His plan was an excellent one, and it bears no resemblence to Hillary's plan. That's why the Heritage foundation endorsed it.
The crux of it was loosening insurance regulations, allowing people to buy private policies that covered fewer unnecessary procedures and had higher deductibles.
Last time I checked, conservatives genearlly support deregulation and allowing the market to offer more choices. That's exactly what his plan did.
Yes, it requires people to buy insurance, thereby preventing them from freeloading off the emergency care system. But requiring people to be to responsible is a fundamentally conservative principle, and frankly, if you don't have health insurance, you are being irresponsible.
That’s a baby step that the next politician can take into making a Canadian-European government medical system here in the United States.
Nonsense. It's a plan that increases competition among private insurers, and increases the number and variety of plans insurers are allowed to offer. This is not even a baby step toward socialized medicine. It's the very opposite of it.
The one thing you may not like about it is that it gives a sliding subsidy to the poor to buy private insurance. But that's less socialist than the old system, in which people who couldn't afford insurance either went on medicade, which is a government-run system, or got emergency care for free, freeloading off the rest of us. At least now poor people are forced to pay something for their insurance.
And if you think it's politically feasible to have a healthcare system where those who can't afford to pay are going to be left on the street to die, you're living in a libertarian fantasy land.
Look at the whole record, not just some TV performance.
If you take the time to objectively study it, it's a fundamentally solid record that any conservative can get behind.
He vetoed over-the-counter morning after pill bills, cut spending, got rid of entrenched bureaucrats, and did everything in his power to fight gay marraige.
it would be analogous to private accounts for social security instead of wiping out the whole system
Romney’s health plan sounds reasonable to me. If you are able but not willing to buy health insurance and you end up in the hospital’s emergency room because you cut your foot off mowing your lawn, why should I or some government agency pay the hospital to sew it back on?
I notice in the debates and elsewhere that Romney’s answers make sense. He doesn’t just make rhetorical points or spout slogans or sound bites the way Brownbake or Huckabee or McCain do. He argues a point logically or offers something pragmatic.
great post. Thanks.
That is a great defense of the healthcare plan that Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. Do you mind if I borrow from it?
I still don’t see how forcing people to pay for something by law is conservative or freedom oriented.
My view of Romney is tempered by his family background noting his father playing the middle between Goldwater and Rockefeller in 1964.
Beyond that I am convinced he will do nothing “extreme” during his presidency like most who have preceded him (except Reagan).
I’m not going to go theological, but practically the LDS Church (Mormons) leaders are get along people who compromise with the world around them (example: Orrin Hatch). The state of Utah has never advanced strong pro-life legislation because it doesn’t want to be seen as a leader in opposing abortion.
Mormons were persecuted before and after they got to Utah leading to this “get along” mentality in my opinion. So I’m not being hostile to their religion as much as saying its led to a certain attitude that seems to show.
LDS attitudes changed with society around them prodding, not any moral revelation.
The US Army pushed Utah to outlaw polygamy so statehood could happen back in the 1890’s.
The change on racial policy (ordination of non-whites) happened in the 1970’s when it became a public embarrassment in my opinion.
This is Mitt Romney’s heritage and I didn’t discuss theology here, just practical observations.