates
WISCONSIN
McCain 224,226 55% 31 delegates
Huckabee 151,201 37% 6 delegates
Paul 19,210 5% 0 delegates
VIRGINIA
McCain 244,135 50% 60 delegates
Huckabee 198,247 41% 0 delegates
Paul 22,066 4% 0 delegates
Despite all the hype on FR at the time about how “popular” Romney among Michigan & Mass. Republicans for his “leadership”, he beat McCain in those states by unremarkable 9 and 10 point margins,and didn’t get a majority of Republicans to pull the lever for him in either state. Aside from the three states he’s lived in, all of Romney’s other election victories consisted of mostly rural safe Republican states with high Mormon populations, like Montana and Wyoming.
Huckabee won mostly safe Republican states in the deep south, with a few noteworthy exceptions like Iowa. Tennessee Nana is wrong — McCain didn’t win Tennessee, Huckabee did by a slim margin, and Romney finished in a distant third there. Unfortunately for freeper propanganda about how Arkansas Republicans supposed “hated” Huck and couldn’t wait to get rid of him, Huckabee did EXTREMELY well in his home state and blew away McCain by a 40 point margin, getting well over 60% of the vote there (to McCain’s 20%) Most remarkable, of course, is that Huck kicked Romney’s butt in swing states like Iowa and Missouri where Romney had pumped far more money, volunteers, and TV time than Huck could ever dream of having. I can’t think of any state where the reverse is true.
Fieldmarshalldj does raise a good point about how Romney supporters welcomed Fredheads attacking Huck, but then balked when the same criteria was applied to Romney. Both Romney and Huckabee were elected governor in states run by Democrats. The same freepers who were ripping Huck for having a “nanny state” in Arkansas didn’t seem bothered by Romney’s “nanny state” in Mass., including signing Hillarycare into law. Fieldmarshalldj claims Romney and Huck were 80% alike in the way they governed, I would argue that in the 20% of the time they were different, Huckabee was more conservative. You never saw Huck pledge to support abortion or be “better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy” to get elected in a Dem state. Perhaps that’s why voters didn’t buy the hype from the Romney campaign about how much “better” he was.
Anyway the bottom line shows that neither Huck, Romney, or FDT demonstrated they can win over the voters needed to “help” in a general election. Huck won safe Republican areas in the south, Romney won safe Republican areas in the west, and Fred didn’t win any state. There’s a reason why Presidential candidates ususally DON’T choose a running mate from the “also rans” in the primary (just as Chief Justices of the USSC are usually not choosen from sitting justices on the court), and this is it. McCain’s primary opponents appealed to different demographics and no single person in that primary would be a good balence for him nationally.
Although I disagree with fieldmarshaldj about Sanford being the best choice, Sanford WOULD unite the ENTIRE Republican base and satify Huckabee, Romney AND Thompson voters from the GOP primary, and that’s why he’s a better choice than Mitt. The only Romney voters who WOULDN’T find Sanford acceptable (see Saundra Duffy’s “Romney is the ONLY acceptable choice on the planet” kool-aid drinking rants) would simply be the most extreme fringe Romney supporters who do what they accuse others of: being bigoted on the basis of the Mormon faith. 95% of GOP primary votes would be happy with Sanford on the ticket. Not so with Mitt.
I so love the classics, and that was classic, perhaps even epic...
Tennessee Nana is wrong — McCain didn’t win Tennessee,
_____________________________________________
Sorry...Nana’s bad...
I should have said McCain got more votes than Romney...
(And that Huckabee won...
But I didnt have my flamable jamies on..)
And the one in play right now is McCain..
Let’s hope he picks a REAL conservative for his VP..
And not a liberal like Romney..
Romney
33,288
60%
McCain
10,621
19%
Huckabee
7,266
13%
Paul
4,670
8%
Let’s hope he picks a REAL conservative for his VP.. And not a liberal Mormon like Romney..
Your posting history is far too exploitive to try to show anything else.
Unbelievable.
"So I told this Muslim to pull my finger..."
True!!
While the Dem's are 89% liberal,
The Pub's are only 43% liberal.
