1 But getting more people insured is supposed to lower costs, so...

2 If Santorum wins will that steal the thunder from Paul or Romney?

I mean, he's beating newt?

link

3 Yes! Hit this Terd of the Bass- In the Digits! Finally.

4 Didn't we cover this already? Government needs to stay out of healthcare. You get sick or need surgery? Pay for it.

5 If you require surgery go to the Container Store.  They have everything!

6 MassCare and TennCare both broke the budget. fact.

7 In other news:  It's started -- Gary Johnson goes third party Liberatarian.

8 Gary Johnson goes third party Liberatarian

Johnson/Paul '12!

9 And how eactly does this relate to the Builderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trileteral Commission and the chemtrail threat? You dont even once mention jews or gold or New Money in your post! Who is supposed to read that?

10 And Obama is a Stuttering Clusterfuck Of A Miserable Failure...

11 I kept health care costs low by allowing for abortions in the cases of rape and incest, and you wouldn't believe how much of that there is down around Beaumont.

Oh wait, no, I got that backwards somewhere.... no, I mean I changed my mind.... I mean.... uh.... shit.

12 If Santorum wins and he's the strongest Not-Romney coming into Florida he's got my vote. Though if Santorum wins i think he'll be a repeat of Huck, he'll hang out (broke) and split the conservative vote with Perry or Newt and we end up with Mittens... whole loses by 9 points on election day.

13 I've been thinking about Romney's defense of Romneycare as "conservative." After some derisive snorting, I realized that there is a real public policy conundrum here.  Consider these propositions:

1.  Politically, you can't just allow people to die or suffer from treatable conditions due to lack of money. 

2.  Someone has to pay for medical care.

3.  No matter how you slice it, the payor will either be (a) the patient (including his loved ones), or (2) the public.

If these three propositions are accepted as true, maybe it is a more conservative idea to compel people to pay for their own care by forcing them to buy insurance.  I mean, what is the "more conservative" alternative if you accept propositions 1 and 2?

That doesn't address indigents who can't pay for care or buy insurance, but that's an easier issue.

I'm the last guy to defend Romney (after Dan) but maybe he does have a point.

14 For example, ambulatory healthcare spending per capita was declining relative to the national average when Governor Romney first took office, but has steadily increased every year since then, climbing from 19 percent above the national average in 2003 to 29 percent above the national average by 2007 (figure 12.6c). yikes.

15  Gary Johnson goes third party Liberatarian

Johnson/Paul '12!

Posted by: nickless at December 28, 2011 04:33 PM (MMC8r)

 

If Luap Nor and Trump jump to the libertarian party, they'll have to have a primary.  Now that would be a hoot.

16

The media has focussed on the wrong statistic when it comes to healthcare for 20 years - insurance rolls.  Having state run insurance - so everyone is 100% covered does not produce better and cheaper medical results.  England is the proof of this.  The easiest way to improve the medical care is to untether health insurance from your job.  That wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.  But everyone says that it is too difficult and it is too late to do that.  Ok.  Seems like it would be pretty easy.  Start by giving individuals the exact same tax benefits that businesses get. 

17 I'd vote for Ron Paul before I get forced into paying for worthless people's healthcare, food, lodging, phones, library, internet. I would rather be mandated to have a freakin' martian telecommunicator on my roof than be forced to pay for some one else that is capable of taking care of themselves. Enough is enough.

18 I just want catastrophic coverage, what used to be called Hospitalization Insurance.  The rest I'll cover out of my pocket.

19 Prediction: We dont win the WH in 2012.
Romney takes Obamacare totally off the table in 2012, leaving him to talk only about the economy, where he will lose. As 47th in the nation during his tenure, he doesnt have a good record for managing a states employment levels. Add to the fact the media will use the bain story to say he cut jobs. It hurt him in 2008 and in 1994 with Ted Kennedy. People also used this argument against Meg Whitman from Ebay. He will also say stuff displeasing to the base to turn out independents while thinking the base will turn out for him. What. a. fool. They wont. Not to mention the media will rake him over the coals for mormonism and will spend the nightly news talking about magic underwear and Satan and Jesus being brothers. He also wont release his tax returns, which the media will use to disconnect him from the middle class.
In the polls currently, he is barely beating Obama. This is without a media anal exam. he wont last.

