Romney Wants Mandatory Universal Healthcare
Written by Sam on December 5th, 2005Here is one of many good reasons to forget about Romney in ‘08.
Here is how it would work. Massachusetts now spends about $1 billion a year to provide emergency health care for at least 500,000 uninsured citizens. About 200,000 of those are young people, predominantly male, who are making enough money to buy health insurance but figure they don’t need it. They would be required to buy a relatively inexpensive health insurance policy, with higher deductibles and co-pays—that’s where the “mandate” comes in. Another 100,000 are extremely poor people who are eligible for Medicaid; a concerted effort would be made to bring them into the system. The remaining 200,000 are the people who have been most neglected by the system in the past: the working poor, people who have low-end service jobs or work part time for employers who don’t offer health coverage.
Of course this idea would start in the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts. I already have questions on this proposal. How much is this “relatively inexpensive” policy and how long will it remain “relatively inexpensive”?
Oh, and look whose going to donate!
The Bush Administration will kick in another $1 billion, over three years, to make the experiment work if Romney can get a suitable proposal through his state legislature.
There’s that “conservative”, small government loving President of ours again. Never saw that one coming.
But here’s the real meat and potatoes of it all, the part that really shows how out of touch Romney is:
“Our plan would cost the poorest eligible families only about $2 per week in premiums,” Romney said. “The more you earn, the more you pay.” Sounds simple enough. So why hasn’t it been tried before? Because interest groups on the left and right hate the idea. Conservatives don’t like the mandatory part: if a 28-year-old software designer doesn’t want to buy health insurance, why should the government force him to do so? Simple answer: fairness. The rest of us pay for it now when he drives his motorcycle into a tree and runs up a huge medical bill. Health insurance should be no different from auto insurance, a basic civic responsibility. There’s also a larger argument for the common good: the more healthy young people are paying into the system, the lower the premiums for everyone else.
Catch the key phrases here: “The more you earn, the more you pay.” “A large argument for the common good“. “the more healthy young people are paying into the system, the lower the premiums for everyone else.”
This is Socialism is at its finest, folks. Not only will the loyal subjects of the People’s Republic be forced to buy healthcare coverage whether they want it or not, they will have to pay more for it as they become more successful in life. Of course, the policy coverage will still be the same. Additionally, people who do not feel the need for healthcare coverage will now be forced to buy it so that other people can have a lower premium. Yeah, that sounds real fair to me.
This clearly is another example of government overreaching its bounds. The government has no business being involved in anyone’s healthcare to begin with and now they want to require it whether you want it or not? Klein also makes a point that health insurance should be no different than auto insurance and is everyone’s civic responsibility. What an assinine statement. The point of requiring auto insurance, which I never opposed, was to make sure that if someone messes me or my car up in an accident they are going to be able to foot the bill. My health insurance doesn’t cover someone else that I might do harm to, so this is an apples and oranges argument.
Oh, Mitty, say it ain’t so. I don’t need to know much more about you to know that you are clueless as to what limited government means. Forget about ‘08. Hopefully, your plan will get flushed down the same toilet as Hillarycare, but we are talking about Massachusetts, so these are hard odds to call.
And where have I heard that reference to the “common good” before. Oh, yeah, that’s right:
“Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” - Senator Hillary Clinton, June 29th, 2004, speech at fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer.
5
PM
I think you are off base here. There is a distict difference between providing people the means to gain access to our supierior healthcare system, and providing worthless health care for free. There is a significant problem in this country with the cost of healthcare - end the ridiculous medical malpractice lawsuits and you will bring down the insurance cost and the cost of defensive medicine - I think we can establish that some basic form of healthcare is a right…if someone is bleeding to death and walks into the hospital will you turn them away? I believe the hospital needs to be compensated.
If we must provide some form of healthcare, this system is much preferable to government hospitals like in Canada and Sweeden. The last thing we want is to get socialized medicine - it will have a drastic effect on our wellbeing.
