[Unmarked Package]

"His health care proposal used existing funds that were spent paying for indigent care at hospitals. There is a fee employers have to pay but that was not a part of his proposal, it was added by the legislator, and he did veto it but it was over turned. I have no idea why the Dem's added it, it's a $295 per employee fee employers must pay if they do not provide coverage to there employees, but they only have to have one employee receiving benefits to get out of it. It is statistically an insignificant amount of money that was not necessary for funding."

Thanks, spikeytx86, that's good input on the healthcare initiative Mitt Romney sponsored in Massachusetts.

The only points I would add to your summary is that Romney changed state law to allow insurers to sell cheaper plans to young workers. He also found a loophole in federal law that enabled the self-employed to buy insurance with after-tax dollars, just like employees.

Based on my research, I agree that nothing added or modified by the ultra-liberal legislature of Massachusetts did anything to improve Romney's healthcare plan; quite the opposite. Screwing up good ideas is what Democrats do best.

[spikeytx86]

There are a lot of excellent points to his health plan. But people see "universal health care" and "Massachusetts" and just go knee jerk on it. The original plan that he and the Heritage foundation came up with was excellent, it even had an opt-out feature where folks could post an interest bearing bond as a statement of self insurance. But at least the measures to offer low cost basic insurance and the neat feature to let the self employed and those with companies that do not offer cover to designate the "connector" as there health plan so they can purchase insurance with before tax dollars.