The answer is unleashing markets-not government

"I hear loud and clear from people in my state, and from across the country, what they want to see in health care. They want it to cost less, have the highest quality and see that it extends to all Americans—even when they lose their job or when they're sick. Republicans agree. So do Democrats. Where we disagree is how to get the job done.

Our divide is fundamental: Republicans believe health care can be best guided by consumers, physicians and markets; Democrats believe government would do better. Some Democrats would have government buy health care for us; set the rates for doctors, hospitals and medicines; and decide what medical treatment we would be entitled to receive for each illness. If you liked the HMOs of the '80s, you'd love government-run health care."

"The Massachusetts plan costs the state more than expected, largely because the legislature has been unwilling to further reduce state payments to hospitals for free care. The costs should be brought in line by eliminating these payments, by requiring sustainable copremiums and by removing coverage mandates (for example, every policy is now required to include unlimited in vitro fertilization procedures)."

Mitt’s plan wasn’t perfect, but it’s a darn good jumping off point for putting together a conservative alternative to the Obama/Kennedy socialized healthcare bill.

Not defending him...honest...his bill was butchered by the socialists in MA and he tried to override it and failed...the Dems there give him sht about, that it could have been a terrific socialized medicine plan...

I'll say it once again, will do so every time it comes up.

ANY health care plan that involves the Government to any extent, regardless of whether it comes from Hilary Clinton , Obama or even Mitt and the Heritage Foundation is a non starter for real world Conservatives and runs contrary to the principles that the nation was founded on.

Even if we could accept that Mitt's approach was “Conservative’ it should never have left the think tank/lab. Not only should the Government stay out of it, such a plan is ripe for further abuse from the left, as we have seen in MA.

If Mitt did not realize that his is a fool and unworthy of the highest office in the land. If he knew it and proceeded anyways he is an accomplice in the fleecing of the taxpayers and not worthy of Conservative support.

Either way it ( among other things)made Mitt a loser for true conservatives.

Romney fled Massachusetts. The Mass. GOP hates him.

"Hospital patients 'left in agony'"
"Patients were allegedly left screaming in pain and drinking from flower vases on a nightmare hospital ward.
Between 400 and 1,200 more people died than would have been expected at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust over three years, a damning Healthcare Commission report said.
The watchdog's investigation found inadequately trained staff who were too few in number, junior doctors left alone in charge at night and patients left without food, drink or medication as their operations were repeatedly cancelled.
Patients were left in pain or forced to sit in soiled bedding for hours at a time and were not given their regular medication, the Commission heard.
Receptionists with no medical training were expected to assess patients coming in to A&E, some of whom needed urgent care.
Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS, said there had been a "gross and terrible breach" of patients' trust and a "complete failure of leadership".
The Healthcare Commission's chairman Sir Ian Kennedy said the investigation followed concerns about a higher than normal death rate at the Trust, which senior managers could not explain.
He said: "The resulting report is a shocking story. Our report tells a story of appalling standards of care and chaotic systems for looking after patients. These are words I have not previously used in any report.
"There were inadequacies in almost every stage of caring for patients. There was no doubt that patients will have suffered and some of them will have died as a result."
Julie Bailey, 47, was so concerned about the care being given to her 86-year-old mother Bella at Stafford Hospital that she and her relatives slept in a chair at her bedside for eight weeks.
She said: "We saw patients drinking out of..."

"Paramedics told: 'Let accident victims die if they want to' in new row over patient rights (UK)"
Health Service paramedics have been told not to resuscitate terminally-ill patients who register on a controversial new database to say they want to die.
It has been set up by the ambulance service in London for hundreds of people who have only a few months to live so that they may register their 'death wishes' in advance.
It is believed to be the first in the country, but other trusts around the country are expected to follow suit to comply with Government guidelines which state that patients' wishes should be taken into account, even at the point of death.
Patients' groups and doctors have welcomed the scheme, but it has met opposition from pro-life groups who say it violates the sanctity of life.
The system would come into play if a cancer patient, for example, was in serious pain and rang 999 for help to alleviate the suffering.
But if the paramedics arrived and the patient was close to death, he or she would not be resuscitated if such a request was registered on the database.
This would also be the case if a patient on the database was being transferred between hospitals, and had a heart attack.
Dominica Roberts from the Pro-Life Alliance said: 'This is very sad and very dangerous. It's another step along the slippery slope, at the bottom of which is euthanasia as we see in Holland. 'Paramedics should be there to save lives. They should not be there to let patients die. The medical profession should not agree with someone's belief that their life is worthless.'"