How do you propose we provide a basic level of healthcare to people without the government doing it? You give the people a subsidy. The problem is balancing that with our need to have a free society.
I am adamantly small government - but are roads not paid for and built for the Common Good?
6
AM
I agree you’re missing the point on this, hold judgement until you see it in action if you ever do. He’s pointing out that the gov’t pays for these peopel anyway. let’s be clear THE GOVT ALREADY PAYS FOR EMERGENCY CARE. Hospitals are not allowed to turn poeple away. His point makes sense, he is ELIMINATING a saftey net. Right now people take the risk knowingly of not having insurance, even though they can afford it. They tell themsevles “oh thats fine, the gov’t will back me up if i’m wrong.” Romney’s plan says “you can’t do that anymore” These people have to get insurance if they can afford it.
6
AM
There’s nothing universal about it. This is medicare reform plain and simple. We’ve been asking for that for years. Whats wrong with getting freeloaders to pay their own way. This is a great plan.
6
AM
hey me again. I did some research on the bill, and I don’t think you’re representing the phrase “mandatory” right. Its only madatory for the people who don’t qualify for either medicare or already have insurance. And its paid for by those specific people themselves. The regular people who already have insurance will not be affected at all.
You must bear in mind, we already have govt health insurance for the poor, for the elderly, and for the young. This affects the middle aged who don’t fall into the medicaid or medicare coverage areas. Right now, millions of them choose not to get health insurance becaue more likely than not they will never need it. The few that do, have the gov’t to fall back on. This requires them to pool their resources and all buy very cheap health insurance so that they cannot gamble with the governments money as they currently do.
You’re completly off when you call it “socialized medicine” akin to canada or GB. 1st, socialized medicine is universal: everyone has the same system and same coverage, private coverage does not exist. 2nd, socialized medicine is nationalized. Doctors are essentially gov’t employees who work at gov’t run clinics and hospitals. 3. In socialized medicine their is no choice. Individuals cannot choose their plans or coverage. And 4. in socialized medicine the gov’t pays for it. In this plan it is still paid for by individuals or buisnesses.
Conservatives arent do nothings, we simpley believe that there is a better way of doing things. Capitalism provides better results than gov’t programs, free market incentives create more efficency than beuracracy, and individuals should not be responsible for paying the price for others mistakes and bad choices.
People without health insurance is a problem period. Conservatives should not see any policy that attempts to answer the problem as automatically wrong. This plan satisfies everything conservatives want in policy. At the very least its the best i’ve seen so far.
6
AM
and “common good” was the journalists words, definitly not romney’s.
6
AM
“You must bear in mind, we already have govt health insurance for the poor, for the elderly, and for the young. This affects the middle aged who don’t fall into the medicaid or medicare coverage areas.”
We shouldn’t have it for the poor or the elderly or the young. Show me in the Constitution where that is even allowed. This is big government, plain and simple. The one group of people who are still standing on their own two feet are going to be forced to buy into an insurance program by their own government. Fucking retarded, but that is what Mass. deserves for having the dumbest voters of any state in the nation.
“People without health insurance is a problem period. Conservatives should not see any policy that attempts to answer the problem as automatically wrong.”
People without health insurance arre fucking stupid and deserve what happens to them when they need medical care. I should be forced to foot the bill because they are stupid? Any policy that forces a person to be smart is bound to fail, remember these people are “outside of the system” for a reason, they aren’t very freaking bright. They simply don’t give a shit about life for the most part and forcing them into a system they don’t care about it madness.
6
AM
Could we have a little class here fellas and abstain from obsceneties? It’s really not that hard…
6
PM
I have to disagree that I am off base here.
