Posted on 12/29/2007 8:49:02 PM PST by FocusNexus
The mandatory health insurance program in MA for those who can AFFORD it actually saves money for the tax payers and other patients since then those people can’t walk away without paying the bills altogether.
Thanks for that link to Club for Growth. I will certainly check it out. If Romney really opposed Bush taxcuts, I will move him down my list.
The president has no control over abortions. President Reagan was arguably the most pro-life president we had in 50 years and millions of abortions took place during his term. The point is no matter which republican wins, abortions will remain the law of the land. Even some of the conservative SCOTUS justices have proclaimed it as such.
The only way abortions will stop is when the whole country becomes pro-life. It is divided at the present.
All good points by you. And you made them logically and without calling me names and without being rude unlike some others. Thank you!
Romneycare certainly needs a close inspection. From what I understand, he helped pass a law making health insurance mandatory for those who can afford it. That makes sense since atleast those people can’t walk away without paying any bills.
The problem remains with those who can’t afford health insurance and the deductibles. We are all paying for them now.
The medical services just jack of our bills to cover the non-payers.
Getting rid of illegal should help here.
What do you think about Huckabee commuting over 1000 convicted criminals? How about that commuted rapist who then murdered a woman after release from prison?
Mandatory universal coverage that ends up saving the taxpayers money? If that were the case, this would be a centerpiece of Romney’s campaign. Every state that has tried something similar has lost money hand over fist. I doubt Mass is any different.
If I understand Romney’s position correctly on this issue, his point is that currently there are people amongst the uninsured who can afford health insurance based on their income. When this group is faced with high hospital/doctor bills due to a serious health problem, the bills go unpaid.
Obviously these unpaid bills have to be picked up by somebody since there is no free lunch. That somebody is patients who carry health insurance in form of higher insurance premiums.
So by making health insurance mandatory atleast a portion of the burden is taken off the paying patients.
As for the indigent folks, you can’t extract blood from a turnip. Civilized society is stuck paying for them one way (free emergency room service) or the other (tax payer funded). Ofcourse there is a third alternative. Let the poor people fend for themselves. If they can’t get private charity to pay their bills, they can just suffer through it.
“In 2005, Gov. Romney proposed and in 2006 signed into law an under-funded universal health care plan, including a mandate that all individuals lacking it buy health insurance, substantially similar to Hillary Clinton’s proposed plan. On the stump in 2007, Romney reversed and now opposes his own plan and its central feature, the insurance mandate.”
I wonder how many people in Mass that considered starting small businesses, either chose not to, or chose to move to another state where the government wouldn’t use the police power of the state to force them to provide a benefit they couldn’t afford. The truly poor already have Medicaid, Mitt’s plan is just an expansion of the Nanny State pandering to the near socialists voters in Mass. Now that Romney needs to pander to a different set of voters, he is disavowing his own plan, even as you defend it.
http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2007/12/romneys-universal-healthcare-loopholes.html
Like I said, if those who can afford healthcare through a job or income choose not buy an insurance plan, their bills go unpaid when they get seriously sick.
Those bills are then paid by you and me who carry health insurance in the form of higher premiums.
I don’t see how this is difficult to understand unless you have a built in bias against Romney.
I really don’t care what label they put on Romney.
He is the only one running who has run a real business successfully, has more education than others, has only 1 wife for 40 years and lived a moral life. He is good enough for me.
You also suggest that the requirement to purchase health insurance addresses those who can afford insurance through a job or income and simply choose not to do so. Nothing could be further from the truth. Almost 100% of those people do in fact have insurance, and the ones that don’t are generally very young and have almost no health care needs.
What Romney’s plan does do, is give businesses incentive to structure their plans to exclude many workers from coverage and go on the government dole, thereby transferring this expense from the company and the worker, to the Mass Taxpayer. It also makes it very expensive for small businesses to start up, since many could not afford to pay the penalty for not being able to afford to provide coverage to any of their employees. Socialized medicine, no matter how you spin it, results in less care at greater expense. You would know the truth about Romney / Hillary Care if you moved beyond your one talking point and actually researched the issue. This is not difficult to understand. Indeed, Romney is busy assuring the voters that he wouldn’t impose this system on the rest of the country. If you would put down the kool aid for a minute, the truth about Romney care is easy to see.
As for his moral life. I’m not sure I consider supporting infanticide, and the homosexual agenda as especially moral. Lying to the voters about your core convictions isn’t an especially moral thing to do either. (He had to be lying when he claimed to be a flaming lib, or he has to be lying about being a raging conservative. Either way, it’s hard to dispute the fact that he is indeed a liar. But hey he’s never been divorced, just like Huckabee.)
We are paying the entire cost of healthcare for EVERY non-insured person NOW. Who do you think pays for the free emergency roon the indigent receive? It is me, you, the tax payers and the people who have health insurance via higher premiums.
I don’t know of a single individual, legal or illegal who is refused emergency medical care.
I have a feeling it might cost LESS to treat this uninsured if they received treatment before their problem reaches emergency level.
So how exactly do you plan on improving the current situation?
As for votes in my household, we are leaning to Romney, and Thompson as 2nd choice. In November we will vote for whoever is the nominee.
Jimmy Carter ran a peanut farm and made very little money. He has no proven success in executive ability.
And one more point, you are against the Romeycare, but you have not spelled out what is your plan or whose plan you are backing. If your plan is to keep the current system, and keep paying for all the non-insured via emergency care, then I will be forced to conclude you don’t have a plan to cut costs, which are rising at TWICE the inflation rate.
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.