Plus, we ALREADY are forced to do what we don’t want to do — pay for the uninsured. All three options — the current system, Masscare, Obamacare all force us to do something we don’t want to do. To allow people to go without health insurance when they can expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment IS a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers already.
- - - - - - -
Just an FYI, not EVERYONE who does not have health insurance expects others to pay for it. Some choose alternative therapies, or do not use traditional medicine due to religious reasons. They save the money they would spend on health insurance and use it if they need it.
One person i know has medical bills averaging $500 per year. Cost of health coverage for her, if she could find a company that would insure her, is over $400 a month. She negotiates her own medical bills (including hospital ones), refuses treatment if it in not necessary and has catastrophic insurance “just in case”.
Health insurance IS NOT A RIGHT.
And as ejonesie said earlier, the Heritage foundation was an exercie. If they truly support it, then I know longer suport them.
OK, I looked it up... here's what they are saying from Heritage Foundation:
Politics is the art of the possible, and Governor Romney had to temper his ambitions and make compromises to get his plan through the state’s legislature. At the same time, many Democrats in the legislature set aside their misgivings about some of the elements of the Governor’s proposal, such as its steps toward deregulating insurance, out of a desire not to lose a big piece of Massachusetts’s federal Medicaid funding. With time and experience, revisions can and should be made to this initial legislation.
But that should not overshadow the significance of Massachusetts’ achievement in enacting a bipartisan health care reform bill that fundamentally shifts the state’s health care system in the direction of greater patient and consumer empowerment and control. The Governor and legislature have provided their citizens with the tools to achieve what the public really wants: a health system with all the familiar comforts of existing employer group coverage but with the added benefits of portability, choice, and control.
Other governors and legislators would be well advised to consider this basic model as a framework for health care reform in their own states.
Edmund F. Haislmaier is a Research Fellow in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Bottomline, it was an improvement, but revisions need to be made over time and they agree it was an experiment that will require further tweaking. Also, neither Romney or Heritage ever wanted to impose anything like this on the nation as a whole. Heritage points out how they were for states' rights and each state choosing what was best for their citizens. Really, everyone needs to calm down. We are all basically on the same page and agree on most things, but for some reason are choosing to disagree. Time to move forward.
On it's face the Heritage plan was an interesting attempt at a Conservative approach to the issue, but it still left too much in the hands of government and did involve mandates. It also addressed nothing in the way of reducing operating costs and regulations, the true issue in the current medical care crisis.
In real world practice, as we have already seen demonstrated in MA, the Heritage plan was an opening for abuse from the left. It should never have been tried and a conservative would have known better, as proven in the fact that no one else has pulled the idea off the shelf and into reality.