Posted on 12/27/2011 7:00:53 AM PST by indianrightwinger
Newt Notes
The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.
We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.
The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan. Under the new bill, Massachusetts residents earning more than 300% of the federal poverty level (approximately $30,000 for an individual) will not be eligible for any subsidies. State House officials had originally promised that there would be new plans available at about $200 a month, but industry experts are now predicting that the cheapest plan will likely cost at least $325 a month. This estimate totals about $4000 per year, or about 1/5 of a $30,000 annual take-home income.
While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)
In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly-devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year.
While the Commonwealth’s plan will naturally endure tremendous scrutiny from those who assert that the law will not work as intended, Massachusetts leaders are to be commended for this bipartisan proposal to tackle the enormous challenge of finding real solutions for creating a sustainable health system. I hope that Massachusetts’ initiative to provide affordable, quality health insurance for all continues to ignite even more debate around the subject of how to best address our nation’s uninsured crisis and the critical problems within the health system at large.
On a different note, I am pleased to report that our work on accelerating the Right-to-Know movement continues to build. Leaders in Washington are now demanding that
All statists, all the time.
He said this in 2006?
So why does it make a bit of difference? The entire election process is corrupt as is the political system from top to bottom, bottom to top, sideways, front and back. No matter how anyone looks at it, our republic is done for and has been for decades. Voting is such a damned farce and an exercise of fallacy. If anyone thinks it makes a difference, they are just telling a lie to themselves.
Same old story.
The Democrats propose to tear down the Washington Monument, and the Republicans respond with a workable plan to do it in three stages.
No. The problem is that people have started looking to the Federal Government as their daddy and expect daddy to provide everything they need! The government has no business intruding between me and my insurance company and my Doctor! i don't need a government provided solution to every situation. Newt, the big government statist that he is, thinks I do. So does Mitt, so does obama and so do most of the political class.
All wisdom lies out there in the middle doesn’t it? That is an absurd and disgusting position. Please name the Democrat elected officials you believe we conservatives should sit down with to discuss “The big Issues” with? Maybe a little split the difference, meet them in the middle?
It is about ME, ME, ME or did you not notice our Constitution guarantees individual rights?
The Heritage Foundation was behind Romney as well and we wouldn’t consider them anything but a conservative organization.
I am not for Newt nor am I protecting him from his own words, but if he does get the nod and we hold him to the rule that Obamacare will be repealed in whatever manner possible (and I hope the GOP takes the Senate and just does away with it), then statements in 2006 will not matter.
At this point we only have his word, but as vague as that may be we already know what BO is going to do. I’d rather take a chance on Newt.
While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)
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.