• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Posted on 09/15/2007 12:46:52 AM PDT by restornu
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's recent health-care reform proposals, which rely on free-market principles and federalism, will go a long way to fixing our health-care system's woes.
The centerpiece of Mr. Romney's plan is to attack the tax code's discrimination against cost-effective private insurance. He proposes to allow individuals to deduct out-of-pocket health-care expenditures from their taxable income, allow individuals who purchase health insurance premiums on their own -- rather than through their employer -- to deduct health insurance premiums, and to expand Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) by eliminating the requirement that a qualifying health plan contain a high deductible.
Mr. Romney's proposal also allows persons who purchase health insurance on their own to deduct their premium payments.
This tax deduction will make insurance significantly less costly for unemployed persons and workers in firms that don't offer insurance coverage. It is also unnecessary. Mr. Romney's proposal to eliminate the "high deductible" requirement will allow individuals to establish an HSA regardless of their health plan's deductible.
Eliminating the high deductible requirement will maintain the cost-reducing benefits of HSAs. Evidence from the RAND Experiment indicates that most of the expenditure-reducing effects of health-plan deductibles occur at low levels of deductibles.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Gov. Romney: Healthcare Is A Republican Issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhJo_DlN1jk
>>>Reform means getting government OUT of health care.<<
Romney has also been a big fan of deregulation.
But getting the government out of healthcare isn’t going to do a thing for those who are independently employed, is it?
Anytime the state forces you to do something with the threat of penalization if you don't, your personal freedom is diminished.
Someone tried to defend him to me by telling me "You have to have insurance" or something along those lines. My initial thought was "who the hell are you to know if I need it or not?" The "state" would know even less, IMHO.
Everyone has their own personal to deal with in life. There is no single solution for everyone. Socialism believes that one size fits all. I think that Romney's insurance plan stinks of socialist mentality. I don't care how he's arranged it. You are forced and you have no choice.
I don't want the government involve in managing healthcare. Aside from enforcing existing laws for criminal actions, they don't belong in any business. The government could achieve far more by implementing tort reform and reducing "liability lotto" for reckless medical lawsuits. Otherwise, healthcare will end up just like other "great American institutions" like the post office or educational system. Don't trust them, not one bit.
And it's the principle I object to. I'm not interested in "exploring the plan". I want it dismantled. Period.
This just doesn't sit well with me. Yeah, Hillary scares me worse, but we're discussing a realistic Presidential candidate here, not "the nightmare" of another Clinton regime.
I'm glad we have choices for our primaries. Romney has significant strong points. This however, I feel is his weakest. I like Fred Thompson, he's saying the right things, but may have similar weaknesses as I learn about him. I think Guiliani's got more issues than either of the above. But again, we'll boil all these guys down and find out the truth about all our alternatives, then pick the best one.
It's a process that's distinctly American. Choice...
Why do you say that? What “thing” does the medically insured self-employed need from government?
Actually, Romney's version of Commonwealth Care included a provision that would allow an individual to opt-out of the plan in the same manner that an individual can opt-out of mandatory auto insurance in Massachusetts. However, the 85% Democrat legislature stripped that provision out. Can't blame Romney for that one.
A good supportive point that forces me to think some.
For all my complaints, I did not consider that the packages probably got slaughter in the state house and senate.
Sadly, we have a rat house and senate nationally. I dread to think of what such a package would look like coming out of there.
Mitt Romney worked with a rat house and senate and was still able to cut spending, balance the budget, stop pro-abortion legislation, stop anti-gun legislation, and put together a fairly conservative healthcare plan. He's got the experience necessary to be a great President.
What I understood it to be was either get some kind of insurance or if you get sick you have no insurrance, you are on your own you still have to pay your medical bills with insurrance or not.
The days of the gov. Free Lunch are over!
What you think because you have no insurrance you don't have to pay for what you use?
I don't call that the state forcing you when you must obey hte law and pay your Bills!
What planet are you from?
Send you a copy of this article it might help?
He signed the bill, which by the way was never put in front of the people to vote on.
You don't know what Conservative means, we are not Liberals He's got the experience necessary to be a great LIBERAL President.
In this proposal, If I bought health insurance, I would get a tax deduction. No matter how much money I make, it would make sense to buy the insurance. I could still choose any plan I wanted and keep the free enterprise cornerstone of healthcare. It would enable me to move from one job to another without fear of loosing my healthcare. It would enable me to go into business on my own without fear of loosing my healthcare. There needs to be a provision that insurance companies must provide healthcare regardless of existing health. Given that it is a monetary wash at the end of the year, I think most people would opt to have the insurance. That is, of course, if you pay taxes.
Sadly, we have a rat house and senate nationally. I dread to think of what such a package would look like coming out of there.
Mitt Romney worked with a rat house and senate and was still able to cut spending, balance the budget, stop pro-abortion legislation, stop anti-gun legislation, and put together a fairly conservative healthcare plan. He’s got the experience necessary to be a great President.
****
Mitt Romney worked with a rat house and senate because he ia a RHINO and was still able to cut spending, by raising fees stop anti-gun legislation, by signing the AWB and put together a fairly conservative healthcare plan
You don’t know what Conservative means, we are not Liberals He’s got the experience necessary to be a great LIBERAL President.
You speak with fork tongue!
Your denying he signed the AWB, raised fees to cover the budget, and Romney Care is not Liberal?
If you are, you need to remove your head from.....your
You love to speak in hyperbole!
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.