Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fred Thompson: Romneycare At A Glance
Upper Cumberland Daily News ^ | 120607

Posted on 01/06/2008 2:30:43 PM PST by Fred

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-237 next last
To: cva66snipe

Fred stop Scumquist ? With what ? You have an odd expectation for what a federal Senator was supposed to do with a state Governor. And TennCare was the brainchild of rodent Gov. McWherter.


51 posted on 01/06/2008 3:09:52 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

They aren’t interested in any disturbing reality. This Fred here!


52 posted on 01/06/2008 3:10:18 PM PST by claudiustg (You know it. I know it. I'm optiMITTstic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

Just go to the emergency room and say: No Habla English, My chest hurts. Free medical :-)


53 posted on 01/06/2008 3:10:31 PM PST by MrPiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

“Until the hospital closes, because of bankruptsy.”

FUD used by libs to justify tax hikes.

“Until the charges cleaned them out.”

I’m not sure what you’re inferring, but that is dangerously close to playing with the class warfare garbage that Huckabee and god knows how many liberals play with.


54 posted on 01/06/2008 3:11:41 PM PST by Bull Market (Thompson/Paul 08 - Republicans, Libertarians, Independents MUST join forces to defeat Hitlery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
But, heh, maybe if we ignore it, it’ll go away!

You do realize this is the liberal argument for all liberal programs don't you?

If you oppose the liberal way, you hate children, you want people to go without healthcare,etc., blah, blah, blah.

There are some very good conservative "fixes" to the health care problems (brought on by too much government interfering in the first place.) You are NOT helping with this type of reply.
55 posted on 01/06/2008 3:12:01 PM PST by teledude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Bull Market
Hopefully he’s sincere in saying the states should create their own. But even that bothers me since he’s basically encouraging each state to adopt socialism.

And he said in the debate last night he wouldn't make it a mandate at the federal level but he WOULD spend federal taxpayer dollars to reward States that adopted these mandates.

Its all on film.

56 posted on 01/06/2008 3:12:10 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

Veto pen was worthless because he did nothing to stop their (rodent party) increase in numbers in the legislature. He was grossly incompetent and less than worthless as a Governor and party leader. Thanks to him and his mentor William Weld, until the GOP substantially expands their presence in the MA General Court, there’s no longer any point for a Republican to be elected Governor of the state.


57 posted on 01/06/2008 3:12:45 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: byteback
way to deflect the topic! Someone got caught planting a phony story. How Clintonian.

I'll live with a press release with a candidate's name attached versus the whisper campaign Romney's camp did Thompson dirty with on the eve of the Iowa Caucus. Romney has shown himself to be a weasel with that stunt.

58 posted on 01/06/2008 3:13:10 PM PST by Ghengis (Of course freedom is free. If it wasn't, it would be called expensivedom. ~Cindy Sheehan 11/11/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
MY wife is about as a-political as one can get. In other words she ignores politics as much as possible and relies on me near election day.

Still, every once in a while she sees someone on TV and makes a comment.

She saw Romney on Fox today, her exact words "Who is that creep? He looks and sounds like a used car salesman."

The only other person she has commented on was after seeing Fred on Fox Sunday a few months ago. Her response then, "Wow, whoever that is needs to run for President. he would wipe the floor with Hillary's ass."

59 posted on 01/06/2008 3:13:27 PM PST by commish (Freedom tastes sweetest to those who have fought to protect it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bull Market
The more the government is involved, the higher the prices are. That’s a universal truth.

You nailed that!

60 posted on 01/06/2008 3:14:20 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Neu Pragmatist

If true, Mitt’s campaign staff are morons. A Huckabee/Thompson split in Iowa would’ve yielded a much greater chance of him winning.


61 posted on 01/06/2008 3:14:48 PM PST by Bull Market (Thompson/Paul 08 - Republicans, Libertarians, Independents MUST join forces to defeat Hitlery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
A mandate is a mandate is a mandate....what part of mandate do you not understand... and NO YOU CANNOT BUY IT FROM ANYONE...they cannot buy it from lets say an insurance company in Nevada. It has to be insurers for specific states. We need competition

Fred wants it opened up to any insurance company
62 posted on 01/06/2008 3:15:37 PM PST by Fred (McCain..'HIS EGO IS WRITING CHECKS HIS BODY CAN'T CASH')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

See post 56. Mitt slipped out the truth about this last night in the debate.


