Not a fan of Romney-care. However, it was the best that could be gotten under the circumstances. The state legislature was going to pass something and Mitt got about the best deal he could get.
AH_C
· 1 year ago
Therein lies the rub. Mitt got in front of it and rerouted the scheme to something more palpatable. I'm against the whole idea in principle, but given a choice between mandatory universal single-payer health care and a mandatory private health insurance plan, give me the latter.
People forget that they don't have an issue with mandatory auto insurance in order to drive public roads, let alone mandatory full coverage for autos on lien. Nor do they have a problem with mandatory home/mortgage insurance if they want their home financed. Not much difference here where the govt can expect to be stuck with all or part of the tab for treating the uninsnured.
Again, I don't like the slippery slope we find ourselves on, but we have to do something to mitigate the overall damage, lest the donks sink us all with their cluelessness & greed.
PaulK
· 1 year ago
But the problem is that the people of Massachusetts DID have a problem with mandatory auto insurance. They had such a problem that they had the state take over setting the rates. There is very little private in Mass about auto insurance any more. The result is that a lot of carriers won't serve this market.
How long do you think it is going to be before doctors in Mass start acting like auto insurance companies? (That's a trick question, they already are. There is already a shortage of primary care physicians. Go to Harvard medical school and then move out of state as quickly as possible. The only reason the population of Mass is not declining is because of an influx of foreign immigrants greater than the emmigration of Mass natives.)
AH_C
· 1 year ago
I understand your point, hence "slippery slope" comment. Mitt had two choices 1) do nothing and still get blamed for a sure mess, 2) do something to slow down the mad rush to total ruin and still get blamed for a sure mess. If it were me, I'd go with Option2 then make the case that mandatory healthcare/insurance is forever a pipe dream and that there needs to be fundamental reform of regulation, liability and culture (that thinks HC is a right to "free" services)
Ken
· 1 year ago
"an industry which needs to plow more of its profits back into R&D or risk being rendered obsolete"
Actually, getting rid of the legacy union costs would make Detroit competitive overnight. You can't compete when every car you manufacture costs an additional $1,400 over the cost of your competitor. It cannot be done. There is a reason every auto manufacturer here that has a union is losing money, and every non-union manufacturer in the US is profitable, and it has little to no bearing on R&D budgets.
HNAV
· 1 year ago
good point, compared to the democrats, anything seems better.
however, John McCain's 'Clintonian' smear on the Romney position on Iraq is really low.
very tiresome...
Monkei
· 1 year ago
did we all just get dropped here from another planet or something? What is different this year that was not the same in 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1998 ....
these guys lie in person, in newsprint, in ads ...
we still have the primaries to finish out and then the general election ...
Brainster
· 1 year ago
Free market approach? Yeah, get health insurance or else we'll fine you $912.
Ken
· 1 year ago
I live in Tampa and I've been hearing McCain's ad all day. Very negative, with this ominous music playing while the narrator reviews all the horrible stuff Mitt has left in his wake. Then the music shifts to all flowery and nice-nice sounds and they launch into McCain's positives. Overall it was a nasty hit piece, and it has been playing on all talk radio - news, politics, sports. I am a little surprised that they waited until today to run it (money issues, maybe?). It may have been more effective had they run it for the last few days.
Austin fitness trainer
· 1 year ago
"All in all, these are great topics for debate, somewhat clumsily and misleadingly presented, but not any way out of the ordinary for a political campaign."
All candidates do it, but only McCain has the temerity to call it straight talk. His is the most duplicitous of the lot. He now has the cover of the press. Matthews et al will turn on him in the general election
MarkD
· 1 year ago
Well, there is no "free market approach" possible, because the ERs can't refuse to treat the uninsured. So the only question to be resolved is "how do you want to pay for that?"
The rest is posturing.
MichaelSmith
· 1 year ago
Of course there is a "free market approach possible". All we have to do is repeal the thousands of laws that have screwed up the healthcare market.
The problem with emergency rooms is just ONE example..
There is one law that treats doctors as if they are slaves who can be forced to treat people who are then not required to pay for that treatment. This involuntary servitude is precisely what is forced on doctors and emergency room personnel by the "Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTLA)" of 1985, which provides for a fine of up to $50,000 for failure to comply with any of its provisions.