20 1.  Politically, you can't just allow people to die or suffer from treatable conditions due to lack of money. 

The alternative is socialism.

21 Without reading the comments, I guess that the immediate Romneyist response will be that the Dems put a bunch of stuff he didn't want in Romneycare and did even more damage after Romney's term ended.

Well - let's see.  enact a massive new gov't boondoggle.  Who could ever guess that the dems would do everything in their power to expand it and give away more freebies after it is put into place?  Who would ever have Guessed?  what historical precedence could there possibly be to alert you to something like that?  You would have to be a freaking genius Nosstradamus of epic proportions to ever guess something like that!!!

Leadership!!! Sing onto a really bad law b/c the dems who control the legislature would do it anyway^tm

That is leadership.  Give em what they want no matter what!

22 It's no problem if you pay in silver dimes!

23 I'm gay for Mitt.  He's dreamy.

24

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 28, 2011 04:38 PM (FKQng)

 

So I guess you've convinced yourself that Romney will get the nomination.  I'm certainly not convinced.  Remember.  Not one primary vote has been cast yet.  So much can happen between now and the end of this next summer.

25

@14.  You forgot the doctor who sacraficed 8 years earning a living by going to college, then medical school, then another 2 years of residency where he provided medical care for very little wage.  We could basically just tell him that he has to provide care for someone without payment or for little payment. 

Why can't we rely on the charity of Americans?  We rely on them to feed the hungry, why can't we rely on them for medical coverage?

26 As long as they keep printing Bernanke Bucks you won't find any cost that goes down, except for the exchange rate against certain oil soaked currencies.

27 Please I'm dead now.

28 20 Prediction: We dont win the WH in 2012.

Your predictions haven't been that hot in the past, kid.

29 14 - I'm sure there are people who don't go to get medical treatment because they can't afford it, but I think that's the same kind of poor decision-making that got them in the situation of not having insurance in the first place. I'm not trying to be heartless here, but it's not conservative to try to protect these people from their own bad behavior. Instead, if you try to compel people to pay for insurance, they won't comply. They don't now, when the rules are you must have car insurance. Those of us who are responsible, we STILL end up carrying their costs. In the end, if you can rework the current system, fine. But trying to get government to provide the safety net, it just causes costs for everyone to rise, while lowering access for everybody.

30 Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at December 28, 2011 04:36 PM (QKKT0)

In fairness, your points are why the Heritage Foundation and other supported the individual mandate idea early on.  Yes, if we concede that the gov't HAS to pay for health care if nobody else does, then you are right, making everyone pay up front is more conservative than having some people pay via taxes for everyone else.

I think the problem is that we end up ceding way too much to socialism/liberalism by conceding that somehow the gov't always has to pay for medical care. 

Moreover, the realization probably occurred that instituting national healthcare of any kind would grow gov't control over absolutely everything b/c everything touches on health somehow. 

So, we are back to a more conservative idea of finding ways to let the market bring health care costs down and reform medicare and medicaid to make those programs (which provide form the poor/elderly) less costly.

31 22 Without reading the comments, I guess that the immediate Romneyist response will be

Nah, it was to change the subject.  Sorta like their candidate tries to do. 

32 19 I just want catastrophic coverage, what used to be called Hospitalization Insurance.  The rest I'll cover out of my pocket.

Posted by: toby928© at December 28, 2011 04:37 PM (GTbGH)

You love me, you really really love me.  You remember me, fondly....aw thanks...

33  Politically, you can't just allow people to die or suffer from treatable conditions due to lack of money. 

The alternative is socialism.

Posted by: cicerokid at December 28, 2011 04:39 PM (boLoz)

 

Agree.  Perhaps we should start refering to Romneycare as Romney socialism.  That can be said of any other effort that forcibly takes money from one group of people to pay for the needs of another.

Welfare - Socialist redistribution

Food Stamps - Food Socialism

etc., etc.

34

So I guess you've convinced yourself that Romney will get the nomination.  I'm certainly not convinced.  Remember.  Not one primary vote has been cast yet.  So much can happen between now and the end of this next summer.

Posted by: Soona at December 28, 2011 04:43 PM (Lf3dT)

-------

Well if he is. I wont vote for President like i've said before. I want to vote for someone I like.

Scott Walker 2016? The field will be better then. We need one to fight Jeb Bush 2016.

