Posted on 11/16/2007 3:46:14 PM PST by curiosity
Since the Clinton Administration's ill-fated attempt to introduce government-run health care to the United States, mountains of paper have been produced analyzing our nation's health care system. And while Republicans and Democrats have spent countless hours debating themselves, the one group that has been left out of this debate is the American people.
With 47 million Americans without some kind of health coverage, and millions more worried they will lose what coverage they have, one Governor knew the time for talking was over. What Governor Romney proved is that you can apply conservative principles to ensure that all people have access to affordable health insurance. Instead of theories, Governor Mitt Romney got results.
Since the passage of the Massachusetts plan, Sally Pipes has found refuge in the commentary pages, where she has consistently twisted every statistic to fit her "Sky Is Falling" mentality. What she fails to recognize is this key fact: the Massachusetts health care plan is working.
In a bit of irony, the same article where rival campaigns attack the Massachusetts health care plan also notes that "the law appears to be working." More people are signing up for private insurance plans. As of November 1st, more than 200,000 formerly uninsured state residents have signed up for coverage. Families who once worried what would happen if a loved one fell ill, now have the peace of mind that comes with having a health plan of their own. No other candidate, in either party, can point to this kind of record.
It should be a shock to no one who believes in deregulation and individual choice that premiums are falling as competition is introduced into the health care market. As a result, today, in Massachusetts, residents can obtain comprehensive, quality health care insurance for as little as $175 a month.
In bringing free-market forces to Massachusetts, Governor Romney has won the praise of conservative organizations. One of the primary supporters of the Massachusetts plan was the Heritage Foundation. They have said, "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." The Club for Growth stated that "Governor Romney deserves credit for proposing a plan that encourages individually-owned health insurance…"
One of the groundbreaking ideas in the Massachusetts plan is something called the "Connector." While some have tried to mischaracterize its purpose, what the Connector really accomplishes is that it provides a mechanism for people to purchase their health care plan with pre-tax dollars. Why is this important? When purchased through the Connector, that same $175 health care plan mentioned above now costs about $110 per month. While $65 may not mean a lot to people in Washington or New York, for a family working to make ends meet, $65 can help pay for groceries or gas for their car. As the Club for Growth stated, the Connector "does dramatically facilitate individually-owned health insurance plans by enabling individuals to purchase health insurance with pre-tax dollars and choose from a number of competing private plans."
Sally Pipes also questions the spending requirements of the Massachusetts plan. The response is simple – there are no new taxes required. As part of the Massachusetts plan, Governor Romney redirected nearly $1 billion that was already being spent to reimburse hospitals for providing free care to instead help individuals purchase their own insurance. According to the Club for Growth, these subsidies "encourage individual ownership of private health insurance" that "may lower overall costs." By redirecting existing funds, Governor Romney crafted a plan making private health insurance more accessible without more government spending.
For too long, Republicans have shied away from this debate. We've chosen to speak in broad platitudes and theories about how health care should work. We have ceded this issue to the Democrats because if anything, what the Clinton Administration proved was that the topic was too hard to solve, too complex to talk about, and any solution was too expensive.
Governor Romney rejected those tired excuses. Instead of talking, he chose to lead. Of all the presidential candidates, Republican or Democrat, Governor Romney is the only candidate with a record of achievement in this area. He is proud of his record and the work that was done here in Massachusetts.
Health care reform is easy to talk about. It would have been the path of least resistance and one that has been well worn for too long by people in both parties. Governor Romney could have chosen that path. He didn't. He chose to lead. He chose to be a bold reformer. And I can think of over 200,000 reasons – and counting – why that was a good choice.
And the fact is that the Massachusetts healthcare market is freer now than it was before Romney's plan, and it's freer than that of most states.
Romeny's plan reduced the MA state government regulation of health insurance. That's why health insurance is cheaper there now. Insurance companies can now offer plans that they could not offer before. Customers have more choices of plans with higher deductibles covering fewer unnecessary procedures. No more mandates to cover in vitro fertilization or hair transplants.