63 posted on 01/06/2008 3:16:18 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Fred

The abortion part of Massachusetts health care was mandated by judges, not Mitt Romney.


64 posted on 01/06/2008 3:16:30 PM PST by Saundra Duffy (Romney Rocks!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred
I am flatter, but alas, am not the Great One. This plays right into Fred's Federalism The dipstick fed govt forces mandates on the state regarding medicare...guess what...THEY WANT THE STATES TO COVER IT!!!

The Tenncare program was what replaced the old Medicaid system in Tennessee. It was put into place by VP Gore and a DEM governor. It was blackmail and extortion from HMO's from the get go. Fred had a partial term and a full term to call the hand of the governor and HMO's on the corruption and didn't. Part of the funding came from what was the Heath Care Finance Administration. The state budget nearly defaulted while a RINO was in the governors office. It set off a major tax revolt as well. I know you're not that Fred LOL.

65 posted on 01/06/2008 3:18:26 PM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
"that’s part of the Romney solution in Mass, deregulation. You can buy from whom you want."

What's that a joke. You must buy, or spend the money on a fine. That's not deregulation in any way shape, or form. It's coercion and theft.

66 posted on 01/06/2008 3:18:53 PM PST by spunkets ("Freedom is about authority", Rudy Giuliani, gun grabber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
To Duffy:

He could have still vetoed it, but did not.
67 posted on 01/06/2008 3:21:07 PM PST by Fred (McCain..'HIS EGO IS WRITING CHECKS HIS BODY CAN'T CASH')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy

He could have vetoed it.


68 posted on 01/06/2008 3:21:57 PM PST by Petronski (Willard Myth Romney: 51% negatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Uh Excuse me senator Thompson but who as a U.S. senator went yearly to HCFA to secure funding {waivers} for Hillary Care or Tenncare {Al and Hillary’s Medicaid program} in Tennessee.
What an idiotic thing to say.
Once TennCare existed, Tennessee's representatives in the Federal Government had an obligation to their constituents to secure funding. TennCare went broke, and all of the adults who depended on it were thrown off, many remain uninsured today. These are people who would not have been in positions to be dependent on it had it not been created in the first place, but like MediCare or any other entitlement program, once it is created it creates a dependency that must be funded, and the elected politicians have a duty to the state that sent them to Washington to ensure the Federal Government does. That is about the most idiotic thing I have ever seen for someone to actually blame Fred for performing his Constitutional duty for the people of his state!
 
69 posted on 01/06/2008 3:22:05 PM PST by counterpunch (GOP'08 Go For Brokered!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

Remember the Heritage Foundation? Conservative think tank...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1035.cfm

The Significance of Massachusetts Health Reform
by Edmund F. Haislmaier
WebMemo #1035
Last week the Massachusetts legislature passed comprehensive health care reform legislation almost a year after Governor Romney first proposed the key elements of a reform strategy. News reports and most commentary have focused on two small but controversial provisions in the final bill: requirements that Massachusetts residents purchase health insurance and that businesses with more than 10 workers who don’t offer their employees health insurance pay a per-worker contribution to the state’s uncompensated care pool. But in focusing on those items, most reporters and commentators have missed the truly significant and transformative health system changes that the legislation would set in motion.

The Reality
Some commentators, by getting wrong even the most basic facts of what the legislation actually does, have offered wildly inaccurate interpretations of the bill and its likely effects.[1]

In reality, the legislation is designed to restructure and (partially) deregulate Massachusetts’s small-group and non-group health insurance markets and to convert subsidies now paid to hospitals for treating the uninsured into subsidies for the low-income uninsured to buy health insurance. The objectives are expanded coverage, greater consumer choice and satisfaction, value-focused competition among insurers and providers, and ultimately a reduced burden on the state’s taxpayers. The key to the Massachusetts plan is a new way of organizing the marketplace to enable consumers to compare and purchase health insurance plans.

The first major element of the Massachusetts legislation is the creation of a new, statewide health insurance ‘Connector.’ The Connector will be a private (state-government chartered) marketplace where individuals and workers in businesses with 50 or fewer employees will be able to purchase personal, portable health insurance coverage.

This concept of organizing a state’s insurance markets around a central clearinghouse represents a dramatic departure from recent state health insurance reform proposals. States have spent the past 15 years trying to expand health care coverage to small-business employees, with virtually no positive results. The Massachusetts legislation represents a bipartisan commitment to move away from the policies that have largely failed to make progress in covering the uninsured for the past 15 years.

