Replies

It is not socialist because it keeps everything — insurance and health care — in the private sector. It was designed originally by the Heritage Foundation, as reliably conservative a group as you can get. It was made more expensive in the Democrat legislature.

I’m not sure I agree with it, because I don’t know the details about emerging problems, and where they arise. But it is not socialist. It was designed to head off socialized medicine. It was a serious attempt to deal with the very real problem of free riders, who don’t bother to insure themselves, then show up at emergency rooms when they need treatment. They are already shoving their costs onto the rest of us. The free riders are one reason the costs of medical care are so high.

If people want to be free to forego health insurance, doctors and hospitals should be free to turn them away when they show up at the emergency room — even if they are bleeding to death. But that is not how it works, and the free riders know that is not how it works. They know they will get the care they need, and that someone else will pay for it.

But, this is a problem that needs to be solved if the costs of health care are to be kept in line.

It’s the same concept as ObamaCare now, no public option.

But the Govt. sets the rules, has the panels that decide yes or no mammogram...yes or no to life sustaing procedures...not the doctors.

Government control.

If Romney is nominated that takes one of the 3 biggest issues away from the election....HealthCare.

He wont be able to attack Obama on that issues...if the GOP cedes that issue they should just win the House and Senate and cede the Presidency for 8 years to the Socialist Obama.

Unfortunately you are wrong. It is socialized health care, but instead of using a bureaucracy to exact the tax the government found it easier to use private companies. In the end the government still becomes the enforcer, but the government is one step removed from the tax system under mandated health insurance. I remember hearing that the Heritage Foundation was behind that concept and I lost respect for them over that fact. I understand the argument that health care can not be free, and someone needs to pay for health care, but setting up a government mandated health care oligopoly is arguably unconstitutional.

It was designed originally by the Heritage Foundation ... It was made more expensive in the Democrat legislature.

An oldie, but a goodie! Is it Heritage's plan or is it the MASS Dem's plan who took something 'good' and made it 'bad'. Really doesn't matter because Mitt loves it, in its current form!

June 30, 2009 Romney Portrait To Be Unveiled at State House.

The portrait depicts the governor seated at the front edge of his desk wearing his trademark business suit. Beside him is a small framed photo of his wife, Ann, and ... [wait for it] ... a copy of the health care reform law he called his greatest achievement. [note to mittbots; since this was June, 2009, this means he claims credit and praises what the MASS Dems produced]