Yes, Romneycare includes subsidies to the poor. But the fact is, every state has subsidies to the poor, and there are no more subsidies under Romneycare than there were before. The subsidies were simply redirected to more productive use. Now the state assits the poor to buy health insurance rather than simply giving them free care whenever they show up at an ER. Even better, most of the poor now have to pay something for their care.
Finally, to all those who complain about the higher taxes charged to those who don't buy insurance, I say anyone without insurance is a parasite. If you get sick and don't have insurance, you will stick me and the rest of the tax-paying public with the bill. Hence it is perfectly reasonable to slap you with a surcharge. All the money from that surgarge will go into an escrow account that can only be used to pay for any medical bills that they try to stick us with. IMHO, that's more than reasonable.
The only people who have cause to complain are parasites who would be more than happy to stick me with their unpaid medical bills.
Prove it. Give me a list of their names. But I'm still waiting for the list of names of the millions and millions of civilian Iraqi dead since the war.
People who throw out these "conventional wisdom" numbers are fools and useful idiots.
Does that 47 million include the 25+ million illegal aliens in the country?
And if so, will Willard provide health care for them too?
WillardCare $50 express-lane abortions paid for by taxpayers. No thanks Mutt!
You and Willard and everyone else who supports ushering in the nanny state can all go to hell.
On another thread, Romney said it wasn’t his fault that the Democrats have already changed his plan, adding a provision for abortions and several other atrocities.
Yes, it was his fault.
Because it was utterly predictable that this sort of thing would happen, that the Democrats who control Massachusetts would take the plan a Republican stupidly put through when they couldn’t do it, and turn it further and further toward the dark side of abortion, euthanasia, and socialism.
The state already subsidized abortions before. Romney's plan didn't change anything in this regard.
The rest of the article, however, is sound, and the one error you point out is not central to its argument.
Romney's plan reduced socialism.
As to abortion, state law already required abortion subsidies before Romney came into office. His plan didn't change this one iota.
“The state already subsidized abortions before. Romney’s plan didn’t change anything in this regard.”
Which means Mutt is/was no better than any other RAT in MA!
Basically, yes. The 47 million is the number of people in the TOTAL POPULATION without insurance. So it includes illegals.
I believe illegals represent at least 25% and possibly as much as a third of the uninsured.
What a nice example of a non-sequitur!
Still, that figure, as misleading as it is, isn't relevant to the main point of the article.
Once Roe vs Wade is over turn.
And as president Romney continues to dismantle all those added fees the Liberals appied to the insurance companies to make their Universal Care more appealing!
There will be no more abortion in the service programs
The Health Insurance will be more affordable for the working poor.
Removing government regulations and mandates always brings in free market success.
If Romney had done so, without government mandated universal health care he would have been congratulated, but as it sits, it's simply HillaryCare under a different name.
Does the Governor of MA have line item veto power?
Did Willard strike that mandate and the RATS overrode his veto?
It was already mandated before he became governor.
Does the Governor of MA have line item veto power?
He can't veto previously passed legislation. Abortions were not in the legislation he signed into law.
Yes, and that's exactly what he did in MA.
If Romney had done so, without government mandated universal health carehe would have been congratulated,
Universial healthcare is already mandated by a Federal law that RONALD REAGAN signed which prohibits emergency rooms from turning away people who can't pay.
That leaves a governor (who can't repeal Federal law) two choices: either a) use taxpayer money to pick up the tab on uninsured freeloaders who skip out of ER's without paying (as was happening before), or b) stop them from freeloading by getting them to buy insurance.
I submit to you that b) is the conservative choice. In my book, conservatism is all about stopping freeloaders and making everyone pull his own weight, and that's exactly what his plan does.
but as it sits, it's simply HillaryCare under a different name.
BS. Under Hillarycare there was no consumer choice. You had to get your healthcare from the government. The government would impose price controls on providers. It was a massive takeover of the industry, and a massive increase in regualtion.
Romney's plan decreased government interference in the health insurance markets.
If you can't see the difference, then you're too stupid to bother with.
It will cost him the White House.
Most of the negative postings out here concerning Romney’s administration here are in my opinion BS, save those concerning this issue.
This mandatory medical requirement is a disgrace to conservative principles, and the American way.
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.