Abandoning Henry Ford’s Market
Over the past 70 years, a combination of industry practices and federal and state regulations have produced a fragmented, balkanized health-insurance market, one with different regulations and practices in the large-group, small-group, and non-group submarkets. Over time, coverage has declined steadily, particularly in the small-group and non-group markets.

In response, a number of states tried to reverse that trend by standardizing health insurance coverage and benefits. For example, Massachusetts reduced coverage offerings in its non-group market down to just two standard products, while allowing somewhat more product variation in its small group market. Maryland did the opposite, allowing different products to be sold in the individual market but establishing a uniform set of minimum benefits, deductibles, and co-pays for all plans sold in its small-group market. Other states have enacted similar schemes.

Essentially, state health insurance reform since the early 1990s has been an exercise in governors and legislators repeatedly trying to design a perfect, one-size-fits-all health insurance benefit package for one or more targeted sub-populations in their state. The most recent examples are the “Healthy New York” plan and Maine’s “Dirigo” health plan.

In practice, these approaches all ended up looking a lot like Henry Ford’s auto market. Only one or two car models (all painted black) are available, but they can be purchased from many independent dealers.

The CarMax Approach
The significance of the Massachusetts legislation is that Gov. Romney proposed inverting the previous model for health insurance reform—and got his state’s legislature to agree. Massachusetts is now committed to restructuring its health insurance system in a way that looks a lot like CarMax’s auto market: there are many different kinds of cars to choose from, all obtainable through one giant dealership. That dealership is the new Massachusetts health insurance Connector.

The basic insight behind a state-sponsored health-insurance clearinghouse or exchange (like the Connector) is that markets sometimes work more efficiently and effectively when there is a single place to facilitate diverse economic activity. Like a stock exchange, the health insurance Connector in the Massachusetts legislation will be a clearinghouse to match buyers and sellers efficiently and to facilitate the collection and transmission of payments, often from multiple sources.

The Connector will neither design the insurance products being offered nor regulate the insurers offering the plans. Insurers will continue to be regulated by the state’s Division of Insurance and will be free to design and price the plans they offer through the Connector, subject to the provisions of Massachusetts’s existing insurance laws.

While simple in concept, the Connector brings with it a complete reorientation of the state’s regulation of health insurance. It shifts the focus from designing insurance products to designing the framework within which new products can emerge and compete for customers. Under this framework, the new market will also be one that seeks to meet the needs of patients and consumers, rather than employers.

How it Works
The Connector is designed to work around the limitations of current federal law to achieve, within a state, consumer choice of plans and true coverage portability while also retaining the consumers’ ability to benefit from long-standing federal tax-breaks for employer-group health insurance.

Any Massachusetts business with 50 or fewer workers will be able to designate the Connector as its group health insurance plan. After that, each of its workers will be able to choose the health plan that best suits him or her from among those offered by the Connector. Workers will be able to switch plans during an annual open season and will be able to take their coverage with them as they move from job to job. Furthermore, the Connector is designed to ensure that all premium payments made by both employers and workers will be on a pre-tax basis.

This design offers many benefits. For example, a two-income couple will be able to combine contributions from their employers to buy and keep the plan they want, instead of being forced to choose one employer’s plan while forgoing the subsidy offered by the others’ employer. Similarly, a worker with two part-time jobs will be able to combine both employers’ contributions to purchase coverage. And with the Connector in place, the state government will have a single place to send premium subsidies for those who need extra assistance to buy coverage.

Finally, any Massachusetts resident will be able to buy coverage directly through the Connector as an individual. The only disadvantage is that the federal tax-breaks for individually purchased health insurance are not as large as those for employer-group coverage. Still, those who do purchase coverage through the Connector as individuals, such as the self-employed, will gain the right to switch coverage during the annual open season without new underwriting—just like those who work for large employers.

Some Deregulation
As part of the overall package, Governor Romney was able to get the legislature to agree to some deregulation of health insurance. For example, the legislation allows managed care organizations to offer Health Savings Account (HSA) plans, which only traditional insurers can currently offer in Massachusetts. It also allows the use of coinsurance in managed care plans as a way for those plans to help steer patients to providers offering better value. These are important changes for a state whose health care market is dominated by managed care insurance plans and prestigious medical providers with strong brand identities.

