Which is the better health care plan....Hillary's government takeover, or Romney's private insurance plan?
On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed into law landmark legislation ensuring that every resident of Massachusetts would have access to affordable, portable, quality private health insurance – without higher taxes, an employer mandate or a government takeover of health care. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JimTalent/2007/08/21/mitt_romney_putting_conservative_principles_to_work_in_health_care
2007-08-21T06:49:06Z
tony....good point
2007-08-21T06:50:35Z
Andrew M....I think those in Canada and England might have a different take on it then you do.....
Anonymous2007-08-21T11:02:43Z
Favorite Answer
Gee I dunno. Romneys conservative plan that has worked in real life on the state level insuring the uninsured and lowering health care costs for the govt helping to preserve the private system? Or Hillarys socialization plan that got batted down before that never saw the light of day?
Boy thats a tough one!
rmagedon>We are lower middle class. We have very few of the luxuries you speak of but Im laid off right now and just happened to be having our 3rd child. My group coverage at work wouldnt cover it because they wanted $1000/mo to keep it going when it was $15/mo while working. I dont know how much money you have laying around, but I dont have a spare $1000/mo especially while laid off. Without medicaid paying for my wife only, we would be facing a MASSIVE bill that we wouldnt be able to pay.
Some govt help is needed to help well-intentioned people like me and my wife that arent big spenders, dont go to the doctor on every little whim, and simply fell through the cracks and really needed a safety net.
Social programs arent all evil nor the people on them. I dont mind paying a little extra in taxes if it helps people that fell into situations like me. But its a constant fight however to keep them from getting too big and too generous to the point that we are paying people to be unemployed or covering people that arent even supposed to be in this country. But I agree with you in principle that the free market is first and formost the best mechanism for industry.
At - INSUREDEAL.INFO- you can get quotes in just a few minutes
RE Which is the better health care plan....Hillary's government takeover, or Romney's private insurance plan?
On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed into law landmark legislation ensuring that every resident of Massachusetts would have access to affordable, portable, quality private health insurance – without higher taxes, an employer mandate or a government takeover of health care. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JimTalent/2007/08/21/mitt_romney_putting_conservative_principles_to_work_in_health_care
I might suggest that you try this web site where you can get rates from different companies: http://QUOTES-FOR-INSURANCE.NET/index.html?src=2YAiibwiXZ34
RE :Which is the better health care plan....Hillary's government takeover, or Romney's private insurance plan? On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed into law landmark legislation ensuring that every resident of Massachusetts would have access to affordable, portable, quality private health insurance – without higher taxes, an employer mandate or a government takeover of health care. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JimTa... Update: tony....good point Update 2: Andrew M....I think those in Canada and England might have a different take on it then you do..... 1 following 17 answers
If you believe in free market fundamentalism, no private insurance should fear public insurance in fair and free competition. If government can provide a better product at a lower price, of course businesses would fail. If you are grounded in reality, once universal health care comes into effect the private sector will not be able to compete from the public sector because of the nature of the health care. That is why the Big Pharma and Big Insurance are fighting the public option in the health care reform. The government will write the rules but rules to be written would good laws on the book: no exclusions of preexisting conditions.
I would prefer neither. When the government gets involved in business the costs go up and the service goes down.
Making insurance mandatory is a feel good measure and it infringes on the rights of those who choose not to have insurance. It is not like cars where the uninsured can cross the lane and injure me, so I do not see the need.
The fact is simply, if you have a computer, big screen TV, cable TV, multiple cell phones and plans, nice new cars with spiffy tires and wheels, you too can afford your own health care, just give up the luxuries. I went by accident through a ER a couple of weeks ago, you cannot believe the extravagant luxuries that people own that are in the ER saying they have no insurance, it is ridiculous for them to think they can afford their toys but yet want someone else to pay for their necessities.
Let the free market handle health care and let the government deal with roads and national security, like closing our borders and enforcing current immigration laws.
My current insurance plan, which I pay for 100%, has a $2500 deductible which I have to pay upfront, and I can assure you I use it wisely. Those with plans that someone else pays for go to doctors way too often and needlessly. If the insurance companies were not so tightly controlled by Congress we could get just catastrophic coverage only, which reduces the cost. By having a large deductible on mine, the cost is almost 40% less than it was before with no deductible. The free market works if the Congress would get out of it.
People have to be personally responsible for their health care, if they are not, and rely on Mother government to pay for it, the costs will skyrocket and the quality of service will deteriorate. I do not want anything that resembles the failing socialist systems of Canada or the EU, they are horrible.