Posted on 12/05/2006 8:39:22 PM PST by freespirited
And yet, for some unfathomable reason, too many on this forum think that Romney would actually be a GOOD presidential candidate. This is all the reason I need to refuse to support him under any circumstances.
I don't like the mandated aspect here either but who's bright idea was it that hospitals are supposed to provide "free" care anyway? That cost gets passed on to someone else. Does mandating insurance make people more responsible for health care instead of the providers themselves or the state?
Oh, and what was the alternative on the table? Human Events has written a hugely slanted article against Romney but they don't give his side of it either.
Well, President Rodamn will fix this
I'm not ready to give him the RINO label yet. He has to contend with the MA legislature, and do things his way before they do things their way. In MA, I've met countless people who work but get state sponsored health care. (i.e they work in cash based businesses such as restaurants and get paid in tips and presumably underreport). Their healthcare is already paid for by others - Romney's plan makes them pay a bigger chunk (hopefully).
I disagree with the analogy of comparing mandatory health insurance with mandatory car insurance though. One can decide to not have a car.
Is there anyone with a double-digit IQ who believes this?
I never see people question the basic assumptions behind the idea that this is a problem that government should solve. So I end up being cynical thinking that is is really just a subsidy of the health care and insurance industries.
I didn't see the WSJ op-ed but I'll hazard a guess that this was poorly worded, and that what the author meant was that the cost of the currently uninsured in the state is low *relative* to the rest of the population.
The vast majority of health care expenses that an individual has over a lifetime are incurred in the last few years of life. For the majority of us, that means when we are on Medicare, so Romneycare is relieved of responsibility for these high-cost patients. Children are cheap to insure, so to the extent that they are overrepresented among the uninsured that keeps the relative cost of the uninsured low. Same for young adults.
If this is not what the author meant, I am with you, the comment makes no sense at all to me.
Think that health insurance is expensive now ?
Wait until it is 'free.'
I think this article is either misinformed or does not address a very complex issue.
Doesn' the State already directly or indirectly pick up the expenses for those who are not insured. All Romney did i thought was to transfer the responsibilty of the state to the individual, even though the state funds it. It seems to be the best outcome in a complex issue.
What about regulations..? WSJ makes a VERY, Very, very good point about this...
Not only that but Romney-Hillary Care for Massachussets did not Needt to be Pursued by Romney..He coult have fought for deregualtion, and the Free Market especially where HMO's are concerned rather than pushing more govt. buracracy in a rather, (one of the Nation's most) regulated states..
Even if he was against the Legislature (albeit a hard pill on its own..) he coult have at least Fought for the Free-Market, rather than oppose! I will not be voting Romney 08'!
They're good at trashing everyone who might even think about running.
Eventually, they'll decide that it's best to punish the republican candidate and advise everyone to stay home and let the demonrat win.
I suspect that it is Romney's own people who fan those flames. Just on the face of it, a governor from Massachusetts is never going to be elected President. I mean, c'mon.... Massachusetts? LMAO!!
I thought illegal aliens were unissured and costing the US hundreds of billions of dollars.
We used to say the same thing about Arkansas.
"I mean, c'mon! Arkansas? LMAO!"
More big government Republicanism and endless social engineering.
de-regulation of health insurance is not nessecarily a good thing. If it is de-regulated in Maryland, I could lose my insurance because I have a chronic ailment. I am not kidding. Because of state regulation I was able to force my insurer to pay for a nessecary operation that they tried to refuse me. It took many months, but finally I was able to get the needed operation despite the fact that it cut into the insurer's enormous profits.
Some of you geniuses should do a little fact-checking before coming to such stupid conclusions. The article is a bunch of BS. You cant get more slanted than this, if it was the NY Times. Do your damned homework, and stop being such kneejerk ninnies, believing every thing you read.
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.