In addition, by allowing any resident to buy coverage through the Connector, the bill effectively circumvents much of the standardization of coverage in the Massachusetts non-group insurance market. As well, the legislation will allow carriers to offer less expensive insurance plans, with fewer mandated benefits, to young adults between 19 and 26 who do not have access to employer-group coverage.

Overall, the bill does not go far enough in deregulating insurance. For example, the legislation leaves untouched the state’s modified community-rating system. Other states following the same model of reform would likely have greater success in deregulation.

Subsidizing People, Not Providers
The second major element of the Massachusetts legislation builds on the Connector concept to reform the state’s current system for subsidizing uncompensated care costs. The Romney administration seized the opportunity presented by the impending expiration of the state’s Medicaid waiver to tackle covering uninsured individuals who are ineligible for Medicaid. That waiver currently pumps $385 million a year in federal Medicaid money into the state’s $1 billion per year uncompensated care pool, which in turn pays it out to health systems that treat the uninsured. Federal Medicaid officials told Massachusetts that they would not approve a waiver extension absent a state plan to achieve better results with the money.

Romney’s solution was to convert what is really a safety net for hospitals into premium assistance for the low-income (but not Medicaid-eligible) uninsured. Having a one-stop-shop in the form of the new Connector in place makes for an administratively simpler and cheaper way to match people, plans, and payments. The legislation gives the health systems currently receiving funding from the state’s uncompensated care pool two years to enroll the uninsured patients they serve into their own health insurance plans, with the funding they now receive converted into premium subsidies. At the end of the two-year period, those individuals could use the Connector to choose a different health plan. At that point, health insurers and providers will have to compete for that money by offering good value health coverage and services.

Employer Mandate
It was in connection with the proposed reform of Massachusetts uncompensated care pool that the biggest sticking point arose in the progress of the legislation. For almost four months, the legislation stalled in conference committee, largely over a “play-or-pay” employer-mandate provision added to the House version whereby a payroll tax would have been imposed on employers that do not provide their workers with insurance. The impasse was finally resolved by an agreement to replace that provision with an expansion of the existing employer contribution to the Massachusetts uncompensated care pool to include employers that do not offer health insurance.

Part of the funding for Massachusetts’s uncompensated care pool comes from a long-standing surcharge on private insurance plans, but it is effectively paid by businesses and workers that do buy coverage. In the past, that surcharge has averaged about $62 per worker, per year. The final version of the legislation would impose an equivalent assessment on businesses with more than 10 employees that do not offer health insurance coverage. The amount of that assessment would be based on an annual calculation of the amount of uncompensated care used by workers employed in firms that don’t offer health insurance, up to a statutory maximum of $295 per worker.

Because the legislation is designed to significantly reduce uncompensated care in the state, any assessments are likely to be much less than the statutory maximum. As well, with the Connector in place, employers that are not currently offering coverage can easily avoid the new assessment by signing up to offer coverage to their workers through the Connector. Thus, the provision is likely to have a negligible, or even no, effect.

However, despite its practical irrelevance, the issue carries considerable political symbolism: Does the new assessment constitutes a ‘tax’ or a ‘fee,’ and should businesses be required to pay for their worker’s health insurance? Governor Romney will likely use his line-item veto authority to excise that provision from the bill. Should he do so, the Massachusetts legislature may try to reinstate it. Regardless, the practical effect of the provision, if enacted, will be negligible.

Personal Responsibility
Finally, the element of the Massachusetts bill that has attracted the most attention and dispute is the “personal responsibility” provision, also known as the “individual mandate.”

From the outset, Governor Romney stated that requiring individuals to buy health insurance in the currently fragmented and overly expensive insurance market would be wrong and counterproductive. But he also argued that if the market could be reorganized to make coverage universally available and portable, deregulated at least enough to make it affordable for the middle class, and subsidized enough to make it affordable for the low-income, then there would be no reasonable excuse for anyone to forgo health insurance.

Romney also pointed out that to allow people to go without health insurance when they can expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney’s plan was to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: either buy insurance or pay for your own care. He proposed that those who want to go without coverage could place $10,000 in an interest-bearing escrow account, which providers could claim against if the individual did not pay medical bills.

