Posted on 12/19/2010 6:18:36 AM PST by Hojczyk
: WHEN it comes to a government overhaul of health care, what is the difference between President Obama and Mitt Romney?
A: Obama was against an individual insurance mandate before he was for it. Romney was for the mandate before he was against it.
Actually, that’s not quite accurate. The real difference is that Obama acknowledges reversing his position, while Romney seems to be trying to have it both ways.
As a presidential candidate in 2008, then-Senator Obama blasted Hillary Clinton’s health care plan because, as one of his ads put it, “It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don’t.’’
But within six months of becoming president, Obama had embraced a mandate. Asked in an interview with CBS whether “each individual American should be required to have health insurance,’’ Obama owned up to his 180-degree shift:
“I have come to that conclusion,’’ Obama said. “During the campaign I was opposed to this idea [but] I am now in favor of some sort of individual mandate as long as there’s a hardship exemption.’’
Compelling nearly everyone to obtain health insurance (or pay a stiff penalty for failing to do so) is the heart of ObamaCare, the linchpin without which the whole scheme falls apart. That’s why US District Judge Henry Hudson’s ruling last week that the individual mandate is unconstitutional — and that allowing the federal government to force citizens to buy a private product would “invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers’’ — was so significant. The White House immediately fired back — “We disagree with the ruling,’’ the president’s spokesman said. In a Washington Post column the next day, Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius extolled ObamaCare’s “individual responsibility provision,’’
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
No more of these two timing, two faced, double talking politicians.
Romney is Nowhere Man, and I defy Karl Rove to show us otherwise.
The HECK it is.
When will these socialist fools learn that the only way to prevent ‘Free Riders” is to go back to the heady days of Free Market health care; that is paying for Services Rendered.
The only way to prevent free riders is that everyone pays for their own health care or buys private insurance.
Government needs to get out of the market place and that means that the requirement for hospitals to provide for life saving care regardless of ability to pay needs to go away as well.
Myth is making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
Next time you need ti go to the hospital, check your bill. There is a charge on it for indigent expenses. That is, you are paying extra to support someone who cannot afford healthcare.
It is already being done through the private sector and you are funding it. So there really is no reason to change something already being done,
Problem is, because peoples self esteem will be hurt by going to the emergency room for a cold, we need to give the government one sixth of the economy so people could feel better about themselves.
Won’t vote for Romney nor for Huckster nor Newt....
Romneycare seems to be the template for Nobama HELLTH care. Neither is a good plan.
I haven’t been in a hospital for at least 15 years. But it is nice to know that they itemize the expense. It seems like a very honest way to tell the people what this government requirement is costing them. Much more honest than simply jacking up the price of every thing to cover the cost of providing care to freeloaders ($15 aspirins and the like)
But they are forced to do that by government regulations that say that any hospital that receives any government funding must provide life saving care regardless of ability to pay.
Personally I think hospitals should tell the government to take their money and go away but then I don’t run one. I have know idea how much money they get from the Fed.
But I have to believe that a hospital could provide services cheaper with out the government money and accompanying requirements
That’s awesome! Did you make it?
THERE IS NO WALKING AWAY FROM ROMNEYCARE DISASTER!!
Mitt who ?
Most hospitals could function well, make money and take care of the indigent by changing one policy. The amount of liability insurance they pay.
What should be regulated is litigation. The government can force executives to take a certain income, they could also force ambulance chasers to take 5% instead of one third.
We still have too many RINOs, talk radio hosts, and Fox News, covering up for Romney and his socialized medicine past. Too many on FR still think Romney is a “conservative” because he was “On Sean Hannity last nite”
Romney is a socialist who should not even be in consideration for the GOP nomination
Or by changing another policy—on illegal immigration. The actual American indigents are manageable in numbers.
No doubt limiting malpractice judgments would help.
But I don’t think you fully grasp what some these indigent patients are costing
I read last year of a indigent illegal alien that was costing a California hospital over a million a year and they couldn’t get read of the guy. He was bed ridden and on dialysis and could not be discharged. They wanted to deport him back to Mexico but they would not accept him.
That was one of several similar stories in the article. And the article only covered California and illegals. Imagine expanding that to the other 49 states and all indigent care cost.
If it's a "Personal" responsibility, why is the government getting involved???? "Personal" means that it's up to an individual....not a government dictate.
Then there is the question "Am I my brother's keeper?". My answer to that is maybe so, but I'm not YOUR brother's keeper!
I wholeheartedly agree. However, to avoid getting one of the above we need to avoid splitting our support among the real conservatives.
I've seen that in elections here in West Virginia where an unpopular Democrat would actually get some of his friends to run in the primary to split the anti-incumbent vote in the primary and let them win with about 30% of the vote.
If we all end up supporting ONE conservative in the Republican Presidential Primary we can defeat those establishment candidates.
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.