I did not see this appearance, because I am asleep by the time the night programs are in full swing — and up early in the morning, like any other honest hominid.
So, I must go by the one quotation given here. It is the simple truth. If you can buy insurance once the damage has happened, it is not insurance, but a racket.
Take the hurricane flooding we had this summer in NJ: I called my insurance company, who verified that, yes, I had no coverage. So, I asked the agent, that as my basement is flooded with lots of damage, I have now a “pre-existing condition,” so can I now buy insurance to cover it? Being a dull sort of fellow, the agent did not even get the joke.
But advocates for 0bamacare exult that someone can wait until they get cancer, and then apply for insurance. They think that this is great, because they look for others to pay their way. Most of the advocates of these government programs like the idea that government will be their parent, and they actually want it so badly, that they believe it. Women, especially — the result of thousands of generations of searching for a male provider — easily fall for this approach. They think that 0bama will be their daddy.
Romney is not falling for this. Give him credit: he know what insurance is.
He probably also knows that demands for affordable this-and-that are phony. Here in NJ we actually had a judge rule that the state, and every town in it, must make provision for “affordable housing.” Housing is only “affordable” relative to how much money you have to spend on it. The judge was as stupid as the guy I once saw carrying a sign demanding “free housing for all.” All economic goods must be created (paid for) by someone. It is the same with health care. It is never free, and it is only affordable, depending.
From a constitutional standpoint, the central government has no legitimate part in healthcare. The states may, if they so choose. I would like to see a state go full-bore for socialism, so that the rest of us can watch. If it is NJ (which is getting close), its residents can at least leave. True socialism soon must fence in its citizens, to keep them from getting away.
This is why the socialists here want the whole country to go their way, so that there is little convenient way to escape.
Latest on the Supreme Court: I predict a 5-4 decision, with odds slightly slightly running against 0bamacare.
Romney was correct to point out that by shifting ownership of health insurance policies from the employer to the individual, we would resolve much of the problem of pre-existing conditions. It was also good that he was uncomfortable with the idea that people could game the system, not having insurance when they’re young and in good health, and then expect somebody else to subsidize their premium when they develop conditions. Obamacare addresses this problem with its individual mandate.
The RomneyCare approach in Massachusetts differs from Obamacare in three important ways: in mandating a no-frills insurance policy, which is cheaper to begin with; providing taxpayer-financed subsidies to low-income families so everyone should be able to afford it; and, penalizing those who don’t buy health insurance by reducing the personal exemption on the state income tax (at most, a penalty of $219). So, the policy is more affordable to begin with, it relies on taxpayer-financed subsidies, not on cross-subsidies, so it doesn’t balloon premiums for middle- and higher-income people, and the penalty is rather mild.
While that’s RomneyCare in Massachusetts, we should be able to do a lot better in states that aren’t dominated by Democrats. Most importantly, we can allow people to buy (merely) catastrophic health insurance policies, at very low premiums, and pay out-of-pocket for ordinary health care expenses.
The real problem here is distinguishing between health care being an entitlement and therefore free to the moochers and leeches of society versus how do we provide some help for those at the margin between welfare dependency and independence? The entitlement approach will not only bankrupt the country financially, it will undermine the ethical basis of self-repsonsibility needed for a society to be free and prosperous.