| Author |
Message |
    
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1413
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 6:47 pm: | 
|
As Governor, Romney has offered a bold initiative to provide health insurance to all citizens of Massachusetts without raising taxes.[3] Romney’s plan stresses personal responsibility in paying for coverage and provides funding for the underprivileged. The proposal would make health insurance mandatory for all state residents while providing assistance to those who are unable to afford it.[4] It also proposes penalties for people who are able to pay for their own health care but chose not to.
Complaining isnt activism.
stop bitching on the internet and do something about it!
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2548
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 6:58 pm: |
|
The "YAY"is sarcastic, right? |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2945
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 7:15 pm: |
|
It's "Mitt" not "Mitch".
This plan was announced last summer, in June 2005. Why do you raise the issue now?
The plan insists that all individuals must belong to a health care plan. If someone goes to the hospital for care and is not covered, they will have to join a plan immediately, or else the state would garnish wages or keep their personal deduction or their tax rebate. The focus is not on providing universal health care, but in mandating that individuals get on some plan, any plan. When announced, there were no details on how to make plans available and affordable (such as employer mandates, state subsidies, single payer, whatever). Interesting concept in general, it got a good reception from Ted Kennedy, the Democratic Senate President in Mass, and others normally opposed to Romney's ideas. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1414
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 7:15 pm: |
|
not sarcastic it all. i mention it now cause its gaining steam in mass.
he explains that the national health crisis is because of employer based health care. gives real good data to back his point. he uses a good analogy too. everyone is required to have auto insurance but they can still drive if they lose their jobs, why should health care be different?
i think its a brilliant plan and a start to a return to the constitutional idea of personal responsibility and freedom.
Complaining isnt activism.
stop bitching on the internet and do something about it!
|
kathy
Citizen
Username: Kathy
Post Number: 1250
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 7:38 pm: |
|
It could well be a good plan, or the beginning of one, but mandatory anything hardly sounds like a Libertarian ideal. What's up with that? |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1416
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 8:23 pm: |
|
while i do have an issue with that portion of the plan, i think it is a good start to having people start to think of taking responsibility for themselves rather than the current entitlement thinking.
Complaining isnt activism.
stop bitching on the internet and do something about it!
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2556
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:38 pm: |
|
Incredible! The State would penalize people for refusing to buy a product from a private company and you as a Libertarian support it?
i think it is a good start to having people start to think of taking responsibility for themselves
The government should force people to "take responsibility", by forcing them to buy insurance, but you are livid about forcing people to take responsibility for their own health by "forcing" them to stop smoking!!!
What if I just don't want health insurance? If I get sick it's my own business not the governments.
Libertarian, you are losing credibility. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:56 pm: |
|
If you get sick and have no coverage, then your treatments are paid from your pocket, until your bucks run out. At that time, unless you're dead, your treatments will be paid by taxpayers' money unless you are in a charitable institution.
So your being sick may not be the government's business, but it becomes my business, since I pay taxes.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1420
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:17 am: |
|
From the Libertarian above:
"he (Mitt Romney) explains that the national health crisis is because of employer based health care."
I would love to read the complete recommendation and understand the source of Romney's information. Every other politician, economist, and health care expert says that the health care crisis 1) stems from the fact that 47 mm US citizens have no health care coverage, and 2) the price of health care is skyrocketing and has been doing so for at least 10 years.
Interesting juxtaposition of viewpoints.
Employers' health care plan costs have risen, and cost shifting to covered employees is increasing.
At the same time, health insurance carriers are paying health care providers much less for treatments they provide, at the same time as they are increasing the premiums for the health care plans they underwrite for you and me. At the same time they are increasing the premiums for the med mal policies that they write for docs.
Somewhere in there it appears that only the insurers are making bucks in this while affordable health care coverage is "an endangered species."
How is Romney's plan to force people to buy health insurance going to ensure that they receive appropriate health care at reasonable cost?
It sounds to me more like somebody's plan to provide easy bucks to Massachusetts-domiciled health insurers.
It's too similar, on the face of it, to the current administration's prescription drug plan, which is a financial Klondike for the pharma industry and a total mess for the prescription drug needs of an increasing number of senior citizens. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12177
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 11:02 am: |
|
What are the differences between a duty to insure oneself individually and insurance guaranteed and funded by taxes? There are surely differences, but there are similarities, too.
"This is the only thing my signature says."
|
GOP Man
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 267
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 8:36 pm: |
|
This is total BS. Health care is not a right, it's a privelege. If you can't afford it, TS. Just like if you can't afford a car, you walk. And if you can't afford a Mercedes, you drive a Dodge. Why should I or any other taxpayer fund anyone else's health care? Anyone who doesn't have health insurance should get off their ••• and go out and get a job that has good health benefits, or pays enough for you to buy your own. The free market will sort all this out.
Stupid moron libs, trying to use sob stories of sick people to force socialism on us.
That guy in the movie Airplane! had it right when he said "Shanna, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash." It's the same with health care. Those uninsured people got themselves crappy jobs, they knew that they weren't getting health insurance. I say, let em get sick! |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1861
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 9:46 pm: |
|
I recall reading on another thread that the Republicans had their loonies under control. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2569
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Yeah, but no one said MOL had its loonies under control.
Good night everyone. Have a nice week. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page