Contrary to what you think, it's not all about you. It's about the thousands of freeloaders who somehow have enough money to buy cell phones for each family member, 45 inch TVs, MP3 players, SUVs etc, but when a medical emergency hits they leave the hospitals, and, ultimately us, holding the bills. Why? Because they can.
It's about personal responsibility which seems to be a vanishing commodity around here -- even though a traditional conservative principle.
Romney's plan doesn't force you to buy any health insurance plan some bureaucrat thinks you need. On the contrary, you have the option to maintain Health Savings Accounts or demonstrate an ability to pay for you own medical care instead of forcing me and the other taxpayers to pay the consequences for your irresponsibility in higher premiums or closed hospitals.
You are never going to get the government completely out of the system, but this plan goes a long way to doing just that by putting the onus on private citizens to plan ahead. Romney believes that by expanding and deregulating the private health insurance market, we can decrease costs and ensure that more Americans have access to affordable, portable, quality, private health insurance. No more excuses.
One way or the other, someone is forced to pay the bill. Most people would prefer it be the person who actually receives the care -- not the taxpayers.
Look, go here ------> (http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#healthcare) and get informed on the actual proposal so you know what the heck you are talking about next time so you don't have to appear foolish.
I like that quote from Ben, but in this case Mark's quote is more appropos. It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.-- Mark Twain
Personal responsibility means taking responsibility for yourself. A government mandate is not personal responsibility. It is simply a tax under a different name.
For your information, I have health insurance, which I pay for myself. It costs me approx. $6000/yr. Now, I fail to see how Romney’s plan is going to reduce my cost, or anyone else’s for that matter.
The Romney logic goes that there are millions of well off people who choose not to have health insurance, and when they get sick we all have to pay for it. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. The logic is false, lots of people don’t have health insurance and if they can afford the service, they pay for it. If they can’t afford it, they don’t.
Explain to me how someone who can’t afford to pay for his $5000 procedure, can afford to pay $6000 for health insurance. He can’t.
Therefore, under Romney’s plan, I will still have to subsidize the same people I’m subsidizing today. How will this reduce costs? I don’t see anything in Romney’s plan lowering doctor’s salaries, cutting prescription prices, or rationing care, so once again I ask how is it going to lower total costs?
It’s not, and while some lucky few may end up paying less, I’ll wager that most will pay more, just as the article above talks about how Massachusetts has declared that “as many as 200,000 people who were already insured didn’t have the right kind, subjecting them to a fine or forcing them to purchase new insurance.”
If Romney’s goal is tho say that everyone has health insurance, then his plan may work. But if his goal is to reduce healthcare costs it won’t.
I would argue that having health insurance without cost reduction or containment is a worthless goal.