I’ve never found the claims, too, about Slick Willard “magically” bringing Michigan into the fold as being plausible (as you well pointed out). His father last won the Governorship there in 1966, and so even if every MI voter who cast a ballot for “I was brainwashed on ‘Nam” George, the youngest eligible voter from that year would be 63 today, so not very many of them left.
Add to that the name is no guarantee of a win. Slick Willard’s mama, Lenore, ran as a pro-abort RINO for the Senate in 1970 and she lost in the single biggest landslide for a Republican Senate nominee in a popular election EVER in Michigan history (and I just double-checked the figures — she got 32%).
I’d say McCain, especially given his primary performance both this year, and in 2000, shows that he has a far greater shot at putting MI in the GOP column than ole Slick.
My EYES!!!
Let’s hope he picks a REAL conservative for his VP.. And not a liberal Mormon like Romney..
__________________________________________
So sevenbak wont vote for Romney because he is a mormon ????
It figures...
Nana wont vote for Romney because he is an abortion pusher and liberal on the illegal aliens, same-sex marriage, healthcare, big government, trade, etc...
I’m told all the non-BIGOTS who voted for Romney will being voting for Obama in November...
After all they are not BIGOTS...
And they plan to prove it...
Nice twist, think you are funny?
Think you are honest?
HILLARYCARE 2.0 VS. MARKET-BASED HEALTH CARE REFORM (click for details)
Governor Romney Says “HillaryCare 2.0” Is “The Wrong Direction” For America, Press Conference outside St. Vincent's Hospital in New York City, 9/17/2007
Gov. Mitt Romney: “HillaryCare continues to be bad medicine. Hillary Clinton fundamentally believes in Washington. She doesn't believe in the American people. ... In her plan, we have government insurance, instead of private insurance. ... In her plan, it's crafted by Washington. It should be crafted by the states. ... I think she takes her inspiration from European bureaucracies and instead we should take our inspiration from the American people. ... In her plan, we have government Washington managed health care. Instead, we should rely on the private markets to guide health care. And in her plan, you see increased taxes. The burden should not be raised on the American people. ... She fundamentally does not believe in markets and does not believe in states.”
Gov. Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, “Where HillaryCare Goes Wrong”, The Wall Street Journal, 9/20/2007
“Some of the details have changed, but at the heart of Sen. Hillary Clinton's new health-care proposal are the same flaws that sunk her first version. They flow from her distrust of markets, from her distaste for profit-motivated private enterprise, and from her consequent faith that Washington knows best.
...
“As governor of Massachusetts, I led the fight for reforms that used free markets and innovation, rather than big-government control, to lower health-care costs and cover the uninsured. I recently proposed a federalist reform plan that will use these principles to improve America's health-care system.
“Sen. Clinton has a very different view about the changes we need to make. Her plan has several weaknesses and should be distinguished from the reforms I led in Massachusetts and the reform plan I have proposed. So let's take a closer look at what her new proposal would really do:
“Raise taxes. The new plan is slated to cost $110 billion a year. And to pay for the new entitlement – a tax hike. That in turn will slow down the economy and make the cost of her system grow even higher. By contrast, both the reforms I led in Massachusetts and the federalist reform plan I recently proposed do not raise taxes or increase spending.
...
“Expand government insurance. People who don't obtain insurance through their employer are invited to buy a government-run, Medicare-like plan or enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). And so, more Americans will end up in government-run insurance. It's the gentle slope to a single payer, socialized medicine model. My plan in Massachusetts instead allowed the uninsured to choose a private insurance product from one of the many private insurance companies.
“Impose a national model on everyone. Sen. Clinton fundamentally distrusts state governments. But the states are closer to the people, and more responsive to them. They are also the laboratories of democracy – the best ideas can come from 50 states each doing their best work. The senator's plan is a one-size-fits-all approach. It ignores significant differences between people and the needs of the 50 different states. Federalism is the right approach. The national reforms I have proposed give states financial flexibility to craft their own program to cover the uninsured, a program tailored to the specific needs of their citizens.
“Significantly increase the role of the federal government at the expense of free markets. For example, Sen. Clinton proposes the creation of an entirely new government-run Medicare-like program for the uninsured. Inevitably, lobbyists will go to town adding coverage mandates, setting rates and re-shaping plans to fit the wants of their clients. The better path is the market path. Let the multitude of private companies compete for the consumer's dollar – the quality and the cost will be much better than what government could ever cobble together.
