Well, you’’ve got
1. Romney-care which, at least, requires individuals to have private insurance.
Or you have
2. Hillary-care which is total socialized medicine with the government bureaucrats running the system and extracting money from the taxpayers to fund it.
To me, Option 1 is a whole lot more palatable.
How about choice number 3: We are neither required to buy insurance (private or otherwise), nor have socialized government run medicine forced down our throats.
Mitt Care does not address the unfairness in the Federal Tax Code to the self employed and the free-bee that you get if you work for a Large Corp.
Also, one rule of insurance is it has to be offered to a "Natural Group". For so many years in my mind, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition and so many like groups (and liberal halls of faith) are "natural groups". Ok, they care so much about access,why aren't they offering group plans to their flock or members?...
GWB's proposal essentially gets rid of "third party payer", and is brilliant in my opinion.
Mitt's to me makes the State of Ma. the sugar daddy third party payer.
I hear through the grapevine many small businesses in MA have dropped coverage already because of this boondoggle.
There is a huge different between encouraging companies to provide benefits, and mandating it. Or between encouraging insurance companies to make insurance affordable and accessible to people so they can buy their own, and mandating folks to buy a poor product that they don’t need. Those who really need medical coverage the most are not able to buy it anyway, Or won’t. Healthy people do not use it. At least not these policies that are being mandated. Healthy people who are not on the public dole, cannot visit a doctor enough to meet the deductibles. So how is that not socialized medicine?
The lesser of two evils is still evil. Mitt is a power grubbing weasel who will say or do anything to be president. He has no more principles than an alley cat.