James Carville (democrat strategist): "It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Romney is an ascendant guy."
Posted on 11/04/2007 12:25:20 PM PST by K-oneTexas
Excerpt - The official story of how health-care reform was conceived in Massachusetts could hardly have been less inspiring--or promising.
Excerpt - Three and a half years later, Romney signed a law that made Massachusetts the first state in the nation to guarantee health coverage for all.
Excerpt - When they considered the situation as if it were a business-school case study, some simple steps became clear, like getting the word out to the 106,000 Massachusetts citizens who were eligible for Medicaid but didn't seem to know it.
Excerpt - But as a Republican, Romney had very little leverage with the legislature, where the GOP's representation was so small it was less a minority than a cult.
Excerpt - The bill that emerged from the legislature two weeks later was different in many respects from what Romney had initially proposed.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Please, everyone here has read your bot statements about the liberal gun grabbing MITTwitt.
James Carville (democrat strategist): "It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Romney is an ascendant guy."
Thank you, my friend.
Thank you for showing some common sense, which unfortunately, and surprisingly, has been lacking in some quarters here on FR as of late.
When it comes to considering Romney, that is.
One that we know of.
Romney care, as I understand it, does NOT create a new govt run health care agencyas would Hillary's plan.
Instead, it helped identify low income people for Medicaid, and also gave tax breaks to businesses to help them buy private plans.
It also incentivised private health insurers to pool coverage into providing affordable plans for those who for whatever reason were unable to buy lower cost plans.
Yes, the Mass govt would subsidize private insurance for those who fell thru the cracks, but that's better than creating a who new MediCare/Caid program like the lib Dems want to do.
It supposedly (am not truly convinced) was funded mostly by money saved by not having the indigent and poor use emergency hospital rooms, which Medicaid of course previously picked up at full emergency room costs.
Romney care, as I understand it, does NOT create a new govt run health care agencyas would Hillary's plan.
Instead, it helped identify low income people for Medicaid, and also gave tax breaks to businesses to help them buy private plans.
It also incentivised private health insurers to pool coverage into providing affordable plans for those who for whatever reason were unable to buy lower cost plans.
Yes, the Mass govt would subsidize private insurance for those who fell thru the cracks, but that's better than creating a who new MediCare/Caid program like the lib Dems want to do.
It supposedly (am not truly convinced) was funded mostly by money saved by not having the indigent and poor use emergency hospital rooms, which Medicaid of course previously picked up at full emergency room costs.
What a dumb commrnt!
comment!
You're forgetting one group that Romney addressed - people - mostly young and healthy - who just don't see the need for insurance. These are people who have too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but still get treatment for such catastrophic things as automobile accidents. Those costs weren't always recoverable. But now those people are required to buy insurance.
Between the reduced use of emergency rooms for both poor and just plain uninsured, and the ins. coverage for higher income people who have been uninsured, I would believe that the system is much more cost effective.
“Romney care, as I understand it, does NOT create a new govt run health care agencyas would Hillary’s plan.”
Ask yourself an obvious question, how do you mandate healthcare for everyone, and not enforce it with a govt run health care agency? ? That is my point, just cause Romney put lipstick on the pig . . .
Daily Policy Digest
Health Issues
February 26, 2007
INTENSIVE CARE FOR ROMNEYCARE
When then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney introduced a universal health-insurance plan last year, it was widely acclaimed. But less than a year after its passage, RomneyCare is in the intensive care unit, says Sally C. Pipes, president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute.
Consider:
* Last August, officials projected that the new plan would increase state government health-care spending by $276.4 million in 2007, $151 million more than what the public had originally been told the plan would cost.
* In January, when private insurers submitted bids to the bureaucracy that would administer the new program, the average premium for the unsubsidized plans was not $200 per month — as Romney promised — but rather $380.
* That’s more than 15 percent of the target audiences’ income — and for a plan with a $2,000 deductible and a total cost sharing of $5,000.
There’s a slim chance that the new Democratic governor Deval Patrick and the Democratic legislature will implement this plan and enforce the mandate. But if they do, an individual with a $30,000 income would be responsible for paying 32 percent of his or her income before being fully covered by insurance. Yet there is an equally small chance that the politicians will deregulate the state’s insurance market.
Deregulation may be tough; however, as new officials continue dictating health-insurance design by creating the standards for Minimum Creditable Coverage (MCC), which individuals must meet to avoid paying a fine, says Pipes. If these standards are implemented, they would render illegal roughly 200,000 high-deductible policies currently in force — exactly the sort of insurance that makes sense for the self-employed and young individuals.
Source: Sally C. Pipes, “Intensive Care for RomneyCare,” Wall Street Journal, February 26, 2007.
For text:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117246015872919046.html
former demcorat now RINO governor of Texas. he's easy to recognize...he's the one with his lips firmly planted on the ass of the CEO of the company that makes Gardisil and his knee pads on for the entire board of directors of a Spanish company that wants to operate toll roads in Texas.
In other words he'll say ANYTHING to get on the public dole and "run" the state/country.
I would vote for and enthusiastically support any of the Rep. candidates before I would any of the democrats. I like Romney the best. He's fairly conservative and I believe he has what it takes to win and then advance the conservative agenda in a nation that sorely needs it.
Bingo, you just won the understatement of the year award.
True enough. My 20-something mechanical-engineer son is in that category -- he doesn't need "maintenance" type of health insurance, but is worried about having an accident or catastrophe.
Romney has pushed (I think in Mass.) for private health insurance companies to create a 'catastrophe-only' type of health insurance.
The purchaser would pay for his or her REGULAR doctor visits, but would be covered in event of a life-changing accident.
To me, THAT is the right way to go. Plus, catastrophic insurance is NOT that expensive, if ins. companies could pool their resources.
It's dumb for us (me included) to consider health insurance to be something used for every day health maintenance, even though regular care can get very expensive.
This catastrophe plan would serve two purposes -- it would give piece-of-mind, and it would encourage people to question all the unnecessary tests and procedures many doctors NOW mandate.
If 'frivolous' lawsuit tort reform were to be enacted at the same time, this would go a LONG WAY toward solving many problems in today's US health system.
Think not of Carville’s comment as dumb, but in the setting
that he is trying to fool Americans to vote for his choice
RINO: Romney.
And if that was accompanied by tax free HSA's, most people would be far better off.
And -
If 'frivolous' lawsuit tort reform were to be enacted at the same time, this would go a LONG WAY toward solving many problems in today's US health system.
I know for sure cases where expensive tests were done to protect the doctor. Patients don't even get a choice whether to skip these tests. That's needless expense.
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.