Posted on 08/27/2007 5:30:27 PM PDT by neverdem
A baseball from the North Pole....
unfortunatly for my business, Romenycare is a dealbreaker.
But, that is just a suspicion. If I’m wrong, my bad.
Personal responsibility means taking responsibility for yourself. A government mandate is not personal responsibility. It is simply a tax under a different name.
For your information, I have health insurance, which I pay for myself. It costs me approx. $6000/yr. Now, I fail to see how Romney’s plan is going to reduce my cost, or anyone else’s for that matter.
The Romney logic goes that there are millions of well off people who choose not to have health insurance, and when they get sick we all have to pay for it. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. The logic is false, lots of people don’t have health insurance and if they can afford the service, they pay for it. If they can’t afford it, they don’t.
Explain to me how someone who can’t afford to pay for his $5000 procedure, can afford to pay $6000 for health insurance. He can’t.
Therefore, under Romney’s plan, I will still have to subsidize the same people I’m subsidizing today. How will this reduce costs? I don’t see anything in Romney’s plan lowering doctor’s salaries, cutting prescription prices, or rationing care, so once again I ask how is it going to lower total costs?
It’s not, and while some lucky few may end up paying less, I’ll wager that most will pay more, just as the article above talks about how Massachusetts has declared that “as many as 200,000 people who were already insured didn’t have the right kind, subjecting them to a fine or forcing them to purchase new insurance.”
If Romney’s goal is tho say that everyone has health insurance, then his plan may work. But if his goal is to reduce healthcare costs it won’t.
I would argue that having health insurance without cost reduction or containment is a worthless goal.
Wow, such negativity.
Who is your choice for POTUS '08?
Duncan Hunter
Again, you fail to see because you've failed to study the entire plan which does address cost reduction and containment. You are just an anti-Romney poster who will oppose anything he proposes. Never mind.
Nonsense!
"Sure it does. If he goes to the emergency room, he'll get treated for free, causing your healthcare costs to go up"
No. They are sent a bill that they must pay.
"If he gets a contageous disease, he might spread it to you."
So do the insured. In fact the insured are most likely to spread it, because they're the most numerous in pop.
You cannot deregulate healthcare, because you can’t impeach the judges that rule you have to treat everybody. Somebody is going to pay for the free care and it is going to be you.....
True, if you could deregulate it, then nobody without money gets treated. Lets get real here, the judges won’t let that happen so we pay and pay in premiums. Next best is something that requires you to have insurance so at least we channel the people into medical offices rather than hospitals. You either have that or you continue with spiraling premiums which leads to more people getting free care since paying the premiums becomes an impossibility.
No, they are sent a bill they don’t pay...That is why your premiums skyrocket. They get their free lunch off of you.
I think Duncan is a fine choice. But, it takes organization and money....neither of which he has. Money limits your choices not the GOP. McCain made sure that only the rich survive in politics.
Wrong. They must pay the bill, or they'll have the money taken by a court and their credit effected. THat is a fact. What you're talking about is people that will never pay regardless, because they're perpetually irresponsible and shiftless. What the politicians want is for everyone else to toss more money in the system. In particular, they want responsible people that handle their own affairs to pay into a scheme to cover the business losses of the various entities involved. The health care industry is a govm't protected monopoly that keeps the costs artificially high. Forcing people to pay for that artificially high priced monopoly and cover their losses on a continual basis is wrong.
I am not an anti-Romney poster. Check my comments on this site and you will see I have challenged all the major candidates for the Republican nomination. I am a true conservative looking to decide on who is the right candidate to support. Unfortunately, I’ve yet to find anyone worthy of my vote.
Yet, instead of trying to convince me to support your chosen candidate, you insult me. Is this supposed to win my vote, or the votes of the many others like me who are looking for enlightment on candidate’s positions beyond the bumper sticker slogans, hard core supporters like you are offering.
If you want to get Mitt elected, convince me that his plan is good. If you want him to lose, continue to insult potential supporters.
I too love Duncan Hunter.
Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have that gregarious type of personality needed to win the US Presidency.
Sure, he would get the solid 27-percent conservative vote. (perhaps 35-percent)
But in today's media-driven political climate, you need someone who can attract and KEEP 95-percent of the Republicans, along with at least HALF the squishy-middle independents and a few Democrats.
This might sound shallow, but it is a fact of life that a successful candidate (whether GOP or Dimocrud) needs a magnetic type of personality.
Say what you will about Romney, he has personality and charisma.
He is lightning fast on his feet, a great debater, and a wonderful looking family.
As conservatives, we must choose the most conservative candidate who has the best chance of winning.
It does us no good to have a solid no-nonsense rock-ribbed conservative candidate, only to lose due to lack of charisma.
If you were being honest, you'd go back and see that your original post to me was the one that started off on the wrong foot with its flip, rude and inaccurate characterizations. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out. I am not here to coddle people or insult them, but I will point out when people are lying about or misconstruing Romney's positions because I know he is the best thing to come along for the GOP in a very long time. We haven't had anyone with his communication skills, intelligence and optimistic energy to carry the conservative mantle since Reagan.
If you were being honest, you'd go back and see that your original post to me was the one that started off on the wrong foot with its flip, rude and inaccurate characterizations. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out. I am not here to coddle people or insult them, but I will point out when people are lying about or misconstruing Romney's positions because I know he is the best thing to come along for the GOP in a very long time. We haven't had anyone with his communication skills, intelligence and optimistic energy to carry the conservative mantle since Reagan.
If you were being honest, you'd go back and see that your original post to me was the one that started off on the wrong foot with its flip, rude and inaccurate characterizations. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out. I am not here to coddle people or insult them, but I will point out when people are lying about or misconstruing Romney's positions because I know he is the best thing to come along for the GOP in a very long time. We haven't had anyone with his communication skills, intelligence and optimistic energy to carry the conservative mantle since Reagan.
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.