"National Health Preview - The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood."
"Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country.
It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.
In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.
As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget.
The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic.
The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less expensive if everyone were covered.
But reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues.
Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional.
Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers."

A Very Sick Health Plan; Bay State’s ‘Grand Experiment’ Fails [RomneyCare]
"The Daily News Record, Harrisonburg, Va. - 2009-03-31 "
"For folks increasingly leery of President Obama’s plan to radically overhaul America’s health-care system,
or 17 percent of the nation’s economy, all this could hardly have come at a better time —
that is, fiscal troubles aplenty within Repubican Mitt Romney’s brainchild, Massachusetts’ “grand experiment” in “universal” health care."

"Initiated on Mr. Romney’s gubernatorial watch in 2006, this “experiment” has fallen on hard times, and predictably so.
Even though the Bay State commenced its program with a far smaller percentage of uninsured residents than exists nationwide,
“RomneyCare” is threatening to bankrupt the state. Budgeted for Fiscal Year 2010 at $880 million,
or 7.3 percent more than a year ago, this plan, aimed at providing low- or no-cost health coverage to roughly 165,000 residents,
has caused Massachusetts’ overall expenditures on all health-related programs to jump an astounding 42 percent since 2006.

So what does Mr. Romney’s successor, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, propose as a remedy for these skyrocketing costs?
Well, whaddya think? The standard litany of prescriptions (no pun intended) — price controls and spending caps, for a start, and then, again predictably, waiting periods and limitations on coverage.
As in Europe and Canada, so too in Massachusetts. And, we feel certain, everyone from Mr. Romney to Mr. Patrick said, “It would never happen here.”
But then, such things are inevitable when best-laid plans, with all their monstrous costs, run smack-dab into fiscal reality.

"Dem Congresswoman Admits Obama Health Care Plan Will Destroy Private Health Insurance Industry"

Thousands of patients with terminal cancer were dealt a blow last night after a decision was made to deny them life prolonging drugs.
The Government's rationing body said two drugs for advanced breast cancer and a rare form of stomach cancer were too expensive for the NHS.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is expected to confirm guidance in the next few weeks that will effectively ban their use.
The move comes despite a pledge by Nice to be more flexible in giving life-extending drugs
to terminally-ill cancer patients after a public outcry last year over 'death sentence' decisions."

The assumption that Mitt would have even beat Obama was proven false with his Primary performance.

A primary result has absolutely no bearing or predictive qualites for the general election results. Period. You know that. Argue that and you brand yourself. Mitt would have done better, with more chance than Juan Mccain - that was the dumbest thing R’s could have done. Absolutely the stupidest thing the Reps could possibly have done. Stupid beyond belief. Mitt might have beaten Bammy in a general election...but we did the galactically stupid thing and made the “next guy up” the nominee...stupid, stupid, stupid...while I agree Mitt was no conservative, he would have been infinitely better than Juan Mccain...we need a conservative in the next election...so far the best man for the job is a woman...

“We will be much better off with a Conservative.”

Not sure what makes you think I disagree...here was my post;

“Not defending him...honest...his bill was butchered by the socialists in MA and he tried to override it and failed...”

Not defending him, wasn’t promoting him...still not...we need a conservative...but the truth about what happened was not being told...that is all...

Yes Mitt would have been better than John McCain. McCain only placed as he did due to Palin. However the election was unique, and Obama had it to lose.

The primary comparison comes not from the votes but the dollar performance of Romney. He spent more per vote than anyone has in quite sometime. Every indication is that he would have had the same issues in the general.

If that “brands’ me so be it. I am interested in what is best not always what is expedient. That being said if Mitt had made it I would have voted for him. But that was not going to be enough even if he had been the nominee over McCain.

If I have to lose let me lose honestly. At least my principles stay intact, for the time will come when I and the rest of us will win.

That time maybe fast at hand, even faster than I could have dreamed up. Indeed Obama maybe the best thing to happen to conservatives in some time. Our “Republican” politicians had been allowing the democrats to pull the bandaid off slowly. With Obama it has not only be ripped off, but the festering wound that is liberal socialism has been fully exposed to the masses. Perhaps now they will see the ugly, smell the stench and we can get on to healing and get away from the slow death we have been experiencing.

After all if the sleepy Europeans can wake up from their 15 year socialist siesta...

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.