Under EMLTA, any bum who wants a warm bed on a cold night can come to the emergency room complaining of chest pains -- and the doctors have to perform enought tests to prove he is not having a heart attack or other serious problem before he can be discharged -- all work done with no obligation to pay on the bum's part, ever.
As a result of EMLTA, emergency rooms and the doctors who work there are losing money. Many are closing. Over 14% have closed since 1993, along with over 700 hospitals with nearly 200,000 beds.
This just makes existing emergency rooms that much more crowded. It also means that doctors and hospitals have to charge more for all other services to make up for their losses in the ER.
EMLTA should be repealed. No one has a right to force doctors or other emergency room personnel to work without compensation and against their will. They, and they alone, have the right to decide which, if any, patients they will see who cannot pay for their labor.
There is no RIGHT to healthcare, because there is no right to demand any amount of involuntary, uncompensated servitude on the part of others.
EMLTA is just one example of government screwing up the healthcare market. It is only the tip of the iceberg.
buy prescriptions
· 1 year ago
I agree. Very seldom do you find someone that runs a campaign that doesn't run down there opponent.
jharp
· 1 year ago
"They call the campaign "misleading" and complain that the ads take other points out of context. Mostly, though, they complain that the ads make opinion sound like fact:"
I've become to think this is standard operating procedure.
Really, is anyone surprised in the least?
AH_C
· 1 year ago
As a matter of fact, I shouldn't be surprised that campaign flunkies run with the distortions & opinions and repeat them ad nauseum as fact across the board.
John Norris Brown
· 1 year ago
Regardless of who Romney's healthcare plan ultimately pans out, I don't see how it's a valid use of government to force people to have health insurance. This is America - you have a God-given right to be an idiot if you want.
ReaganEraGrunt
· 1 year ago
The problem is that the rest of us taxpayers get to pay not only our insurance premiums but the added cost of those idiots without insurance who utilize the emergency room. The government requires people to have at least liability insurance for their automobile. Is this less coercive than requiring health insurance?
One improvement method would be to offer cafeteria type plans where you choose the coverage you want, the deductible, and copay you want. A cafeteria plan makes more sense than the one size fits all plan designed to cover every conceivable medical issue with no consideration for sex, marital status, age, or lifestyle choices such as smoking. Then allow the individual to purchase thier plan on the open market so it isn't tied to your employer and give the tax break to the individual. If you can use pre-tax dollars it would be an even better deal.
Those unpaid hospital bills don't go away; they are passed on to the rest of us with insurance.
PaulK
· 1 year ago
A couple of weeks ago I received my 2007 Massachusetts income tax forms complete with the large notice on the front cover announcing the new form I have to fill out to prove I have health insurance. I love getting new forms to fill out with my income tax. I feel heathier already.
The number of people enrolled in the new plan is a direct reflection of how close we are to April 15, nothing more, nothing less.
I don't know one single self-employed person who likes this approach.
Most importantly, it should be obvious to everyone that health insurance is not the same thing as health care. Money paid into a health insurance policy is NOT money paid for health care any more than money paid for car insurance is money paid to repair your car. Most people spend more money on their car insurance than they will ever collect in car repairs. The only way an insurance-based approach to health care will be self-financing is if more people pay in than collect. When I pay money into some plan that is specifically designed so that the money will probably go to someone else, and I have to prove that I did that on my income tax form, that is a tax. It doesn't matter if that money is payed to a non-government agency as long as it is the government that is requiring me to pay it. Smells like FICA to me, and we all know how well that's working out these days.
Of course, state-regulated car insurance works so well in Massachusetts I don't know why I'm sceptical about the health insurance.
And yes, I voted for Mitt for Governor. I won't make that mistake twice.
PoliticalSeason
· 1 year ago
Factcheck sounds whiny and niave. I agree with the general tone of their review which is that this is a bunch of misleading vitriol being dished up for voters. I honestly think we have lost the gene for campaigning in a non negative fashion in this country.
StargazerA5
· 1 year ago
Um, no. Popularity isn't an issue for the new insurance program in Massachusetts at all. You MUST sign up for health insurance or pay a penalty in your taxes. And they make sure you are doing so by forcing you to submit a new form (Form 1099 HC), which includes your insurance information (including your subscriber number!!!) when you file your taxes.