“Leave the mandate problem unsolved. Before you can impose a mandate on employers or individuals to purchase insurance, you need to reform state health insurance markets. Otherwise, policies can be so beefed-up with state mandated coverage and regulation that they are simply unaffordable. Then a mandate is unfair.
“Moreover, her employer mandate doesn't solve the problem of the uninsured – that's why I vetoed a similar measure when I was governor of Massachusetts. I chose an individual mandate only after we had done our best to reform state insurance regulations – lowering premiums by as much as 50%.
“Let's be clear here: My plan in Massachusetts worked very differently than Sen. Clinton's plan would.”
...
“I like the plan I put forward in Massachusetts. But even so, I wouldn't do what Sen. Clinton does – impose my way on every other state. Other states may borrow from what we did. Some will surely improve on it. But let's keep faith in federalism, in private markets and in individual responsibility. ...
Record of Health Care Reform in Massachusetts
“Massachusetts in 2002 was spending an enormous amount of public money on health care—and yet leaving almost one 10th of its population uncovered. Romney became more and more interested in this problem and demanded a detailed survey of the uninsured population.”
“The big surprise revealed by Romney's investigation: The uninsured were not as poor as everybody had assumed they were. A majority of them could have bought health insurance if they wanted to—they chose not to buy, because they regarded health insurance as a bad deal. It cost too much—especially for the self-employed, for whom health insurance is not tax deductible. It covered too much. And everybody knew that even if you did not buy it, hospitals would care for you all the same.”
(David Frum, “Could This Man Be the Next U.S. President?,” FrontPageMag.com, 1/10/2007)
Under federal law, nearly all hospitals are required to provide a certain level of treatment to all patients who visit their emergency rooms, regardless of those patients’ ability to pay (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, 42 USC 1395dd et seq.). Governor Romney sought a way to prevent the free-rider problem; those who take advantage of emergency services and then skip out on the charges, leaving taxpayers to cover the bill. In a very real sense, we already have “universal health care” in the U.S., but many are not paying their share of the cost for the services they receive.
Governor Romney secured the enactment of a market-based, private sector health care reform plan supported by the Heritage Foundation, America’s premier conservative think tank.
The Massachusetts health care reform law enacted by Governor Romney is not socialized medicine. It is not a single-payer system involving government takeover and control of medical care in the state. It is not HillaryCare 2.0 which would force all the states to comply with a single plan, expand government insurance and controls, and require huge tax increases.
The Massachusetts plan instead stresses personal responsibility in paying for private health insurance, selected from a large number of available insurance plans, while providing subsidies to low-income residents without requiring new taxes.
The key element of Gov. Romney’s health care reform law in Massachusetts is a new, statewide “Connector,” a private, state-chartered clearinghouse where workers in businesses with 50 or fewer employees — and any other individual seeking insurance — can purchase coverage. A small business simply designates the Connector as its group health insurance plan, and its workers can then choose from the menu of health plans the Connector offers.
Workers can switch plans annually, at standard rates, and keep coverage as they move from job to job, with both employer and worker premiums paid on a pre-tax basis. The reform law exploits a loophole in federal law that enables the self-employed to buy insurance with pre-tax dollars, just like employees. HMOs are permitted to offer HSA-qualified, high-deductible plans which are more affordable. Insurance plans in the Connector are permitted to contract with health care providers offering the best value, and it permits insurers to offer lower cost plans to individuals between ages 19 and 26.
After receiving bids from 10 carriers, for the first plan year, six different carriers are now offering 42 plan options through the Connector for the unsubsidized population. Nationally, 80 percent of companies offering health benefits provide workers a choice of one plan—take it or leave it. Outside of federal workers in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, Massachusetts citizens getting health insurance through the Connector are among the only group of Americans who can shop in a competitive health insurance market with such a broad range of health care choices.
Gov. Romney’s reform law redirected state and federal Medicaid dollars to provide lower-income individuals with a subsidy (essentially a voucher) to help them purchase private health insurance. The health care reform law mandates that all individuals buy an insurance policy; no more free riding at hospital emergency rooms. Regulatory changes in the health care reform plan permit residents to satisfy the mandate simply by purchasing catastrophic coverage through a high-deductible health plan or a Health Savings Account (HSA). These changes made the mandate less of a burden than it otherwise would have been.
