Romney to Sign Mandatory Health Bill

NewsMax.com ^ | April 4, 2006 | NewsMax Staff

[Don Joe]

See, even without mandatory insurance, the poor and the criminal alien get free care anyway. At least with some sort of mandatory insurance, those who are not desperately poor will pay some, and those who have money but refuse to pay for their care will be required to pay for their insurance.

"See, even without Communism, the poor in Russia managed to eat somehow anyway. At least with mandatory State control of the economy, they are able to "even out the bumps" and ensure a fair distribution to all. From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need!"

The question is, and no one who claims to be conservative will answer it, is, will you agree or do you agree then, if a poor person has no means to pay or has no health insurance, and the person who has money but not enough to pay for his head injury he caused by not wearing a helmet while getting off hard of his brand new Harley, that they should be denied care and set aside in a dark room waiting for family to come a get them to die at home? Do we as a society deny a reasonable level of health care to those who have not the means to pay? If you agree with that, then you are true to your argument and we therefore can do away with mandatory insurance and care for all. But if you can't articulate what the alternative is, just that mandatory insurance is an affront to your sensitivities, then think some more, and get back to me.

If you insist on socializing the concept of "charity" from the private sector (churches and other charitable institutions) to The State, then you should provide a bare-bones form of "charity", i.e., no-luxury poverty wards, etc.

If it's good enough for those who shed blood for our country (have you ever been inside a VA hospital?), it's good enough for those who DECIDE to take a free ride on the backs of the rest of us.

But, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "fair" distribution and supply.

If we were talking about "food" instead of "health services delivery" (as a former state HMO Commissioner, I do know the lingo), then we would be giving filet mignon and lobster to "the poor" -- or, more likely, having "the rich" living on rice and beans.

It's socialism, get over it. PLEASE stop trying to pretend it's anything but. The more convoluted the pro-socialism BS apologetics get, the more I feel like clearing my throat and spitting on the monitor.

[Don Joe]

Newt delivered the majority to the GOP and the concept of conservatism. He had a plan of action. Liberals have a plan of talk. Denying ones personal responsibility is never conservative.

Ronald Reagan was divorced and he had a homosexual son, is he a scumbag?

Gingrich is a new-age/globalist POS in "conservative" clothing.

Did Reagan wait until his wife was hospitalized with cancer, on the brink of death, to inform her that he was dumping her for some younger meat? And then dump her for some even newer meat?

The guy is a real piece of work. Please stop trying to cast him as some kind of conservative hero.

[Don Joe]

PS: Nice touch, trying to drape Newt the Serial Wife-Trashing Slug in the flag of "personal responsibility", LOL!

[Final Authority]

You refuse to answer the pertinent question. I have no further use for the witness.

[Don Joe]

You refuse to answer the pertinent question. I have no further use for the witness.

Yeah, whatever.

Put some ice on it.

[Uncle Vlad]

Neither will anyone else. That boy took himself out of the race early, didn't he?

[Final Authority]

No need for ice, you couldn't hit a lick with a stick, when it comes to intelligent dialog.

[jjm2111]

"Individuals deemed able but unwilling to purchase health care could face fines of more than $1,000 a year by the state if they don't get insurance.

Used to be free alert.

[Wiseghy]

On every small group I work with (usually about 20 ees) there is usually at least one who decides to "wing-it" without health coverage, even if the employer pays the majority.

Bankrupcy used to be the nations unspoken healthcare system for these "working well". However, with tougher laws it will be harder to walk away from those $10k per day (average) hospital bills. If you work at even a moderately low wage, the gov. offers no relief, contrary to popular conception.

[jjm2111]

"Based on your 30 reply, what do you think about mandatory auto insurance?"

Mandatory auto insurance is for liability to others when you are operating a vehicle on state roads. Nobody forces you to insure your own

This is a very different animal.

[Leatherneck_MT]

This needs to be challenged in the SCOTUS. Who the hell do these people think they are?

[Final Authority]

If you rephrase your comment, I may be able to understand it better, but I will try.

If you are saying that personal transportation is an option and since it is then insurance is, well then you may have a point. I agree, nobody who doesn't own a vehicle who intends to drive it on public roads needs insurance. Do you know of such a person?

If you own a vehicle and have a loan, that is, there is a lien holder, then the lien holder will require you to have both liability and comprehensive insurance. Do you know why? It is because you may become a liability to someone else should bad things happen.

For exactly the same reason, in society people are both assets and liabilities depending on what may happen physically, as in accidental causalities, and through biological causalities, that we can't control. As such, a prudent society must, in advance, require personal responsibility to contribute to the order of such an occurrence. That contribution is participation in an insurance plan. Or, would you rather ratchet up the tax rate further and have a national health care plan that is based on the successes of the Canadian and the British systems? Take your pick. You can have privatization through mandatory participation or socialization through mandatory taxation.