Again, if you don't have health insurance and/or do not turn over significant health insurance identifying information, you will be severely penalized in your taxes.
StargazerA5
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
Agreed about the first point (healthcare).
With regard to the auto industry, I respectfully differ. The money went to an industry which needs to plow more of its profits back into R&D or risk being rendered obsolete, and a government till-fill of their R&D cash register is indeed a bailout.
Adjoran
· 1 year ago
Anyone who regards a $400 million cost overrun as a "success" is more than welcome to pay for it themselves, and stay out of my pockets. Massachusetts will be looking to the federal government for bail-out money.
Oh, the program is "more popular than expected," is it? Wow, who knew massive subsidies would draw so many people? Other than anyone with about a minute's worth of economic education, I mean?
Now, McCain is lying through his teeth about the "Iraq timetable" thing and knows it, and he's misrepresenting Romney's "R&D" proposal - which is still a terrible idea - but when a program costs this much more than advertised, I don't see how you call it a "success." It's as if you were giving away free lunches, and were completely surprised at the demand . . .
always_right
· 1 year ago
Think. Expand that Masschusetts model (re: healthcare) onto the whole nation, with untold millions of illegals thrown in. Well, I imagine the percentage of illegals in MA is small.
That is a real picture no matter which current front runner ends up in the WH. Who's fighting against the idea? McCain will want to reach a deal with the dems. Romney? Obama? Mrs. Clinton?
harleycon5
· 1 year ago
The "STraight talk express" derailed this week, causing untold damage to the aging choo-choo. I have to say that it is interesting that we are seeing similar tactics as were used against Bush in 2000. Back then, we were all told by McCain that Bush had launched an unkind series of push polls smearing him, even saying he had fathered an African American child. Bush tackled these charges by putting out the records to all the calls his organizations had made (No smears were found) and asked McCain to do the same. The result? A flat NO from the McCain camp. So, if these calls were indeed being made, it does make you wonder if it was McCain's organization.
I guess he liked dirty tricks back then, and he still likes them. I wonder if they will work any better this time?
And, I just noticed that Drudge is reporting that poll workers are being told to "let Independents choose" what side they want to vote on, rather than having to be registered as a Republican or Dem in advance. No wonder we saw Pro-Amnesty Gov. Christ supporting McCain. Birds of a feather....
JeffLindsay
· 1 year ago
Saint John's halo is gone. St. John of Arizona's crooked-talk claim in Florida was that Mitt Romney wanted to "surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do" in Iraq because Romney "wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster." George Will, Running Against Clintons http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A... http://www.politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com/
CNN & New York Times say McCain's claim is a lie since Romney never supported any date for withdrawal. Bob Bennet also repudiated McCain's lie as 'below the belt', quite an understatement! "honor has been McCain's watchword — he should admit that was wrong to do." Washington Post give McCain "three pinochios" or pinocchio's http://elderscapes.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mo...
Following the debate, MSNBC's David Shuster noted McCain's response in a fact check, asserting, "John McCain was asked a question during the debte that included a quote about McCain talking about economics. And McCain denied the quote." After airing a video clip of the exchange, Shuster asserted: "Well, actually, NBC News got that quote from last month. John McCain was heard saying on December 17th in The Boston Globe and Time magazine, quote, 'The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book.' " Following Shuster's fact check, Matthews himself acknowledged McCain's lack of "candor," asking Newsweek's Howard Fineman, "Howard, the "Straight Talk Express": Did it stall tonight? Was it derailed by his denial of a quote that's on the record?" In his response, Fineman asserted, "You can't pretend that you didn't say something you said. You just can't wish it away."...
RUSSERT: Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, quote, "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that, by your own acknowledgment, you are not well-versed on. McCAIN: Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from.
