Posted on 08/27/2007 5:30:27 PM PDT by neverdem
If the state mandates your payment, it is a tax and a socialization, whether the mandate requires the payment to a public or private entity.
You might choose to believe otherwise, but please understand that conservatives see through Willard’s spin.
Willardcare and Hillarycare are not materially distinguishable.
Cut taxes
Cut spending
Cut government
Repeat.
Health care is not a right. Period.
Government laws to force individuals to do what is (arguably good for them) is not supporting personal responsibility.
The government is the primary reason that the cost of health care and health insurance is so high.
The government has destroyed any resemblance to free market in delivery of health care products. It has ruined health care and now the solution is to force individuals to purchase “insurance” against their will.
People that overeat are irresponsible. Ipso facto it is the government’s right to force them to eat less. Better yet, do as the Brits are doing, deny fat people access to doctors. Yeah, I have a lot of faith that the government should be the final arbitrator of what is good for me (and you).
You want to see a doctor? Better make sure your refrigerator is ready for inspection by your betters.
TheDon’s healthcare proposal is that the gov’t may not pass any laws regarding medical care.
How many calories do you eat a day?.....ya know....it’s not GOOD to eat over a certain amount depending upon your height and build and exercise level....you DO exercise, don’t you?....the State will soon want to be sure of that! Are you seeing the direction GOVERNMENT health care will go? Each individual needs to be RESPONSIBLE for themselves and if they don’t want insurance....suffer the consequences....we have the best place on earth for healthcare, AND the best information about BEING healthy, but unfortunately, SOME people will NEVER care. MANDATING it will NOT make things better....just dumb all insurance down to the ones who do NOT CARE!
LOL....I just READ your statement.....birds of a feather, I guess!!!
Exactly.
I have no problem with states experimenting with health care in their 50 laboratories (assuming those health care experiments do not violate state Constitutions). On the other hand, I have a very serious problem with the feds getting involved. As I’ve said before, I see a lot of reasons to like Romney — but this knocks him down quite a bit on my personal list.
I haven’t read into Romney’s plan...seen negative and positive comments on it. I actually think Bush’s plan is fairly good...not sure of the small details...but sounds similiar to most free-market methods out there.
Unfortunately the man doesn’t sell things all too well or perhaps he’s doing it slowly so he doesn’t cause a political uproar. Not sure.
Read:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/healthcare/
I do think ultimately insurance agencies will attach themselves to Bush-like plans or free-market avenues; but given there is huge incentives profit wise for them to keep it as is (atleast in some states), I’m sure they’re not too keen to change it. I’m not an absolute pro-corporate guy...more or less I think they only function well for the country when they have to compete...state laws impeding competition sorely puts everyone at a disadvantage (especially people living in high cost-of-living states).
They need to atleast allow people to buy across state-lines, and they should give the option to people to opt out of state safety nets or more importantly excess programs they won’t use. Not everyone needs a psychiatrist or chiropractor.
These sort of percentages (below) give us as conservatives an opportunity to work this out before Dems get all crazy. If they change it, we’ll be like Europe...unable to afford or military and our economy will be deeply erroded (especially in job growth). This issue is key to our party...everyone must educate themselves on the solution(s) and get their leaders going.
Don’t let the dems take the reins.
read please.........
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicarehealthinsurance/a/healthchioce.htm
Crossing state lines to get cheaper rates now illegal
A majority of Americans strongly support allowing people to cross state lines to find cheaper health insurance coverage, according to a new Zogby International poll conducted on behalf of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI).
According the poll:
# 72% of those polled (1,001 likely voters) supported allowing someone living in one state to purchase health insurance from another state, if the insurance is state-regulated and approved. (15% were opposed and 13% were not sure.)
# 82% said they would be likely to purchase a policy across state lines if they were paying very high rates and needed access to more affordable health insurance policies.
According to CAHI, health insurance prices are rising, and this is partly caused by state imposed health insurance mandates.
# While mandates make health insurance more comprehensive, they also make it more expensive because mandates require insurers to pay for care consumers previously funded out of their own pockets. CAHI has identified 1,853 state-imposed health insurance mandates across America.
In addition, several states have passed guaranteed issue legislation, which requires insurers to accept anyone who applies regardless of health status. Every state that has imposed guaranteed issue in its individual market has seen its health insurance premiums rise significantly and insurers leave the state.
These mandates and guaranteed issue make health insurance unaffordable for millions of Americans, disproportionately affecting lower-income workers and minorities, who have less access to employer-provided coverage. As a result, minorities and low-income workers want more health insurance options. According to this poll:
# 86% of Hispanics and 85% of African Americans are most likely to be in support of allowing people to purchase policies being sold in other states.
# 80% of single adults and people with annual household incomes between $15,000 and $24,999 support this option.
Interestingly, Republicans and higher-income workers are more likely to be opposed.
Current laws prohibit individuals from buying health insurance across state lines. Rather, they must buy what has been approved in their own state.
