Posted on 03/02/2012 4:15:43 PM PST by red flanker
Had Michigan not been as close, the Democrats would have waited to spring this on us in the general election. Luckily we have it now and I hope Ohio voters are paying attention.
In July 2009, Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in USA Today urging Barack Obama to usean individual mandate at the national level to control healthcare costs.
On the campaign trail now, Mitt Romney says the individual mandate is appropriate for Massachusetts, but not the nation. Repeatedly in debates, Romney has said he opposes a national individual mandate.
But back in 2009, as Barack Obama was formulating his healthcare vision for the country, Mitt Romney encouraged him publicly to use an individual mandate. In his op-ed, Governor Romney suggested that the federal government learn from Massachusetts how to make healthcare available for all.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
I loathe freeloaders who take risks and then are unable to pay the humongous hospital bills. If it takes a law to prevent that theft, so be it. If it takes a law to prevent one from robbing banks so be it. If it takes a law to prevent one from burglarizing others, so be it.
Those who refuse to take responsibility for their hospital costs are no better than a thief who steals your wallet. Because they are stealing my money in the form of higher premiums to pay for their cheating.
Having a law on the books does not mean more government in your life any more than a law against bank robbery. Try to think on deeper levels instead of forming knee jerk opinions .
Who is going to end up being forced to buy insurance for those that are mandated to, but cannot afford it?
Same people who pay for food stamps, unemployment checks for 99 weeks, unlimited free medicaid costs, rent subsidies, heat subsidies, aid to dependent children, reduced costs lunches to students, etc.
But I am talking about those WHO CAN AFFORD insurance and do not bother to buy it. However I am against the type of mandate in Obamacare which requires you to buy “deluxe” insurance. I am for a type of insurance which will only cover catastrophic health care bills and which can be bought from any state. Such insurance does not exist now. So, I am hoping a real healthcare reform law will emerge after the 2012 elections.
Given the governments propensity to get “the camel’s nose under the tent”, distort markets and then completely take over I highly doubt they’ll limit their actions to the individual mandate to buy “basic” insurance. The individual mandate in and of itself is contrary to freedom, and eventually the government will define what is and is not insurance (according to interest group politics), how much it costs etc. Your solution inevitably leads to single payer socialized medicine.
You want to know the worst mandate of all? I just did a preliminary calculation of my federal income tax for 2011. I sold some long held stocks in 2011 to pay for my kid’s college expenses and am shocked at the tax bill now coming due. This confiscation of my money in the form of taxes is the worst kind of mandate...it effects everything in my life...where I can live, what I can eat, where kids can go to college...everything!
As for your point that a healthcare self-responsibility mandate will lead to single payer, it all depends on who we elect. Look, we elected Obama and the worst kind of mandate is already here, requiring every one to buy deluxe insurance which includes contraception, abortion, and a variety of maladies brought on by bad behavior. Obamacare has so many bad things in it, I can do a 5 page write-up.
The mandate I would like to see will only be for catastrophic medical expense. If you are against that what is your solution for those who end up in hospitals and can’t pay their bills for lack of insurance? Note that that mandate will only apply to those whose income justifies it. For the destitute, we already have insurance..also known as Medicaid.
We agree about taxes, but sadly we will never agree about the individual mandate. I don’t believe it is the government’s role to compel free people to buy products they might not want. There wouldn’t be a problem to solve if the government hadn’t gotten involved to begin with.
I have no problem if you disagree with me on the mandate issue. But I have not heard your solution to the hospital bills left unpaid by the cheaters. Who should pick up their tab? Right now us folks who bother to buy health insurance are stuck with it.
It is great that your are against something, but then if you do not have a workable alternative, your opinion ends up sounding hollow.
“It is great that your are against something, but then if you do not have a workable alternative, your opinion ends up sounding hollow.”
I’ve given you my solution. There would have never been a problem if the government hadn’t gotten involved in the first place. Hospitals should not be compelled to treat people that do not pay.
Mitt lies as coolly as Obama does.
The moment the government mandates the purchase of private insurance - makes it a crime for a human to not buy a product, even if it's from the private sector, simply for the act of being alive - the government is 100% involved.
We are either free and sovereign citizens or we are hypothecated labor units to other entities - slaves.
Even the IRS doesn't make a person with no income pay taxes. There is no difference between the federal government forcing people to buy insurance and forcing people to purchase a Chevy Dolt - even if they don't drive.
It only makes sense if you're one of those people who also think that the best way to control crime is to lock every single person up so that there is no way for anybody to ever commit a crime to begin with. That's the logic of Fascists, but it's nothing you'll find in the Declaration Of Independence, nor the Constitution.
Well, then, it would certianly be worth the legal expense, don't you think?
And why should the hospital be burdened with legal bills because some cheater jerks refuse to buy insurance?
Are you willing to make a contribution to defray their unnecessary legal bills?
You can’t be serious! (to borrow a phrase from John McEnroe)
You really want hospitals to refuse medical care to people who show up at the emergency room after a serious injury in an auto accident, tornado, earthquake or hurricane?
WOW, how heartless! No my friend, let them buy insurance before the calamity strikes. Just like we are required to buy fir insurance for our homes by the mortgage lender.
Actually as you’ve already stated the poor have Medicaid and the free riders have the ability to pay but don’t. You’re a statist sir and no amount of calling me heartless will change that. Go sell your snake oil to a more receptive audience....I’m thinking of the Cuban Ministry of Non Commerce.
The moment the government mandates the purchase of private insurance - makes it a crime for a human to not buy a product, even if it’s from the private sector, simply for the act of being alive - the government is 100% involved.
We are either free and sovereign citizens or we are hypothecated labor units to other entities - slaves.
“Even the IRS doesn’t make a person with no income pay taxes. There is no difference between the federal government forcing people to buy insurance and forcing people to purchase a Chevy Dolt - even if they don’t drive.
It only makes sense if you’re one of those people who also think that the best way to control crime is to lock every single person up so that there is no way for anybody to ever commit a crime to begin with. That’s the logic of Fascists, but it’s nothing you’ll find in the Declaration Of Independence, nor the Constitution.”
Tell the ones who don’t already know this.
When you go into business, that is the risk you take.
Are you willing to make a contribution to defray their unnecessary legal bills?
Are you willing to make a contribution to defray Mastercards' legal bills?
Truth hurts, don’t it Mitt-bots?
Nanny State PING!
I will let you tell me how to handle my health care, if you let me tell you what to eat and drive.
I'm calling shenanigans on Erick and his website. Every conservative already knows that Mitt is not a conservative. An op-Ed in the USA Today left on every hotel doorstep and available to anyone with a modem hardly qualifies as groundbreaking investigative journalism.
Thanks for the ping!
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.