MATTHEWS: Howard, the "Straight Talk Express": Did it stall tonight? Was it derailed by his denial of a quote that's on the record? FINEMAN: I think he straight-talked him right over that bridge -- himself right over that bridge to nowhere that he kept talking about. You can't pretend that you didn't say something you said. You just can't wish
MATTHEWS: Bob, it's amazing that, you know, we all in the media salute candor, because we do believe in it. It's also useful in the news coverage. You can actually cover a guy if he's honest. HERBERT: Right. MATTHEWS: John McCain admitting that his strong suit is not the economy on a number of occasions, and now waffling on that on Meet the Press -- do you think that'll hurt him? Just saying, "I'm not good at what we're all worried about." HERBERT: That might be a little bit too much candor. I mean, you don't want to show -- you don't want to suggest that you're not up to speed on the biggest issue facing the country in a presidential election. http://mediamatters.org/items/200801300008 http://www.politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com
All Comments
People forget that they don't have an issue with mandatory auto insurance in order to drive public roads, let alone mandatory full coverage for autos on lien. Nor do they have a problem with mandatory home/mortgage insurance if they want their home financed. Not much difference here where the govt can expect to be stuck with all or part of the tab for treating the uninsnured.
Again, I don't like the slippery slope we find ourselves on, but we have to do something to mitigate the overall damage, lest the donks sink us all with their cluelessness & greed.
How long do you think it is going to be before doctors in Mass start acting like auto insurance companies? (That's a trick question, they already are. There is already a shortage of primary care physicians. Go to Harvard medical school and then move out of state as quickly as possible. The only reason the population of Mass is not declining is because of an influx of foreign immigrants greater than the emmigration of Mass natives.)
Actually, getting rid of the legacy union costs would make Detroit competitive overnight. You can't compete when every car you manufacture costs an additional $1,400 over the cost of your competitor. It cannot be done. There is a reason every auto manufacturer here that has a union is losing money, and every non-union manufacturer in the US is profitable, and it has little to no bearing on R&D budgets.
however, John McCain's 'Clintonian' smear on the Romney position on Iraq is really low.
very tiresome...
these guys lie in person, in newsprint, in ads ...
we still have the primaries to finish out and then the general election ...
All candidates do it, but only McCain has the temerity to call it straight talk. His is the most duplicitous of the lot. He now has the cover of the press. Matthews et al will turn on him in the general election
The rest is posturing.
The problem with emergency rooms is just ONE example..
There is one law that treats doctors as if they are slaves who can be forced to treat people who are then not required to pay for that treatment. This involuntary servitude is precisely what is forced on doctors and emergency room personnel by the "Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTLA)" of 1985, which provides for a fine of up to $50,000 for failure to comply with any of its provisions.
Under EMLTA, any bum who wants a warm bed on a cold night can come to the emergency room complaining of chest pains -- and the doctors have to perform enought tests to prove he is not having a heart attack or other serious problem before he can be discharged -- all work done with no obligation to pay on the bum's part, ever.
As a result of EMLTA, emergency rooms and the doctors who work there are losing money. Many are closing. Over 14% have closed since 1993, along with over 700 hospitals with nearly 200,000 beds.
This just makes existing emergency rooms that much more crowded. It also means that doctors and hospitals have to charge more for all other services to make up for their losses in the ER.
EMLTA should be repealed. No one has a right to force doctors or other emergency room personnel to work without compensation and against their will. They, and they alone, have the right to decide which, if any, patients they will see who cannot pay for their labor.
There is no RIGHT to healthcare, because there is no right to demand any amount of involuntary, uncompensated servitude on the part of others.
EMLTA is just one example of government screwing up the healthcare market. It is only the tip of the iceberg.
I've become to think this is standard operating procedure.
Really, is anyone surprised in the least?
One improvement method would be to offer cafeteria type plans where you choose the coverage you want, the deductible, and copay you want. A cafeteria plan makes more sense than the one size fits all plan designed to cover every conceivable medical issue with no consideration for sex, marital status, age, or lifestyle choices such as smoking. Then allow the individual to purchase thier plan on the open market so it isn't tied to your employer and give the tax break to the individual. If you can use pre-tax dollars it would be an even better deal.
Those unpaid hospital bills don't go away; they are passed on to the rest of us with insurance.
The number of people enrolled in the new plan is a direct reflection of how close we are to April 15, nothing more, nothing less.
I don't know one single self-employed person who likes this approach.
