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...
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.
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?
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.
That's not exactly true. You can still choose not to buy health insurance, but if you don't, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will take away your all your tax exemptions and put the extra tax money it collects as a result into an interest bearing escrow account with your name on it. Once that account reaches a maximum balance (something like 10 G's), MA lets you claim your exemptions again. MA will then use any funds in that account to pay your medical bills should you come into an emergency room and try to freeload off the taxpayer. Should you eventually become insured, the government will refund the money to you, plus interest.
I don't see why any conservative should object to this. The fact is, if you don't have health insurance, you can stick hospitals and taxpayers with your emergency room bills. All Romney's plan does is make sure that those who don't buy insurance have in reserve enough cash so that this is less likely to happen.
Personally, I would have no objection to making health insurance legally compulsory, but that's not what Mitt Romney did.