Posted on 11/18/2007 9:04:19 PM PST by Jim Robinson
The debate over how to overhaul the nation's health-care system is underscoring a dramatic chasm between the two parties, as Democrats battle over which candidate will most quickly expand health insurance to cover all Americans while GOP contenders compete over who can best minimize the role of both government and employers in delivering care.
The landmark legislation that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney signed last year as governor of Massachusetts requiring everyone in the state to have health insurance is now at the center of disputes in both nominating contests.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Just say no to RINOs!!
The Massachusetts health care plan "is a Frankenstein's monster of tax penalties, expanded government-insurance programs and unfunded mandates," a Times editorial states. According to the editorial, the "fault of this bill is that it really isn't 'consumer-driven' at all," but "[p]erhaps the biggest laugher here is that we're somehow supposed to be impressed with ... Romney's observation that the bill simply applies the state's auto-insurance thinking to medical care." The editorial adds, "The state's auto insurance market is an overregulated nightmare. It's so bad that even Geico and Progressive don't offer plans in Massachusetts. A lizard would choke on it."
Wall Street Journal editorial,Wednesday, April 12, 2006
"On the other hand, his law is far from the market-based approach the Governor claimed in an op-ed on this page yesterday. The core flaw is that the plan forces individuals to buy health insurance, and penalizes businesses that don't provide it, before deregulating the market for private health insurance. So the state is forcing people to buy insurance many will need subsidies to afford, which is a recipe for higher taxes and more government intervention down the road. Could this be why Mrs. Clinton, Ted Kennedy and the Families USA government medicine lobby are all praising it to the skies? Just asking."
Well, duh.
yitbos
RomneyCare
Tuesday, April 10, 2007, 10:35 AM
Pro-Life Leaders Call for Immediate Repeal of RomneyCare on One-Year Anniversary of Signing Taxpayer-Abortion Bill into Law
Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) will be Filed with Commonwealth of Massachusetts Demanding the Number of Taxpayer-Funded Abortions that Resulted from the Romney Health Care Plan
April 11th 2007 – Today several pro-life leaders from across the country called on Mitt Romney to call for the immediate repeal of the bill he signed into law one year ago tomorrow that expanded taxpayer-funded abortions in Massachusetts, and which includes Planned Parenthood on an advisory board.
The group also filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request demanding to know the number of abortions that have been paid for with taxpayer dollars as a result of RomneyCare.
Statement:
“The signing of the RomneyCare bill one year ago marks the first anniversary of a major expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion in Massachusetts. We hereby call on Mitt Romney to call for the complete repeal of his health care plan until it stops funding abortions with taxpayer dollars. It is intellectually dishonest for a politician to claim to be pro-life yet sign a bill into law that funds the killing of innocent children. We are in the process of filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to demand release of exactly how many taxpayer-funded abortions have occurred as a result of RomneyCare. We call on all Presidential candidates to take an official position on the RomneyCare bill and call for its repeal until tax-funded abortions are stopped.”
That's hilarious.
ping
My only comment, to which some will say “Thank God”, is be VERY careful what you wish for. You just might get it and then you won’t be happy. You’re not happy now? Socialized medicine will kill thousands if not millions.
There is a lot more to be understood in your comments, than the comments allow me to understand. In fact the beginning comment “Be careful what you wish for”, and the end comment, “socialized medicine will kill thousands if not millions” are in my mind at odds with one another, based on the original comments of the addressee. So, how about a little expansion on your point, for those of us with minds not fashioned after the proverbial steel trap.
Just saying no on access to healthcare will give the election to any random democrat who claims to have a plan.
It’s way past time for conservatives to come up with something positive, and to stop labelling every approach with the socialized medicine boogyman label. To many general voters, that just makes socialism look good.
Great Britain has a two tiered, semi-socialized program and it is a underfunded disaster. The Canadian system is called single payor and is, technically, not socialized. While also underfunded, it is nowhere near as bad as England’s system.
I’ve made the following suggestion on other threads and folks have seemed to like it.
There is no logical reason to have a dozens of middlemen involved in our healthcare. It reduces quality and significantly raises costs.
What would make more sense would be subsidized catastrophic health care coverage, dropping all other government health care programs and phasing out medicare.
Why any subsidy at all? Because it benefits all of us to maintain the health of the population; just as it benefits all of us to maintain roads and make sure our kids can read, write and do arithmetic.
Managment of the subsidy would be thorugh a negative income tax, Nixon style.
Routine health care would be paid by the patient except for childhood vaccinations and adult flu and related innoculations. This is again because it benefits the entire population to reduce the incidence of contagious disease.
(My preference would be to put air/water-borne contagious disease control into the defense budget in order to have a structure in place against bioterrorism)
What do you think?
B/S.
Sorry you feel that way. I’ve given it a lot of thought, and my primary concern was to reduce government involvement below what it is now and, simultaneously, to deal with prospective bioterrorism.
Do yoou have any particular approach to either that you would recommend as a first step?
Means: To vote for the liberals is to vote for socialized medicine. Oh, they cloak it with fine sounding words of "let the government do this for you." Who do we think will wind up paying for this "master" plan. They've already said taxes will go up. And up and up and up.
Socialized medicine will kill thousands if not millions.
Means: There are already plenty of countries who attempt socialized medicine and it is SO inefficient that people have to "get in line" for medical care. Long lines, months and even years to see a doctor and then other lines to finally get to a doctor who can treat the ailment. This is documented all over the Internet. Do a little Googling if you really don't get it.
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.