• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Posted on 06/06/2007 6:01:09 AM PDT by Reaganesque
He’s good. But I still like Hunter better.
He seemed ill-at-ease with the health care question. And, IMO, he should be. His record does not smack of conservatism, and I think he knows that.
Agreed. I heard him speak at the state Republican convention last fall. I’m not full fledged into supporting him yet but leaning harder all the time in that direction. I flirted with the idea of Guiliani for a while. Nope. Don’t need that when there’s something better for the same price.
Fred Thompson? I’m very skeptical.
Well you tell me he was in Kennedy marxist state trying lessen the burden of taxes and other financal things.
You don’t turn a Marxist blue state into a red state with that political machine entrench.
BTW Romney heathcare was never implemented as he design it so how can you compare or know!
He seemed quite happy with the proposal as a means to provide health insurance to everyone at the expense of others, not because it saved money in taxes, but because it provided health insurance to everyone at the expense of others. At least, that’s how he sounded when he told his side of the story.
That’s why, I think, he had difficulty with the question. He rambled on a bit, settling down finally on something like, “I got something done. I tackled the problem.”
Well, maybe, but the solution, as he explained it, was wrong, and he did not convey a clear sense of allegiance to conservative principles in his explanation.
That is not Romney health care plan buddy every body paid something even the working poor!
There are all sorts of costs involved. “Paying something” is not the same as “paying your share.”
At any rate, I don’t know what Romney’s plan really is. I never studied it. My comment was that he did not present it cogently in a way that sounded as if he had true conservative chops.
It is important to note that he had a very short amount of time to answer the question. I have studied his health care plan quite thoroughly, and find it to be a little more government involvement than I would like, but I also recognize the environment and context that he was working in. I also recognize that every state would have differing environments, with different variables. He understands this as well, which is why he is not trying to advocate his plan as a national plan.
His plan is about as conservative as I could imagine him getting passed in Mass. at the time, and a rather intelligent means of shifting funds that the government was already spending on covering freeloaders to encouraging personal responsibility for all. I disagree that it was to cover everyone at the expense of others. I don’t even really understand how that is done (since the “others” would be included in “everyone”). Regardless, government will always subsidize the most poor for health care, and that is not likely to ever change. But too many people say “I don’t need health care, I’m young and healthy” etc, etc. Then, when they need to go to the emergency room, the government gets stuck with the bill. Furthermore, when the healthiest pool of citizens opts not to buy health insurance, it drives the costs for those who do way up, since the insurance companies have to pay out more (relative to their client pool) in health coverage. Romney’s idea (as he proposed it, not necessarily how it was finally implemented) would actually help drive the costs down for everyone, as it would encourage more competition among insurers, which is how the free market is suppose to work.
I agree, Mitt could have done better at highlighting his conservative creds in his answer, but time did not permit a fully comprehensive answer on a large subject. In future debates when the field is whittled down a bit, look for more satisfactory answers.
1)Loosen state regulations so as to allow insurance companies to offer cheaper coverage that has higher deductibles and doesn't cover things that aren't medically necessary. For instance, before Romney, the state required insurance to cover in vitro fertilization.
2) Create a central insurance exchange where individuals can comparison shop for policies from many different insurance companies. In other words, create something like the NYSE for insurance policies.
3) Require individuals to buy policies. This eliminates the adverse selection problem, which makes individual policies very expensive in other states, and it also prevents individuals from freeriding off the taxpayers should they get sick and not be able to pay their medical bills.
4) Provide a subsidy for individuals who don't qualify for medicade but are too poor to afford their own policy. The number of people who fell into this category turned out to be very small. The vast majority of the uninsured could, in fact, afford their own policy once the regulations and adverse selection problem were removed.
From what you described here, it’s still a program that has socialist underpinnings, whether or not it’s “less socialist” than Teddy Kennedy would have offered.
What’s apparent to me is that Mitt Romney needs to have an acceptable canned answer for this question, if he’s going to do well on this topic. It doesn’t stand on its own as objectively conservative in principle. There are some good things in it... but the statutory directive to buy and subsidize insurance policies is simply unacceptable, and it appeared in his answer as if he was just pleased as punch that the end result included those features.
