Romney's health plan as presidential candidate focuses on a federalist approach in which states craft their own programs. Federalism is ok.
Anyone lacking insurance coverage on Dec. 31 will lose the personal exemption on their state income tax filing next spring, equal to $219. If they remain uninsured into 2008, they will be taxed up to 50 percent of the cost of the least expensive private insurance plan — an estimated hit of at least $150 a month.It sounds like everyone has to buy a health plan. If they don't, then they have to pay more taxes. I see no problem with everyone having a health plan, the same as I see no problem with requiring car insurance, but I'd like to see "self-insured" as one of the options for those who can demonstrate the financial resources.
Later, Romney told reporters the carrot-and-stick approach is necessary to get people to take responsibility for their own health care costs.Again, we require car insurance. But we don't tell everyone which company to buy from. We do have minimum legal coverage limits.
"It's a recognition that people have a responsibility if they can afford insurance to either buy insurance or pay their own way," he said. "It's the ultimate conservative view that people have the responsibility to care for themselves and not to look to government to care for them."I see no problem with people paying their own way. I don't think they should get to have the state (ME) pay their health costs just because they walk in an emergency room and claim lack of insurance.
Government forcing us into any insurance plan whatsoever is socialism and it’s unconstitutional.
Car insurance is only required when you operate a motor vehicle on the government owned roadway. Bad analogy between car insurance and health insurance.
Auto insurance is only required for the privilege to drive. I can decline to have it without penalty.
I can’t decline Mitt’s health insurance without penalty.
It's exactly the same deal in MA with the health insurance. There is a minimum coverage requirement. Any company that meets it can offer coverage in the state that will satisfy the individual mandate.
“Anyone lacking insurance coverage on Dec. 31 will lose the personal exemption on their state income tax filing next spring, equal to $219. If they remain uninsured into 2008, they will be taxed up to 50 percent of the cost of the least expensive private insurance plan — an estimated hit of at least $150 a month.”[It sounds like everyone has to buy a health plan. If they don’t, then they have to pay more taxes. I see no problem with everyone having a health plan, the same as I see no problem with requiring car insurance, but I’d like to see “self-insured” as one of the options for those who can demonstrate the financial resources.]
That’s $1800 a year, but there are already huge cost overruns and nowhere near all the eligible have signed up. If mandated bankruptcy of not just Massachusetts but the entire US is your goal, then have at it. So much for Liberty, calling socialism capitalism is one nasty assed trick.
“Later, Romney told reporters the carrot-and-stick approach is necessary to get people to take responsibility for their own health care costs.”[Again, we require car insurance. But we don’t tell everyone which company to buy from. We do have minimum legal coverage limits.]
And why don’t you check what mandated car insurance has brought us. First, an awful lot of illegals have abused the system, as have crooks. Mandated insurance also has perverse side effects causing people to be LESS cautious about their driving (no problem if I don’t pay attention and hit someone, insurance will pay for it). How can you not see mandated car insurance is corporate welfare, it does not protect safe drivers, it is for the protection of BAD drivers!
“It’s a recognition that people have a responsibility if they can afford insurance to either buy insurance or pay their own way,” he said. “It’s the ultimate conservative view that people have the responsibility to care for themselves and not to look to government to care for them.”[I see no problem with people paying their own way. I don’t think they should get to have the state (ME) pay their health costs just because they walk in an emergency room and claim lack of insurance.]
So, it’s fine with you if we have a bloated socialistic system that takes away the Liberty of healthy people (and especially the younger generation) to subsidize hypochondriacs - just so you can hype your favorite RINO candidate. Well isn’t that just peachy.
Government already spend about 44 cents of each health care dollar. It’s a huge amount of Government funding and intervention.
The Democrats want to expand that further and are using ‘universal health care’ as their banner.
Romney’s observation, in his Harvard Business school-style thinking, was to observe that the same amount of Government funding was sufficient to get to a private-insurer-based universal health care system. The massachusetts system, by mandating health insurance coverage, enabled full pooling of health insurance.
This observation plus another observation, that it is overregulation of health insurance at the state level that drives up health care costs, is the key to a conservative solution. we can and should allow people to buy health insurance from any state, thus lowering the cost of health insurance.
“Romney’s health plan as presidential candidate focuses on a federalist approach in which states craft their own programs. Federalism is ok.”
Yup.
The Federal solution is to unshackle the states from Federal mandates that drive up costs, encourage Medical Savings Accounts that make more dollars by from the user of the services, reduce medical malpractice lawsuit overhead, and deregulate/reduce state-level mandates.
Looking at NRO’s review of Romney’s Federal plans, they are mostly in that direction. But now far enough IMHO. I’d like to see a candidate embrace the Health Care Choice Act...
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200601200808.asp
Maybe Mitt-supporter Sen Jim DeMint could get Romney to embrace this great idea.