Unfortunately, the state legislature changed that idea into a mandate: either buy coverage or pay a fine. This provision is more onerous and philosophically objectionable, but it is unlikely to prove onerous in practice. That is because the legislation includes three avenues through which Massachusetts residents can meet the individual coverage requirement by purchasing an inexpensive health plan. First, the bill allows more carriers to offer HSA products with high-deductibles. Second, it also circumvents Massachusetts’ overly regulated non-group market by allowing any resident to buy coverage as an individual through the Connector, where a wide choice of plans and premiums will be available. And third, it allows insurers to offer inexpensive “mandate-light” policies to young adults between the ages of 19 and 26, those most likely to go without coverage.

Looking Ahead
Politics is the art of the possible, and Governor Romney had to temper his ambitions and make compromises to get his plan through the state’s legislature. At the same time, many Democrats in the legislature set aside their misgivings about some of the elements of the Governor’s proposal, such as its steps toward deregulating insurance, out of a desire not to lose a big piece of Massachusetts’s federal Medicaid funding. With time and experience, revisions can and should be made to this initial legislation.

But that should not overshadow the significance of Massachusetts’ achievement in enacting a bipartisan health care reform bill that fundamentally shifts the state’s health care system in the direction of greater patient and consumer empowerment and control. The Governor and legislature have provided their citizens with the tools to achieve what the public really wants: a health system with all the familiar comforts of existing employer group coverage but with the added benefits of portability, choice, and control.

Other governors and legislators would be well advised to consider this basic model as a framework for health care reform in their own states.


70 posted on 01/06/2008 3:22:09 PM PST by claudiustg (You know it. I know it. I'm optiMITTstic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
I know. Let’s run a candidate that’s against doing anything about healthcare. That sounds like a winner! /s

Exactly! Millions of individuals can't be trusted to act in their own best interest. Only a few elected central planners and their appointed bureaucrats can solve this problem!

71 posted on 01/06/2008 3:22:50 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Fred stop Scumquist ? With what ? You have an odd expectation for what a federal Senator was supposed to do with a state Governor. And TennCare was the brainchild of rodent Gov. McWherter.

I fought Tenncare tooth and nail. It took OUR U.S. SENATORS IN TENNESSEE going to HCFA to secure that funding and get the waivers. Yes indeed Fred and Frist darn well at any time could have stopped Taxquist right in his tracks as it was federal dollars involved. Why didn't they? I know why. Covewr the RINO governor at all cost. That's why. Frist even used the plan for his beloved Medicare reform. Yea real conservatives yes indeed./sarcasm

72 posted on 01/06/2008 3:24:01 PM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

And that’s all I have to say about that.


73 posted on 01/06/2008 3:24:02 PM PST by claudiustg (You know it. I know it. I'm optiMITTstic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: commish
She saw Romney on Fox today, her exact words "Who is that creep? He looks and sounds like a used car salesman."

People don't like/trust these management consultant types.

74 posted on 01/06/2008 3:24:45 PM PST by BusterBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Fred

I thought a mandate was what Barny Frank lives for.


75 posted on 01/06/2008 3:25:00 PM PST by Ratblaster (HILLARY 08 Bring Back the Crooked Hillbillies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Bull Market

Well I heard a radio report that stated that there was a phone campaign spreading the rumor as well . A negative phone campaign would take money , and the Huckster is lacking in that department .

It was a well orchestrated smear job and it worked .


76 posted on 01/06/2008 3:25:56 PM PST by Neu Pragmatist (Fred Thompson : The Only True Conservative in a Sea of RINO's....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Fred

Fred bump.


77 posted on 01/06/2008 3:26:10 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Exactly! Millions of individuals can't be trusted to act in their own best interest. Only a few elected central planners and their appointed bureaucrats can solve this problem!

The average person is just too stupid to make these decisions. /sarcasm

78 posted on 01/06/2008 3:26:30 PM PST by grimalkin (Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer. -Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

Mandates is deregulation?


79 posted on 01/06/2008 3:26:35 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: mylife
And he said in the debate last night he wouldn't make it a mandate at the federal level but he WOULD spend federal taxpayer dollars to reward States that adopted these mandates.

Yeah and what about states that want to give "free" health insurance to families that make 400% above the poverty level? What he reward states that do that? Guess no one asked him.

80 posted on 01/06/2008 3:29:18 PM PST by BusterBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

Comment #81 Removed by Moderator

To: counterpunch
Once TennCare existed, Tennessee's representatives in the Federal Government had an obligation to their constituents to secure funding.