“States must lower the cost of health insurance and reduce the number of uninsured by giving their citizens access to a wide range of affordable health policies without all the mandates and restrictions,” stated CAHI Director Dr. Merrill Matthews. “If they refuse, then Congress needs to take action to ensure that all Americans have other options. Judging by the results of this poll, Congress has the support to do just that.”
“I accept the repercussions that may bring with it.”
Which translates to the people of MA bailing hospitals out to the tune of $1 billion + per year for those who like you “accept the repercussions” (i.e. take the free care then don’t pay — or perhaps you think paying $50/month on a $25,000 hosital bill is more than sufficient to cover this personal responsibility thing you all love to refer to?)
Reality. It escapes most political debate — especially from the Paul supporters. MA, like every other state in the union, bails out hospitals for the free care they have to provide.
Let’s just keep that intact then — and pay no attention to those costs going spiralling out of control.
I know, I know -— “where in the Constitution does it state we have to bail out hospitals”...... see that reality thing I refered to.
Romney relaxed mandates on Health Insurance carriers and agrees with you that government should not be in the medical care business — reason why subsidizing the cost of private health insurance premiums (who are far better suited to combat fraud and abuse) is the only viable aternative to the out of control costs associated with bailing out hospitals every year.
Of course the bailing out hospitals aspect is always absent in the attacks on Romney’s health care reform act. It’s a mystery.
That is where all the Romney-haters live.
You Romney-haters are sick people.
There are several Republican presidential candidates with whom I (and many others here on FR) think are just awful.
Yet we are not obsessed with posting juvenile photos slamming and denigrating those particular candidates.
A sickness lies inside people like yourself who obviously feels so compelled to live in the muck.
Unfortunately, it might not be possible.
These Romney haters are mindlessly obsessed with slinging mud and posting juvenile photos.
Their hatred toward this conservative candidate borders on obsession.
Like I said in another post, I virulently disagree with several current Republican candidates on many issues.
Yet I am not out there denigrating and lobbing mindless slander at them.
It is early in the election process, and we at least should simply be tossing around the ideas these candidates put forth, instead of accusing them of "causing diahreah and death" as one Romney hater already wrote.
One more thing: I saw Ann Colter on the OReilly show tonight (Michelle Malkin substituted) and Colter indicated that Romney was probably her top choice, her favorite candidate, among the current crop of GOP hopefuls.
Now I supposed these Romney haters will accuse Ann Colter of not being "conservative enough".
Oh, I get it.
You Romney haters are the only REAL conservatives, and everyone else is just pretending.
Is that is?
Got some news for you there, Mr. Hardline Conservative.
Ronald Reagan supported (or at least didn't cut) Medicare or Medicaid.
Sen. Rick Santorum (my conservative hero) voted to continue Medicare and Medicaid.
I could go on and on and on, naming every single conservative YOU consider a hero. None of them "withdrew ... and were quiet' or whatever it is you demand regarding govt. involvment in health issues.
Romney's plan, in a nutshell, would REDUCE the meddling hand of today's government beaurocracy by encouraging low income/non-covered people to BUY THEIR OWN PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE (thru individual partial grants or subsidies).
Under the current system, (supported by almost every Republican in office today), the federal govt. decides what procedures doctors can do and at what cost.
Romney's plan, my friend, is a great first step in transferring the current Medicaid nightmare back into the hands of PRIVATE HEALTH INSURERS -- which is where it should be.
Again, Romney at least deserves some high praise for having the guts to suggest solutions.
Unlike other candidates who just complain and carp and "pretend" they would just cut off all Americans who can't afford all health care.
That aint never gonna happen, I don't care how much rhetoric is thrown around. I dont care how conservative one is.
A compassionate American just cant sit idly by and watch someone get sick and die, regardless of how irresponsible that person is or was to begin with.
Not necessarily.
If someone without auto insurance slams into my vehicle, kids or home, I stand to lose millions if that slammer has no money.
If someone gets sick and doesn't have insurance, it doesn't affect me personally at all.
Yes, you could argue that we as a society must collectively pay for emergency rooms/hospitals.
But that doesn't pan out when you consider that many people who DON't have health insurance simply spend LESS on health care, not more.
Those who are covered by health plans (especially those covered by employers) will go to the doctor waaay more, studies show.
If a non-covered person gets sick and dies, it in fact costs society less than if they were covered by Medicaid or Medicare, or whichever.
Romney's NATIONWIDE plan does NOT mandate everyone have health insurance.
Nor does it mandate that all employers provide healthcare insurance to all workers.
Romney's plan for Mass. had some individual mandates, I believe.
But Romney's NATIONWIDE plan is different than the Mass. plan.
Which is how it should be.
Differing plans for differing states, etc.
That aint never gonna happen, I don't care how much rhetoric is thrown around. I dont care how conservative one is.
A compassionate American just cant sit idly by and watch someone get sick and die, regardless of how irresponsible that person is or was to begin with."
That is exactly right!
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.