35 35 - I'm convinced Romney will win the nomination. It was always his to lose, and like it or not, he hasn't lost it. No, the field won't be better in '16. It was supposed to be better in '12 after the '08 debacle.

36 In fairness to Romney, it s/b asked how much would costs have gone up if there had been a full fledged government takeover of the entire Massachusetts medical system - which is whay his political opponents wanted. The likely answer is, Much more. You can't reasonably expect the governor of the most liberal state in the country to Go Galt.

37 I'm sure there are people who don't go to get medical treatment because they can't afford it, but I think that's the same kind of poor decision-making that got them in the situation of not having insurance in the first place.

I agree; medical costs in America skyrocketing to the point where lower-income blue-collar people can't afford treatment unless they buy insurance -- which has also skyrocketed to the point where they have to choose between paying their premiums or eating, which impacts their health to the point that they need the treatment -- is totally on those people's poor decision-making.

I'm all about getting people to live with the consequences of their decisions, which is why as president I will force rape victims to carry their resultant pregnancies to term, because getting raped is a pretty piss-poor life choice from which no one ought to escape responsibility.

38 Ace- got this in regards to your other post on Romneycare from a dude who's running Romneys campaign here in the west. Seems you guys read different newspapers... "Ace does not listen very good.  MR has pledged to repeal ObamaCare the first day he is in office by Executive Order and by prosuing repeal through the Congress.  [The Supreme Court may act before the election.]  Do you accept his campaign promise or not?   The reason Romney states the Mass. individual mandate is conservative for Mass. because it requires Mass. residents to demonstrate peronal responsibility for paying for their own health care.  Unlike ObamaCare that gives Cadillac like benefits to poor people who do not have to pay anything for health care, Mass. required all individuals to pay something for their health care.    Prior to the passage of the Mass. bill, thousands of individuals would not insure themselves for health care and would walk into public hospital ERs for treatment and pay nothing, transfering the cost to others.    The Mass. health insurance mandate is very much like mandatory auto liability insurance required in every state to have if you own a car.  You see the problems here with the many illegal aliens that do not have auto insurance and force others to pay higher auto insurance rates rates and for for claims caused by their neglience.

39 37 - That does seem to be the case for Romney, generally. The state would have been boned worse and sooner without him. Apparently he wants to bring that kind of slowing of the disaster to the rest of the country.

40

Posted by: Monkeytoe at December 28, 2011 04:45 PM (sOx93)

 

I can remember the days when churches and charities took up the slack of people who couldn't pay for medical treatment.  Just here in OKC, we have Presbyterian Hospital, Baptist Medical Center, Mercy Hospital (Catholic)who used to have all sorts of programs and funds to do this very thing.

Plus, the churches themselves would have offerings and charities to help not only for medical needs, but living need.  Even in my hometown of just 3000+, the First Baptist Church had the equivalent of an employment office to help people find work.  

41

One of the earliest health care proposals at the federal level was the 1854 Bill for the Benefit of the Indigent Insane, which would have established asylums for the indigent insane, as well as the blind, deaf, and dumb, via federal land grants to the states. This bill was proposed by activist Dorothea Dix, which passed both houses of congress, but was vetoed by president Franklin Pierce. Pierce argued that the federal government should not commit itself to social welfare, which he believed was properly the responsibility of the states.

Pierce's veto was seen as a landmark in social welfare legislation in the United States, the veto establishing federal non-participation in social welfare for over 70 years, until the New Deal legislation of the 1930s, in the context of the Great Depression.

Government social care in America is new and it does not work.

 

42 Santorum Time!!!

43  
The Mass. health insurance mandate is very much like mandatory auto liability insurance required in every state to have if you own a car.
----
Tell the guy he's delusional. Required auto insurance is required if you have a CAR, which you are not forced to buy. Required health insurance is required if you're breathing. Totally different.

44 "After I left office, the democrats destroyed healthcare in Mass. by radically changing it."

45 Good to see that article covered all of Romney''s vetoes that were overturned, and all the changes Deval and the Dem legislature made to the Act... wait. NEvermind.