WRONG! Actually when a DEM governor took over he brought at least some accountability and control of corruption. Guess how he did it? He told the HEY MOE's Knock it off or the program shuts down. Now what do you think happened? His second term and not a mention of state income tax or shutting down state facilities.

I know who was being tossed out of Tenncare under Taxquist it was the ones formerly Medicaid qualified namely the disabled and that as well brought several revolts. I'm from Tennessee both me and my wife are disabled residence of Tennessee. I know how the who stinking mess started and I know the GOP's hands were very dirty in it as dirty as the DEMs maybe a little bit more so.

82 posted on 01/06/2008 3:31:47 PM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: MrPiper

Chris Wallace on FOX now.....before the debate interviews. He has interviewed Romney, now on Huckabee. Let’s see if he follows the winner line from Iowa and has Fred on next, and then McCain. Bet if he has anyone on after Huckabee it will be McCain and then he will forget about Fred. That is what I expect, but maybe Chris will surprise me. Sure hope so!
GO FRED!


83 posted on 01/06/2008 3:32:49 PM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

O.M.G...


84 posted on 01/06/2008 3:32:51 PM PST by rintense (Thompson/Hunter 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Mandated by the courts, you’ve been told a dozen times, but you continue to LIE.


85 posted on 01/06/2008 3:33:10 PM PST by claudiustg (You know it. I know it. I'm optiMITTstic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

Hasn’t Chris been somewhat fair toward Fred when he’s been on Fox Sunday morning?


86 posted on 01/06/2008 3:33:36 PM PST by rintense (Thompson/Hunter 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
He vetoed EIGHT parts of the bill, but did not even lift a finger to veto or negotiate this part out of it and agreed to Planned Parenthood guaranteed seat on his panel. Don't give me your BS.

U.S. Army Retired


87 posted on 01/06/2008 3:34:37 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (ROMNEY: "I LOVE MANDATES.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: BusterBear
Fred will.

Fred is the one who got him to blurt out the BS about "I'm not making it a federal mandate"

88 posted on 01/06/2008 3:34:38 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: byteback
Whatever works. It gets the word out there.

Personally, I had no idea this thing was this bad.

Punishes employers, punishes individuals, encourages abortion.

That's a real conservative Republican platform plank there!

89 posted on 01/06/2008 3:34:44 PM PST by 2111USMC (www.Fred08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

That’s all well and good they could’ve just halted funding, but then Scumquist would’ve had to have done something else in its place. You know and I know that asshat couldn’t do anything right, so would you have trusted him to try to come up with an entirely new system ? With THIS legislature ? Your blaming Fred for that is a stretch. As for Frist, he was just plain incompetent. Lay the blame on Scumquist.


90 posted on 01/06/2008 3:35:55 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Fred
Romney sold his political soul to the demoRATs in Mass to be elected Governor... there isn't a position he hasn't taken.. at the same time!
91 posted on 01/06/2008 3:36:25 PM PST by A. Morgan (Thompson 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: byteback

How can it be phony? It’s Mitt’s bill, not Fred’s.


92 posted on 01/06/2008 3:36:37 PM PST by 2111USMC (www.Fred08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rintense

Yes Chris has been fair to Fred. Just wondering if his interview line up includes all four top winners out of Iowa or just Huckabee and Romney. Looks like it will be just be the two. Now talking with Brit. GO FRED!:)


93 posted on 01/06/2008 3:37:39 PM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Fred

One more time. RomneyCare is nationalized health care insurance and the first step towards socialized medicine. It’s mandated, subsidized and controlled by the government. Forcing people to purchase a service against their will is called tyranny. Subsidizing the premiums for those who can’t afford it, is called socialism.


94 posted on 01/06/2008 3:39:58 PM PST by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
Re: post #81...

Others might give you grief, but I appreciate you posting reality in post #81...

To forecast how some might respond based on past reactions in other settings...people usually get more upset over these pix than the reality that Mr. or Ms. Abortionist was able to dismember the little one you've show there.

95 posted on 01/06/2008 3:41:46 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Because that was mandated by the court and not subject to negotiation.


96 posted on 01/06/2008 3:42:09 PM PST by claudiustg (You know it. I know it. I'm optiMITTstic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Fred

Private health insurance should be mandated, just like private auto liability insurance The only exception would be that if the individual refuses to buy private medical insurance, he/she must sign a document releasing the government from incurring any debt that results from his/her medical treatment (which is exactly what Mitt said in yesterday’s debate).