Ultimately, that’s why he struggled, not that he didn’t have enough time to answer. In the amount of time that he did have, he rambled almost incoherently. Romney was given more time cumulatively to answer his questions than anyone except for John McCain and Rudy Guliani, who had very marginal advantages in time. Thus, I don’t buy that as an excuse.
I don't see it that way. Would you care to elaborate as to what are the "socialist underpinnings" of the plan?
There are some good things in it... but the statutory directive to buy and subsidize insurance policies is simply unacceptable,
Why is it any more unacceptable to require people to by health insurance than to buy car insurance?
As to subsidies, every state in the union, and the federal government, already subsizes healthcare for the poor. This is a politically popular government handout, even though you and I might not like it. Hence it's not going away any time soon. The Romney plan accepts this reality and makes it less expensive. It's not ideal, but it's better than any other politically feasible alternative.
The problem with many conservatives is that they make the perfect the enemy of the good. Nowhere is this more evident right now than in their criticism of the Romney healthcare plan.
Romney is the most electable of the Republican candidates. He’s articulate, intelligent, confident, conservative, highly photogenic on TV, and he has the right executive experience as a state governor. He’s the best candidate to beat the DemoSocialist candidate. None of the DemoSocialists can match his appeal.
Flip doesn’t hold a candle to Duncan Hunter...
That's why all of the Democrats are scared to death of him--they know he'd be able to wipe the walls with Hillary. The MSM would no longer be able to use the typical "dumb, bumbling Republican" argument if he was a the nominee. There's no one in the field (either Democrat or Republican) who is as articulate and accomplished as Romney is--even when he has an off night like he arguably did last night. On top of his accomplishments, he has appeal and that makes the liberals absolutely wet themselves.
As to subsidies, every state in the union, and the federal government, already subsizes healthcare for the poor. This is a politically popular government handout, even though you and I might not like it.
To claim that one brand of socialism is made more acceptable because we've already acquiesed to another is the height of relativism. Still, I'll try to explain the difference between health insurance and car insurance.
Liability insurance is all that most states require, which means the insurance company is on the hook to pay for damage caused by one party to another, including the lender, up to the amount still owed on the vehicle. The economic rationale behind this is based on "external costs" of driving. An uninsured driver can save himself money by being uninsured, but the fact that he could cause catastrophic harm to others, either physically or financially, absent the statutory requirement of insurance, the collectible amount of damages would be limited by the amount of the driver's net worth -- and usually less. This amount is typically less than the actual damages incurred.
Because it is an "external cost," which has direct and obvious consequences, it is within the province of the state to make sure drivers are fully accountable, in one way or the other, in the event they cause an accident or otherwise injure another person or his property.
None of that is to suggest the free market couldn't handle the problem by itself through incentives and penalties assessed by the lender in the first place, absent any nudging from the state. Banks will not dispense home loans unless the property is insured. In addition, the loan itself must be insured in some states, up to a certain amount. If consumers don't like that, they can either save up the money to buy the house outright or they can just go without buying a house.
This will cover most cases, but not all, of uninsured drivers.
The Romney plan accepts this reality and makes it less expensive. It's not ideal, but it's better than any other politically feasible alternative.
This may be true in his case (and I can't say for sure since I haven't studied the plan). As I said, he needs to get better at explaining the rationale. He sounds too much like a populist in his explanation.
Universal health care, paid for, mandated, and/or subsidized by the state, with little or no consequences for unneeded treatment, tests, and examinations, unduly strains the available supply of skilled practitioners for the demand and raises the cost of healthcare for everyone else.
Bull. I have never heard Romney ramble. Obviously you don’t like him, too bad for you because he will probably be our next president.
Not sure how you got that from my comments, but whatever.
too bad for you because he will probably be our next president.
If I have valid reasons for disliking him, too bad for our country. I hope he's as good as you think he is. We'll see.
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.