46 Maybe McCain could be persuaded to run again.

47 39 - No, I don't believe Romney will repeal Obamacare, and if those are his arguments, they're not very good. Cost transfer already happens, it always has. States that institute any requirement to pay for coverage will never be able to enforce it. And for those who are "covered" without actually paying for it, they'll start to use more and more services, making them scarcer. Eventually you'll get doctors who say "screw it" and go somewhere else with less government interference (if such a place exists). And if we do this nationally, eventually our best and brightest will stop going to medical school. These are not scary fictional predictions, we already see that in all of socialized Europe and Canada, as well as the communist countries.

48

I can remember the days when churches and charities took up the slack of people who couldn't pay for medical treatment. 

Not to mention families. The church should only step in when your own extended family is not able or willing to help.

49 So Pierce would agree with Romney that the state of MA had the right to reform their healthcare system as they saw fit. I'll point out again that 'Romneycare' actually set a precedent that 10th amendment advocates should be cheering in that Romney was able to get the Fed to allow MA to use the Medicare funds allocated to MA as MA saw fit. This should be the case for all states as it's their tax money that is being allocated.

50 51 - Sure, states' rights and all that. What you're saying though is, Romney could institute a system that condemned his state to monumentally rising healthcare costs... and you want that for all 50 states? But Romney doesn't want that, right? He wants to repeal that plan, if it's for all 50 states... or something, right?

51 Utah has better than median health care, but comparing Texas to Massachusetts is apples and oranges. Texas has among the worst health care outcomes in the country. Sure, it's cheap, but you're going to die years younger on the average.

52 vote for the stuttering texan retard!

53 54 - If we take for granted (which I don't) that your stats are correct, you've eliminated all other variables and concluded Mass. life expectancy is higher than Texas due to Romneycare... how??

54 Funny that RomneyCare was not enacted until 2006 but the implication is that healthcare costs only started to rise in MA after Romneycare.

55 58 - No, that's not the implication. It's that they were rising already, rose faster while Romney was in office, and are rising still, now that there's a Dem in his place... or did you think once Romney was out, the system he put in place would remain "unimproved" by the Dems?

56 Stay tuned; as this Iowa thing gets closer I may also decide to oppose abortions in cases where the mother's life is endangered, too.  You get knocked up, you takes your chances.  Responsibility.

No one can say I don't have my priorities on the issues straight.

57 Tell me why healthcare costs were rising before Romneycare.

58 62 - It's generally due to Medicare and Medicaid... those other government "solutions" to healthcare.

59

This is starting to get pointless.

Everybody already know Romney sucks.

No amount of shrill shilling will resurrect Perry's moribund campaign which is currently mired in desperation flip-flop panders to aging rural evangelicals.

Our candidates suck, news at 11.

60 The problem in Massachusetts was exacerbated after Romney left office and Democrats refused to allow premium rate increases to match the rising costs.  This is why the government costs exploded.  Had they followed the plan's design, those costs would have been passed on to consumers - as they should be.

Now of course that plan has other defects, too - it was passed by a liberal Democratic legislature, after all - but it's hard to blame Romney for the results of mismanagement after he left office.

61 64 - You want to know the point? I'm one of the 75% who doesn't support Romney. I believe he's going to win the nomination. If he's going to be "our" nominee, he better get used to hearing criticism from us.

62 65 - Nixon still gets criticized for setting up the EPA. That's how government works, once you start something you can't control its growth after you leave office, and it's darned near impossible for others to come behind you to end it. Better to not start it in the first place. Romney started it.

63 The worst failure of obamacare is that they claimed we needed to revamp the system so that more people could have access to healthcare coverage.  The reality appears to be that way more people aren't insured as compared to the old system.  There are in fact fewer people with access to healthcare and it is way way way more expensive than it was.  And, it seems like there is more rampant fraud out there.  A feeding frenzy by one and all

64 Oregon's health plan is bankrupting the state and driving both doctors and insurers out, but nobody even mentions it as a budget cut. Its not on the table, its not even whispered in the room.

65 YouÂ’re a very skilled blogger. I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your magnificent post. Also, IÂ’ve shared your site in my social networks!

66

There's only one way to stop this crap. First, it's a conflict of interest to vote for people that can (and do) give you more money. So, anyone taking welfare or other government payments must recuse themselves from voting - AND INFORCE IT. Second, no more monetary welfare of any kind. We build welfare clinics and hospitals and soup kitchens and hostels/barracks for the poor.

Anyone caught cheating will be barred for life.

67

www.genset-china.com

happy  everyday