The Democrat-controlled Legislature of Massachusetts degraded the original proposal from Gov. Romney by adding an employer fee mandate, and by adding fines for individuals who refuse to buy health care coverage. Governor Romney did not propose a health insurance individual mandate.
What Gov. Romney proposed was that those who still insisted on going without coverage in a reformed system demonstrate proof of their willingness and ability to pay their own bills by posting a $10,000 interest-bearing bond or establishing an escrow account. The Massachusetts Legislature replaced those provisions with a requirement that individuals buy health insurance or be fined—essentially an individual “play or pay” requirement.
Furthermore, the Legislature expanded Medicaid coverage to a larger base of children in low-income families and restored funding for public health programs which were not part of Gov. Romney’s original proposal. The Legislature rejected Governor Romney's proposal to permit high-deductible, low benefit health plans.
Governor Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the employer fee mandate. He also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.
The Legislature overrode all of the eight vetoes.
The news was very encouraging from the first round of competitive bids for “Commonwealth Choice” non-subsidized insurance policies. Initial reports that the average policy premium was $380 were proven to be misleading and false.
“Premiums as low at $153 (Neighborhood Health Plan premiums, with prescription drugs, outside Eastern MA — below $100 when treated as non-taxable income) reduce significantly the legitimate affordability worries that greeted the $380 number. In fact, the $380 number was artificial — an average that included some ridiculously high estimates by carriers that had no desire to play in this market.”
(John McDonough, “The Bids Are In, II: So What Does This All Mean?,” Health Care For All, 3/03/2007)
The plans with the lowest monthly premiums, and annual deductibles ranging up to $2000, are substantially less costly than the original estimate for post-reform coverage which was projected to be in the range of $190-$250 at the time the Massachusetts Legislature debated the health care reform plan. Prior to the reforms, typical health care coverage cost $335 with a $5000 annual deductible and no prescription drug coverage (37 year old living in Boston).
Conservatives Comment About Gov. Romney's Health Care Plan for Massachusetts
The Heritage Foundation: “In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney's plan as one of the most promising strategies out there.”
(Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Mitt's Fit,” The Heritage Foundation, 1/28/2007)
The Club For Growth: “Governor Romney Deserves Credit For Proposing A Plan That Encourages Individually-Owned Health Insurance...” “Given these limitations, Governor Romney deserves credit for proposing (and to a lesser extent, enacting) a plan that encourages individually-owned health insurance and circumvents some of the inequities carved into the federal tax code.”
(The Club For Growth, “Mitt Romney's Record On Economic Issues,” Press Release, 8/21/2007)
Massachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation: “Romney's plan also got a thumbs up from an unlikely source yesterday – Barbara Anderson, head of Citizens for Limited Taxation, a group that often looks with deep suspicion on government mandates and programs. … The tax activist said that Romney is proposing universal insurance, not universal health care – which Anderson said society effectively already has, as almost no one is denied care even if they can't pay for it. ‘Let's just face that reality and deal with it,’ Anderson said, adding that covering more people will reduce costs to taxpayers.”
(Jay Fitzgerald, “Romney Wins Health-Y Reviews,” Boston Herald, 6/23/2005)
Conservative Ethan Allen Institute: “John McClaughry of the Ethan Allen Institute spoke about personal responsibility in health insurance. He praised the Massachusetts plan because it deals with the uninsured by sending them out into the market, thus reinforcing personal responsibility. Each individual has to decide his own risk level and can purchase insurance to meet his own needs.”
(”The Massachusetts Health Plan: A Model For The States?,” AEI Newsletter, 2/01/2007)
Then-Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman: “[Mehlman] singled out an effort by outgoing Gov. Mitt Romney, another 2008 prospect, to expand health-care coverage to all Massachusetts residents. ‘That is the kind of innovation we need at the state level, and in Washington,’ Mehlman said.”
(Shailagh Murray, “GOP Must Correct Its Mistakes, Mehlman Says,” The Washington Post, 12/01/2006)
Investor's Business Daily: “Health Care: Massachusetts lawmakers have passed a universal-coverage bill. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney plans to sign it. Has Romney flipped? Not at all. He has won a victory for market-based reform.”