Most importantly, it should be obvious to everyone that health insurance is not the same thing as health care. Money paid into a health insurance policy is NOT money paid for health care any more than money paid for car insurance is money paid to repair your car. Most people spend more money on their car insurance than they will ever collect in car repairs. The only way an insurance-based approach to health care will be self-financing is if more people pay in than collect. When I pay money into some plan that is specifically designed so that the money will probably go to someone else, and I have to prove that I did that on my income tax form, that is a tax. It doesn't matter if that money is payed to a non-government agency as long as it is the government that is requiring me to pay it. Smells like FICA to me, and we all know how well that's working out these days.
Of course, state-regulated car insurance works so well in Massachusetts I don't know why I'm sceptical about the health insurance.
And yes, I voted for Mitt for Governor. I won't make that mistake twice.
Again, if you don't have health insurance and/or do not turn over significant health insurance identifying information, you will be severely penalized in your taxes.
StargazerA5
With regard to the auto industry, I respectfully differ. The money went to an industry which needs to plow more of its profits back into R&D or risk being rendered obsolete, and a government till-fill of their R&D cash register is indeed a bailout.
Oh, the program is "more popular than expected," is it? Wow, who knew massive subsidies would draw so many people? Other than anyone with about a minute's worth of economic education, I mean?
Now, McCain is lying through his teeth about the "Iraq timetable" thing and knows it, and he's misrepresenting Romney's "R&D" proposal - which is still a terrible idea - but when a program costs this much more than advertised, I don't see how you call it a "success." It's as if you were giving away free lunches, and were completely surprised at the demand . . .
That is a real picture no matter which current front runner ends up in the WH. Who's fighting against the idea? McCain will want to reach a deal with the dems. Romney? Obama? Mrs. Clinton?
I have to say that it is interesting that we are seeing similar tactics as were used against Bush in 2000. Back then, we were all told by McCain that Bush had launched an unkind series of push polls smearing him, even saying he had fathered an African American child. Bush tackled these charges by putting out the records to all the calls his organizations had made (No smears were found) and asked McCain to do the same. The result? A flat NO from the McCain camp. So, if these calls were indeed being made, it does make you wonder if it was McCain's organization.
I guess he liked dirty tricks back then, and he still likes them. I wonder if they will work any better this time?
And, I just noticed that Drudge is reporting that poll workers are being told to "let Independents choose" what side they want to vote on, rather than having to be registered as a Republican or Dem in advance. No wonder we saw Pro-Amnesty Gov. Christ supporting McCain. Birds of a feather....
George Will, Running Against Clintons
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A...
http://www.politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com/
CNN & New York Times say McCain's claim is a lie since Romney never supported any date for withdrawal. Bob Bennet also repudiated McCain's lie as 'below the belt', quite an understatement! "honor has been McCain's watchword — he should admit that was wrong to do." Washington Post give McCain "three pinochios" or pinocchio's
http://elderscapes.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mo...
Ann Coulter Endorses Romney and calls McCain the REAL Flip-Flopper and Fake
STRAIGHT TALK' EXPRESS TAKES SCENIC ROUTE TO TRUTH http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi...
GOP TO EDWARDS: HOW MUCH FOR THAT CONCESSION SPEECH?January 30, 2008
http://www.anncoulter.com/
Elephant in the Room
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi...
RUSSERT: Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, quote, "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that, by your own acknowledgment, you are not well-versed on.
McCAIN: Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from.
MATTHEWS: Howard, the "Straight Talk Express": Did it stall tonight? Was it derailed by his denial of a quote that's on the record?
FINEMAN: I think he straight-talked him right over that bridge -- himself right over that bridge to nowhere that he kept talking about. You can't pretend that you didn't say something you said. You just can't wish
MATTHEWS: Bob, it's amazing that, you know, we all in the media salute candor, because we do believe in it. It's also useful in the news coverage. You can actually cover a guy if he's honest.
HERBERT: Right.
MATTHEWS: John McCain admitting that his strong suit is not the economy on a number of occasions, and now waffling on that on Meet the Press -- do you think that'll hurt him? Just saying, "I'm not good at what we're all worried about."
HERBERT: That might be a little bit too much candor. I mean, you don't want to show -- you don't want to suggest that you're not up to speed on the biggest issue facing the country in a presidential election.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801300008
http://www.politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com