Romney Administration slogan: Legalism and Lawyers over Leadership. U.S. Army Retired |
Posted on 01/06/2008 2:30:43 PM PST by Fred
Fred Thompson Release:
- This is Romney's health care plan of which he claims authorship and credit. - The plan guarantees Planned Parenthood a seat at the decision-making table. - The plan provides taxpayer-funded abortions for a copay of $50. - The plan penalizes individuals not buying health insurance coverage and small businesses not offering health insurance to their employees.
Romney Is Quick To Take Credit For Massachusetts' Health Care Plan
- "I love it. It's a fabulous program." (GOP Primary Debate, Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA, MSNBC, 5/3/2007) - "But I helped write it and I knew it well..." (GOP Primary Debate, Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA, MSNBC, 5/3/2007)
KEY ASPECTS OF ROMNEY'S MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH CARE PLAN...
(1) Guarantees Planned Parenthood A Seat At The Table. Romney's legislation created an advisory board and guarantees, by law, that Planned Parenthood has a seat at the table. Romney's plan established a MassHealth payment policy advisory board, and one member of the Board must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization is represented. (Chapter 58 Section 3 (q) Section 16M (a), http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060058.htm )
(2) Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions . Abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program that Romney created as Governor. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: http://www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf )
- Romney used his line-item veto authority to strike eight sections of the bill that he found objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. Yet, he did not strike Planned Parenthood's guaranteed Board representation and he did nothing to prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions as part of his plan. ("Romney's Health Care Vetoes," Associated Press, 4/12/06)
(3) Punitive Toward Small Businesses. Small Businesses are fined $295-per-employee if they do not provide health insurance coverage to employees. (Steve LeBlanc, "Mass Lawmakers Ok Mandatory Health Bill," Associated Press, 4/5/06)
(4) Punitive Toward Individuals. Individuals not obtaining health insurance coverage lose their personal state tax exemption in 2007, which will cost them an estimated $219 in higher taxes. In 2008, uncovered individuals are assessed a fine equal to 50-percent of the cost of a standard insurance policy, which could be as much as $2,000. (Michael Tanner, "No Miracle In Massachusetts," Cato Institute, 6/6/06; Steve LeBlanc, "Timing Of Health Care Law's Penalties Could Pose Risk For Romney, MA," Associated Press, 11/9/07; William C. Symonds, "In Massachusetts, Health Care for All?" Business Week, 4/4/06 )
Snort!
The $50 abortions were thrown in by a judge. Romney had nothing to do with it. [thelion]
Oh, sure, TheLion. (That's why Romney is in the center of the picture signing this legislature in post #15...'cause claudiustg maintains that the Romney in RomneyCare was just an appendage to a judge & because TheLion claims that Romney was totally irrelevant to this)
How about some consistency on this issue? If Romney can't be held accountable for abortion subsidies in '06 in MA, then if Hillary was elected & got HillaryCare passed thru Congress, then by the same logic, HillaryCare 2.0 wouldn't be able to be blamed for abortion subsidies in '10.
Just because Hillary 1.0 had some governmental buffer to be stuck with the long-term blame of its many shortcomings had it gone through, had it been implemented in '94 (& abortion was part of that proposed coverage as well) ya better believe Hillary (& not UncleSam & not some judge) would have gotten the initial "glory" for it passing. [I think we all concede that "glory" would have quickly faded into increased woe & lament]
I think that many have gotten way into the nitty gritty of the details.
By inference, you are actually supporting the notion that the legislation was proper in the first place.
It appears from here that people are dead set on bashing Mitt so much that there is no real honest objective perspective is being displayed.
| Romney Administration slogan: Legalism and Lawyers over Leadership. U.S. Army Retired |
It is precisely when government got involved in health care that it became so expensive, that and our litigious society.
One possible out would be that he could only go so far, and no further, or his veto would have been overridden.
Another possible out is that he has, as he has claimed, changed his thinking on abortion. However, April of 2006 is less than two years ago. It is easier for me to buy a change in a decade than in one or two years.
It does seem that he has changed his position based upon the politics. This is not entirely unheard of in a politician. Will he do it again?
A subjective liar?
That's Mitt, not his critics.
Sounds relevant to me.
He can be trusted to raise taxes on businesses, increase gun ownership fees and support an assault weapons ban. Oh, and don't forget RU-486. The list goes on for anyone willing to dig into his record...
phony story?
Let’s see, the link goes to UC News and it’s a article on what FDT says about Romney Care.
What was your point again?
Ummmmmmmm not just No, but H3LL NO!
And how would universal healthcare change that? What do you want the government to do about it. What's your plan?
Horse Hillary! What do you call angry citizens shutting down downtown Nashville and state offices then? He would have had majority support but he didn't have the stomach for confrontation which seems to be an ongoing issue with him. His chance was then. Everyone knew Tenncare was the reason. Where was Fred? Calling on Fred was as useless as calling on John Wilder.
For the record to my liking of Tenncare would be shutting it down and the far more limited but directly accountable to the people Medicaid program restored under original mission scope. I worked under both systems and know when the state surveyors investigated that answers were forthcoming. I know the Tenncare system also. Zero accountability of taxpayer dollar and zero representation in Nashville or DC as well. There is no representation with Tennscare. With it being both state and federal funded it goes against the very foundations of both state and federal Constitution. Go ahead. Call your state lawmaker about Tenncare and see for yourself. It's a Ponzy Scheme. If taxpayer dollars are being spent on a state and or federal program then our elected should be accessible and responsible for addressing grievances and accountable for such spending.
That is OK with me. Reasonable people will sometimes display acrimony.
Debating the intricacies of a health care plan mandated by Government suggests that there is probably a GOOD health care plan mandated by Government.
IMO, there is not.
These threads are not about health care plan intricacies. They are simply about finding new and innovative ways for slamming a candidate that one does not approve of.
It is shameful that FR.com is being reduced to a never ending onslaught of ad hominem attacks on a particular REPUBLICAN candidate.
It is just not something that I ever thought I’d see on Free Republic.
5 drinks in one occasion is considered binge drinking?? Hahahaha MADD must be behind that one.
What happens when there’s a line-item veto in Mass.? Doesn’t it have to go back to Congress to be passed again? If so, did Romney have any chance of getting it passed if he had taken the abortion part out of 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.