Why should I (the taxpayers) have to pay for the medical treatment of anyone refusing to have private coverage? Screw that.

Mitt is right.


97 posted on 01/06/2008 3:43:23 PM PST by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred

Of course it includes Planned Parenthood. Romney is on the Healthy People 2010 train just like Huckabee.

Guess what? It isn’t just Planned Parenthood. Healthy People includes firearms as a safety hazard.

See the last link below my post to reference the firearms control section under the occupational safety initiative of Healthy People 2010

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=pressreleases&agId=Eeohhs2&prModName=dphpressrelease&prFile=061024_obesity.xml as retrieved on Aug 15, 2007 18:53:58 GMT.
Massachusetts State Seal

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Health and Human Services
Department of Public Health
250 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108-4619

MITT ROMNEY

GOVERNOR

KERRY HEALEY

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

TIMOTHY MURPHY

SECRETARY

PAUL J. COTE, JR.

COMMISSIONER
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

October 24, 2006
CONTACT:

Donna Rheaume
(617) 624-5006
ONE OUT OF FIVE MASSACHUSETTS ADULTS OBESE
DPH Releases Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Report

The Department of Public Health (DPH) today released the annual Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) report which tracks health risk factors, preventative health behaviors, chronic conditions and emerging public health issues. The report is based on a 2005 telephone survey of over 8,900 Massachusetts residents ages 18 and older. Residents were asked questions about a variety of health topics including smoking, binge drinking, weight and obesity, diabetes, flu immunization, cancer screening, asthma and others.

Highlights from the report include:

* Obesity continued to increase in Massachusetts. One out of five Massachusetts adults was obese (20.7 percent). Massachusetts remains the fifth leanest state in the U.S.
* The gap between Massachusetts and the U.S. numbers for binge drinking is decreasing. In 2005, nearly 16 percent of Massachusetts adults reported binge drinking (5 or more drinks on one occasion) in the past month compared with about 14 percent nationally.
* 6.4 percent of Massachusetts adults have diabetes, which is 14 percent lower than the U.S. Diabetes has been increasing at a rate of 3 percent per year in Massachusetts since 1990. Obese adults are more likely to report diabetes than adults with normal weight.
* 87 percent of Massachusetts adults reported that they have a health care provider in 2005, surpassing the Healthy People 2010 goal of 85 percent.

“The Massachusetts BRFSS continues to be one of the key public health surveillance tools which helps us target resources to meet the needs of residents and improve the health of our citizens,” said DPH Commissioner Paul J. Cote Jr.

According to the Massachusetts BRFSS, adult smoking rates have fallen in the past two decades from 28 percent in 1986 to the current rate of 18 percent, placing Massachusetts below the national average of 21 percent. There has also been a decline in Massachusetts residents’ exposure to secondhand smoke. The statewide Smoke-Free Workplace Law was signed by Governor Romney in July 2004.

Other highlights on tobacco use include:

* In 2005, 18 percent of Massachusetts adults reported smoking, which represents about 850,000 current adult smokers in Massachusetts.
* Adults with less than four years of college reported significantly higher smoking rates.
* Smokers also tend to be concentrated in certain geographic areas of the Commonwealth, including Worcester, Springfield, Fall River/New Bedford, and rural areas of southeastern and western Massachusetts.

“This report demonstrates that we have made tremendous progress in lowering smoking rates in Massachusetts. It also allows us to target our efforts to those groups and communities where smoking rates remain high as we work to reduce the numbers of smokers,” said DPH Associate Commissioner Sally Fogerty.

For more information,visit www.mass.gov/dph/hsp and www.mass.gov/dph/mtcp. BRFSS Data through 2005 can also be found on www.masschip.state.ma.us.

###

###


More on Healthy People 2010:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010

Anyone supporting Romney, if he is sold out to Healthy People, this means NO GUNS. Healthy People 2010 declares guns “unhealthy”.

See post 108 for the Occupational Safety and Health section of Healthy People 2010


98 posted on 01/06/2008 3:43:52 PM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; wagglebee

prolife ping


99 posted on 01/06/2008 3:44:27 PM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Sometimes you have to face a little reality and realize that Mitt's slickness has and will lead to the dismemberment and murder of innocent human beings for PROFIT. He's a sick evil SOB.

U.S. Army Retired


100 posted on 01/06/2008 3:44:31 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (ROMNEY: "I LOVE MANDATES.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-237 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson