Redstate

Romney transfered a large number of people to Medicare. Where does the federal government transfer people to - Canada?

He does have a plan. He has also said that he wouldn't force it on any state, but that he would give states greater lee way to experiment.

The other thing I will tell you is that people "out there" are hungry for these ideas. This is especially true for our ideallic twenty year olds (many of whom do have health care through their jobs) who can't understand why the USA doesn't have health care for everyone.

Oz

Read my most recent story, "The GOP race: My 2nd runner up -- John McCain" on First Cut Politics

The constitution does not allow for the federal government to be involved in health care. Romney wants to get it even more involved than it already has by interfering in the free market even more.

Ron Paul on the otherhand espouses a republican beleif that the feds should get out of health care and start turning it back to a true free market.

I think Dr Paul has a much better plan that Romney.

Unfortunately, Mitt's plan had been terrible for MA from what I've heard from my wife's partners and my partners who have or were planning to practice medicine out in the Boston area. Coverage is poor, unpredictable, and expensive.

Much as expected, the only ones happy with the deal are the insurance carriers. If Mitt were to implement something similar in the industry as president, it would not take long and transform into a nationalized system to 'fix' the market failures.

Any plan built around insurance carriers is doomed to fail.

...and I wonder how much Romney had to just put up with due to the fact that the legislature could ultimately override him. The plan he has been hawking on the trail is tweaked from his MassHealth plan. I believe that he wants to make health insurance premiums and medical expenses tax deductible, and he wants to deregulate insurance markets so that people can but policies across state lines. Those two tweaks should go a long way in lowering costs. Glenn Hubbard, an economist whom I highly respect, worked with Romney on this, so I have reason for optimism. Personally, I like the Cato position, but having a platform of "anti-universal coverage" isn't going to fly when the media and libs have been demagoguing health care nonstop.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Great Point! I feel I've been barking up this tree for so long. Why do our politicians forget that people/corporations ultimately look out for #1 first and foremost?

Environmental Regulations and Penalties have had very little affect over the years in my state (Delaware = one of highest cancer rates) simply due to the fact that it's cheaper for the factories, plants, and refineries to simply pay a fine. It pisses me off because the Democrats in my state are able to "take a hard line on the pollutors" while at the same time using this ploy to essentially raise taxes and fees without a public outcry.

As a whole they are completely ineffective in changing negative behavior. The same thing was doomed from the start in relation to Health Care. When will Conservative Republicans understand that you can't force a horse to drink?

In regards to health care, every single Republican out there is talking about "our plan" and "their plan" and working to insure the "" "" uninsured "" "".

This is just like the recent Republican expansion of medicare with Prescription Drug Coverage, which screwed my grandparents out of an awesome prescription drug plan with DuPont. Now they have to live with the mediocrity of medicare. DuPont gave up their plan because the Government said they'd cover it.

Conservative Republicans need to get off this track.

And I'm all for the Anti-Universal Coverage Club.

Romney has ideas that are similar to Mrs. Clinton ideas. He just keeps them quieter and yells his conservative thoughts, of which there aren't many. Just because Romney was a Republican governor of Massechuttes doesn't mean he is a Republican. He is very much like Governor Schwarzenegger and he would be just like President Bush. Is that who we want as President? I think not.

Requiring people to purchase something is the first step in that thing becoming more expensive. If it's something that we HAVE to have, then where is the incentive for corporations to compete? Personally, I don't want health insurance. I live paycheck to paycheck, and I'd rather have food on the table than health care coverage. My auto insurance is expensive enough, and I only have the bare minimum that I need to be legal. (When I can even afford THAT.) And I've already put WAY more money into auto insurance than it will EVER pay me back.

There's no point in insurance, to me. Buying insurance is betting something will go wrong. I'm more optimistic than that. I'd rather deal with things as they come up. (I know, catastrophes happen and without insurance I may be up the proverbial creek, but that's my own decision.)

I really hate (and I do mean HATE) to say this, but I almost have to agree with the HWMNBN crowd in that there is nothing in the constitution that gives the government the responsibility over our health care. (In fact, I had a lengthly argument about this with a liberal friend of mine.) Government interference into healthcare will only lead to higher taxes, more corruption in the system, inferior service, unnecessary medical procedures, and prices that are way out of control, in my opinion.

Healthcare should be left to the state or, better yet, personal level. Take the government out of healthcare and let the free market reign. Once that happens, I will be purchasing healthcare coverage, because then the prices should be reasonable enough to afford.

Now, with all of that said, I know that that's probably an impossibility. The government has already been into the healthcare market, and once the government is into something, it's nearly impossible to get the government out because of all the people who are now so dependent on it.

So, the real problem for healthcare should be: how do we ween the American people off of their reliance on the government?

--
Marc Bublitz

I think we need a real republican, not this Mitt Romney or Rudy Guliani make believes. Lets see what a real republican would believe. (Taken from the GOP Web site)

"I believe that the proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well by individuals, and that the most effective government is government closest to the people.

I believe that good government is based on the individual and that each person’s ability, dignity, freedom and responsibility must be honoured and recognised.

I believe that free enterprise and encouragement of individual initiative and incentive have given this nation an economic system second to none.

I believe that sound money policy should be our goal.

I believe in equal rights and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex or national origin. I believe that persons with disabilities should be afforded equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunities as well.

I believe we must retain those principles worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideas with an outlook broad enough to accommodate thoughtful change and varying points of view.

I believe that Americans value and should preserve their feeling of national strength and pride, and at the same time share with people everywhere a desire for peace and freedom and the extension of human rights throughout the world.

Finally, I believe that the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government."

Lets find a candidate who has consistently lived that oath. Can anyone name a candidate?

As a relatively new resident of the Commonwealth and a small-business proprietor, I have a few introductory comments on the Massachusetts Health Care Subsidy System. As a small business owner, I am required to carry health insurance coverage for myself and any employees of my business. I believe the actual threshhold is 11 employees, but we carry the coverage with just three because the penalties are significant and the out-of-pocket expenses are even worse.

We currently pay $1,700 a year to cover three people under Mass. Health. This does not include dental care. We also have significant copayments on whatever the plan managers deem to be "elective" visits: I recently paid more than $300 in copayments for a 15-minute local anesthetic surgery to have a small cyst on my neck removed. Without the insurance, the total cost for my 15 minute office visit (the surgery was performed while I was sitting on the end of the table in the dermatologist's office, and required four stitches) and the 30-minute assessment visit would have been about $2,000.

The costs for certain kinds of follow-up care are absolutely stratospheric. My mother was recently diagnosed with Type II diabetes and as part of her management regime she attended a course of healthy eating/living/diabetes management classes at a local hospital. That class was taught by a single instructor, with approximately ten students, and spanned several weekends. The billing for that to our insurance company worked out to approximately $400/hr/person (assuming everyone in the class was covered and their insurance was billed the same as ours was). I don't know how much that instructor got paid, but $3,500-4,000 an hour for a basic, outpatient, walk-in nutrition course sounds a little high to me. How about you?

We are some of the approximately 15,000 people who are subsidizing the medical industry and healthcare for the poor in this state. It's expensive. If I could save $500 to $700 a month in terms of my insurance costs, I would put that money *directly* into capital investment for my business: I absolutely need to lease or purchase some new equipment but I cannot afford to do so right now. There is absolutely no question in my mind as to where the money would go. I need a new sign on the front of my building. I need a third large printer. I need more storage. But if I do not write that $1,700 check every month, I will lose my coverage and get *still* get socked with the penalty, which is the plan's "stick."

Now, sure -- the doctors are competent and the care has been good. Rest assured that I am paying more than my fair share for it. My taxes are going up next year despite that. Massachusetts is turning into one of the only places imaginable where your business can do $250,000+ a year in revenue and yet you can still be living paycheck to paycheck, one account receivable away from having the lights turned off.

And don't get me started on the electricity costs in this state: we pay the 7th highest amount per kilowatt/hour in the nation. All of my equipment is electrical.