Mitt Romney: Health Care At Gun Point
I can’t believe anyone would listen to Mitt Romney and consider him a real alternative for President to…well…anyone other than Ron Paul. Republicans like to blast Hillary Clinton for many things, among those is the spectre of a socialized health care system. Yet Romney himself is responsible for one of the most sweeping government intrusions into health care we’ve seen to date, with Massachusetts forced insurance coverage law.
And now he’s proposing to inflict Romney care on all Americans within four years.
What’s even worse is that Romney thinks using government to force people into a health care system they wouldn’t freely choose is a demonstration of his commitment to free market principles. Speaking of Hillary:
"My approach is based on the free enterprise system and personal responsibility — hers is based on government," Romney said.Um, no, Mitt. Your approach is based on government. That’s why you want to pass a law to get the job done. Its not based on personal responsibility, because you are proposing to make government responsible for making these decisions for people.
Furthermore, how can this be seen as anything other than a tax increase on the poor and middle class? If you, or your employer, are forced to spend your money to buy something, isn't that the same thing as a tax? Of course, it'll be a huge windfall for big insurance companies, which I'm sure will be ecstatic to have Romney care.
posted by Libertarian Jason at 12:17 PM
2 Comments:
- Swing and a miss -
I'll make the point you probably already know:
Whether or not a person is insured does not affect the fact that they WILL and DO need medical care.
Right now...GOVERNMENT picks up the tab for those who can't or won't buy health insurance. Romney's plan flips that around...helping those who can't...and making those who won't to quit getting a free ride off of government funds.
This directly lowers health care costs by virtually eliminating the problems doctors have with non-payers. It lowers insurance premiums as a result of the lower medical fees and higher participation. It's brilliant - and it's not Hillarycare!!!!...whew
Hey Beau.. Thaks for the comment. My response is,
A) I'm not aware that non-payers is that huge of a problem in our system. Perhaps you can point me to some sources?
B) If government picks up the tab for irresponsible people, then wouldn't be a better idea to stop having government pick up the tab? If government welfare is the problem, then why not get rid of the welfare system that's forcing govt to pick up the tab in the first place? That way... individuals can truly be held responsible for their health care.
C) You seem to be arguing both sides. You claim that doctors get shafted by non-payers... but then turn around and say that government picks up the tab. So if govt is picking up the tab, then how is it that doctors are not getting paid? Who exactly is government giving the money to?
D)How does forcing a person to buy health insurance they cannot afford...or would rather not pay for...help them? I don't see how this would lower prices, since Economics 101 teaches us that greater demand for a good or service, all things equal, leads to an upward pressure on prices. Also, as I happen to know someone who has a very serious heart condition...this person will not be covered by any insurance company AT ANY price... How does punishing him for something beyond his control help him?
Say what you want about Romney's plans. My point was simply that government getting MORE involved in health care is NOT a promotion of the free market, nor is it a promotion of individual responsibility. If Romney truly wanted to promote market solutions, he should be looking to get government out of the picture. He's not. He wants to use government to force people to do what he personally thinks they need to do.
Post a Comment
<< Home