The cost of health care is high for many reasons. Medical malpractice lawsuits is one of them, but not the only one. Another reason is that there is no real free market in the health industry, no competition. Medicaid, Medicare, and everyone’s HMO’s are also reasons why healthcare is so costly. All of these plans result in your paying a little to nothing for your health care services and the program covers most of the cost. Because of that, there is no free market force driving the cost of healthcare down. Joe Blow who pays a $20 copay doesn’t care that his prescription actually costs $200 because he isn’t paying it. Medicaid recipients don’t care how much their doctor visits actually cost because they aren’t paying for it. The drug companies are able to jack their prices up sky high because there is no direct consumer demand for them to be lower. Hence, the ones who don’t have insurance these days get screwed. The solution is to get rid of these worthless programs and HMO’s and have everyone go with a catastrophic insurance policy and have a Health Savings Account. The cost of healthcare would plummet.
Aside from this it really doesn’t matter. Romney’s plan is unconstitutional. The government has no right or authority to be in the business of providing health care or forcing anyone to buy insurance. I thought Liberals were all against the government telling us what to do with our bodies. I agree with Mike in that if someone elects not to have healthcare coverage that is their stupidity. They made their bed and they should have to lay in it.
6
PM
“Its only madatory for the people who don’t qualify for either medicare or already have insurance.”
There is no misrepresentation on it being mandatory, as you just pointed out. If they don’t have another insurance plan, they are forced to buy this one against their will. That makes it mandatory and wrong.
“How do you propose we provide a basic level of healthcare to people without the government doing it?”
I don’t propose anything. It’s not the government’s right or business to worry about that. People need to be responsible for themselves.
6
PM
“People without health insurance are stupid and deserve what happens to them when they need medical care. I should be forced to foot the bill because they are stupid?”
“I agree with Mike in that if someone elects not to have healthcare coverage that is their stupidity. They made their bed and they should have to lay in it.”
“People need to be responsible for themselves.”
You guys are totally missing the point, gov’t currently pays for emergency care. You keep talking about how if they choose to have no insurance they should have to deal with it. They don’t deal with it, the taxpayers do. We have to foot the bill for their choice. The main point romney was making in the article is that MA already spends 1 billion on this kind of care.
And as for competition, the market force that should be working to keep the prices down is the insurance companies themselves who have a financial interest and profit motive to keep doctors costs down, much in the same way that car insurance companies are very stict on saftey testing so they dont get stuck with huge injury payouts.
I completly agree that the medical system is in need of huge reform through msa’s and medical liablity reform. But this plan isnt trying to address that, its a seperate issue. This plan keeps market forces on the private commercial side.
6
PM
“You guys are totally missing the point, gov’t currently pays for emergency care. You keep talking about how if they choose to have no insurance they should have to deal with it. They don’t deal with it, the taxpayers do. We have to foot the bill for their choice. The main point romney was making in the article is that MA already spends 1 billion on this kind of care.”
I’m not missing the point. I am well aware of who pays for this. The question is, why? Why are taxpayers footing the bill? That is the real problem isn’t it. The government shouldn’t be paying this cost with our tax dollars. Romney’s solution only band-aids the issue, it doesn’t solve the real problem. I see this being akin to handing out clean needles to drug addicts.
If a person doesn’t have insurance then the hospital can bill them like normal and if the person doesn’t pay then they can go after them through the legal channels as any other business does. Maybe private charities can raise money for people who don’t have health insurance and can’t pay a hospital bill. Or, maybe they can just not treat them if they can’t pay for it. Yeah, it sounds harsh, but the Constitution doesn’t grant anyone the right to healthcare. Again, that’s the point you seem to keep ignoring. It’s not Constitutional for the government to force anyone to purchase a healthcare plan against their will. It doesn’t matter what the results yield. It’s not Constitutional. That’s the bottom line.
7
AM
“Could we have a little class here fellas and abstain from obsceneties? It’s really not that hard…”
Go be soft somehwhere else.
“Yeah I give it to them loud and dirty, so it’ll stick! I don’t want these men to love me, I want them to fight for me goddamnit!” - General Patton