(Editorial, “Blue-State Surprise,” Investor's Business Daily, 4/06/2006)
Gov. Romney discussed the Massachusetts health care reform law with Neil Cavuto on Fox News on April 12, 2006.
In a December, 2006 interview for Human Events, Gov. Romney was asked about the health care initiative in Massachusetts and its suitability for the nation:
Question: One of the other things you accomplished as governor was a health care plan for Massachusetts, which has been both lauded and criticized by some libertarians and conservatives. Is this something you would consider proposing for the federal government as well?
Romney's response: “My current thinking on that is that the states as laboratories really play a very useful role for the nation. There are some aspects of what we proposed and put in our health plan that actually could be helpful for the entire nation and may well figure into national legislation. But there are others that really are peculiar to the state of Massachusetts, and I’d like to see how they work in Massachusetts, and frankly to see what other states do. Because I wouldn’t be surprised if some other states came up with ideas, borrowing from our own experience, that could be better than ours.”
“I don’t think we’re ready as a nation to adopt a Massachusetts plan for the entire nation. I’d like to learn more from other states, perhaps take some things that we found and get them under way right away. For instance, all the mandates we put on insurance—that just makes insurance more expensive than it ought to be. There’s a need also to allow people to own their own insurance policy rather than having a company decide which insurance you get. There are features in our plan that I think could be helpful, but time’s going to tell, because we want to hear what other states have to say.”
(Robert B. Bluey, “Q&A: Mitt Romney Discusses Iraq War, Reagan's Influence and Gay Marriage, Human Events, 12/28/2006)
Some Facts About Health Care Reform In Massachusetts Answering Common Criticisms
FACT: The Massachusetts Health Care Plan Is Working:
Nearly Half Of The State's Uninsured Have Gotten Insurance Under The Massachusetts Health Care Plan. “The law appears to be working. As of Nov. 1, the date for the most recent statistics, more than 200,000 formerly uninsured people had gotten insurance, roughly half of the state's target.”
(Glen Johnson, “Rivals Chide Romney On Health Care Plan,” The Associated Press, 11/15/2007)
- Since Implementation, Nearly 300,000 Massachusetts Residents Have Become Insured. “Since the implementation of Massachusetts’ landmark Healthcare Reform began in June 2006, an estimated 290,000 residents of the Commonwealth have become newly insured. As of January 1, 2008, we estimate that this number will surpass 300,000 – a truly historic achievement.”
(Massachusetts Commonwealth Connector, http://www.mahealthconnector.org, Accessed 1/25/2008)
Uninsured Massachusetts Residents Can Obtain Health Care Insurance For As Little As $175 A Month. “The average uninsured Massachusetts residents could obtain health care coverage for as little as $175 a month under the state's insurance law, Gov. Deval Patrick announced Saturday as he released the results of negotiations with the state's health insurers.”
(Steve LeBlanc, “Patrick: Residents Can Get Health Insurance For $175 A Month,” The Associated Press, 3/03/2007)
“If Purchased On A Pre-Tax Basis, The Lowest Cost Plans Drop To $109 A Month For Someone Earning $50,000 A Year.”
(Steve LeBlanc, “Patrick: Residents Can Get Health Insurance For $175 A Month,” The Associated Press, 3/03/2007)
The Minimum Plan Includes Prescription Drug Coverage And Basic Medical Care Services. “The minimum plan detailed by Patrick would cover the average uninsured Massachusetts resident, who is typically around 37-years-old. It includes prescription drug coverage and covers basic medical care, such as emergency room visits and outpatient medical care.”
(Steve LeBlanc, “Patrick: Residents Can Get Health Insurance For $175 A Month,” The Associated Press, 3/03/2007)
FACT: The Massachusetts Health Care Plan Required “No New Tax Monies”:
The Massachusetts Plan Redirects Existing Funds To Help Lower-Income Citizens Obtain Private Insurance – No New Taxes. “The big question we faced, however, was where the money for the subsidy would come from. We didn't want higher taxes; but we did have about $1 billion already in the system through a long-established uninsured-care fund that partially reimburses hospitals for free care. The fund is raised through an annual assessment on insurance providers and hospitals, plus contributions from the state and federal governments.”
(Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, “Health Care For Everyone?,” The Wall Street Journal, 4/11/2006)
- The Heritage Foundation: “The Subsidies Require No New Tax Monies.” “The subsidies require no new tax monies. Federal and state funds currently subsidizing hospitals for treating the uninsured will simply be redirected into buying coverage for the low-income uninsured.”
(Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Massachusetts Health Reform: What The Doctor Ordered,” The Heritage Foundation, 5/06/2006)
FACT: Governor Romney Vetoed A Fee On Businesses:
Governor Romney Vetoed A $295 Fee Included In The Health Care Plan By Democrats In The State Legislature. “Many of the law's core elements, including the requirement that all people in the state get insurance, were in Romney's original proposal in 2005. The Democratic legislature added many of its own ideas to the final law, including a $295 fee per employee for businesses who do not offer health insurance to their workers. Romney vetoed that provision but was overridden by the legislature.”
(Perry Bacon Jr., “Romney Plays Down Role In Health Law,” The Washington Post, 4/13/2007)
- Governor Romney: “My Democratic counterparts have added an annual $295 per-person fee charged to employers that do not contribute toward insurance premiums for any of their employees. The fee is unnecessary and probably counterproductive, and so I will take corrective action.”
(Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, “Health Care For Everyone?,” The Wall Street Journal, 4/11/2006)
FACT: The Massachusetts Health Plan Benefits Package Was Developed By The Connector Authority – An Independent Body Separate From The Governor's Office. Unfortunately, Under State Law And Court Precedent, If The State Is Funding Health Care Benefits It Cannot Refuse To Provide Abortion Coverage:
The Commonwealth Care Package Is Designed And Administered By The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority. “The Connector administers two separate programs; Commonwealth Care and Commonwealth Choice. Commonwealth Care offers subsidized insurance to people whose annual incomes are up to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level.”
(Commonwealth Connector Official Website, “About Us,” Accessed 2/05/2007)
- The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority Is An Independent Public Authority And Their Decisions Were Made Separate Of The Romney Administration. “The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority is an independent public authority created to implement significant portions of the new landmark health care reform legislation. The Connector assists qualified Massachusetts adult residents with the purchase of affordable health care coverage if they don't already have it.”
(Commonwealth Connector Official Website, “About Us,” Accessed 2/05/2007)
In 1981, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruled That The State Constitution Required Payment For Abortion Services For Medicaid-Eligible Women.
(Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
- According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On “The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right” Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services.
(Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
- In 1997, The Supreme Judicial Court Reaffirmed Its Position That A State-Subsidized Plan Must Offer “Medically Necessary Abortions.”
(Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997)
Talking Points For Governor Romney’s Health Care Reform in Massachusetts
(Edited from list prepared by Brady Alder, UltiMitt.org, 9/26/2007 • Source: Edmund F. Haislmaier, “The Massachusetts Health Reform: Assessing Its Significance and Progress,” The Heritage Foundation, 6/28/2007)
• Romney’s team innovated the consumer-centered approach which is the key to being able to have competition in the marketplace.
• The consumer-centered approach lets people direct how health care is funded
• With consumers making the purchasing decisions, as opposed to Government, we get better results at better prices
• It’s a similar concept to school vouchers. If parents could direct the funding of education, efficient schools would thrive, while inefficient ones would have to improve or go under.
• Romney did not propose a health insurance mandate. What he proposed was that those who still insisted on going without coverage in a reformed system demonstrate proof of their willingness and ability to pay their own bills by posting a bond or establishing an escrow account.
• Current programs have no transparency and prop up inefficient programs. Today the cost to America’s citizens is over $40 billion annually.
• Our current system relies on publicly funded subsidies for its survival and is allowed to overcharge private patients, regardless of the cost structures or the quality of care provided.
• Our current system uses emergency room care to treat the uninsured instead of lower-cost, better alternatives such as preventative care.
• Massachusetts citizens have 42 plans to choose from instead of the 1 plan 80 percent of Americans have through their employers.
• Pre-reform, the lowest premium for a typical uninsured 37-year-old in Boston was $335 per month with a $5,000 annual deductible. Now, the same individual can get health coverage for $184 per month ($118 pre-tax) with a $2,000 deductible. Most can get a health plan worth twice the value at half the price.
• The number of uninsured in Massachusetts has been reduced by nearly half.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.