Posted on 08/27/2007 5:30:27 PM PDT by neverdem
If you were being honest, you'd go back and see that your original post to me was the one that started off on the wrong foot with its flip, rude and inaccurate characterizations. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out. I am not here to coddle people or insult them, but I will point out when people are lying about or misconstruing Romney's positions because I know he is the best thing to come along for the GOP in a very long time. We haven't had anyone with his communication skills, intelligence and optimistic energy to carry the conservative mantle since Reagan.
Mitt Romney - purveyor of socialism.
Now I supposed these Romney haters will accuse Ann Colter of not being "conservative enough".
Interesting. I guess that makes Ann "not a real conservative" or better yet, one of those normally intelligent people who have been shockingly fooled by the greatest scam artist ever.
Cue the violins for the posts saying "I thought so highly of her and I guess I was wrong."
oooops. sorry. bears repeating. but not four times. that’s never happened before. twice, yes. but four times? no. must be the lunar eclipse.
Will his plan put a halt to the out of control costs of health care and health care costs so average working middle class folk can afford them??
Here are a few ideas.....
1. Remove Health Care Benefits from the pre-tax status.
2. Get businesses completely out of providing health care benefits. Let the buyer shop for the best deal, because....
3. When the buy has to pay for everything out of his pocket, he will choose wisely, look for the best deals and not waste money.
4. Cap medical malpractice at one year’s salary of the offending nurse/nurses or doctor/doctors for “ordinary” malfeasance, 3 times a year’s salary for death or permanent total disability. (ex. A surgeon botches an operation and leaves a man with a bad scar. The man could only receive $240,000 in the settlement.) This would bring insurance rates down dramatically, as doctors and nurses had to pay less in insurance fees.
5. Get the government out of the medical business. Government does NOTHING efficiently. SO ANY government involvement only drives up the cost.
I might add he has to spend more to get the name recognition that Giuliani and Fred have due to 911 and a Hollywood/Senate career. If the second tier candidates who have the same problem as Mitt had his resources they then could have moved up into the first tier. The unfortunate fact of campaigning in the 21st century is that it takes money to get your message out.
So Health Care for everyone, it's OK it's free, shouldn't be that big of a deal.
< /sarcasm >
BUMP to that. Well said!
The courts will not let you change the system. Only certain citizens have their credit affected. Jose, however, spends 3 weeks in your hospital and moves on after changing his name to Juan. Their aren’t enough people left to “affect their credit”. If you aren’t insured, 5000/day is simply beyond reason and you go bankrupt.
The court's Constitutional power does not include the installation of systems. THeir power does include judging and eforcing contractual obligations, which is what paying an emergency room bill amounts to.
"Only certain citizens have their credit affected. Jose, however, spends 3 weeks in your hospital and moves on after changing his name to Juan."
Yeah, I already covered that. I do not want to pay into a pool that covers people that continuously eat up the money with their own fool behavior, or into a system that upholds a high priced monopoly. Nor do I desire to follow nanny rules, that are based on the idea that all are created equal and equivalent to the least common denominator of idiot.
"If you aren’t insured, 5000/day is simply beyond reason and you go bankrupt."
You're right. $5000 is beyond reason and it's ridiculous for most things. I'll never seek out services like that, unless I choose to be insured. The monopoly should be broken, so that there are lower cost alternatives. Anything else is authoritarian socialism.
I am glad that you won’t seek services like that. When you are unconcious, I will just leave you there? When you are beyond “seeking” what will the courts require? Bingo, you go to the hospital nearby, and get fleeced.
I indicated that I'd pay for them if I did, as I have in the past. "When you are unconcious, I will just leave you there?"Fine with me.
"When you are beyond “seeking” what will the courts require? Bingo, you go to the hospital nearby, and get fleeced."
No. I'll take care of myself.
Oh and by the way, the courts seldom enforce the Constitution, we are ruled by unimpeachable political appointees in robes. The Constitution, however clear, does not rule the day. You really think a lib, that wants to engineer society, cares what the Constitution says? Scream about Constitutional authority all you want, we are in a brave new world of the unreal.
Cue the violins for the posts saying "I thought so highly of her and I guess I was wrong."
Also a very good post. : ) What will some of the posters on FR do if Ann, FR's mascot so to speak, ends up endorsing Romney?????? The thought is worth another : ).
You too C_of_D. : )
It was a homerun of a post, LOL! I’ve done that, but I seem to particularly like posting triples. : )
Thanks for the help.
It's like banging your head against the wall, arguing with Romney bashers.
Maybe he's not perfect, but he's put forth some interesting proposals that, at the very least, would encourage the non-insured people to get health insurance.
Also, I can respect the fact that Romney has moved more toward absolute pro-life as he got older.
So have I. So did Ronald Reagan.
I'd MUCH rather have a candidate who once waffled slightly on the matter, and now sees the truth, than a candidate who claims to be pro-life but then votes for every single pro-abortion legislation to come along.
Romney's record in Mass. from 1994 thru 2002 is pretty strong on pro-life matters, from what I've read.
Romney wanted the self-insured option — the democratic legislature overrode him on that.
Mitt Romney relaxed the strict mandates on insurance carriers so they can offer very affordable plans to this high risk pool of uninsured residents. Your income dictates what you will pay for a premium, so if you make x amount and can’t afford $6K a year for health insurance, then the state will subsidize the amount of assistance you do need to pay the premium.
Your statement about Romney’s logic is completely false. We in MA pay over $1 billion a year to bail out hospitals for the free care they provide uninsured individuals. Those costs are not fixed, they are completely out of control and the price tag gets higher every year. He is significantly saving costs and tax dollars by enacting these reforms.
Romney’s goal is to take a program which provided a blank check to bail out hospitals which provide medical treatment to those “personal responsibility” folks you like to refer to, and instead using those funds for a program that will work, where costs are contained, and where private health insurance carriers are relieved of strict and costly mandates.
Oh and a note to those who chose to go without insurance -— please get the words “no insurance, please don’t treat me” stamped to your forehead so if you drop and can’t communicate, taxpayers in your state don’t end up footing the bill for your treatment.
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.