Just in case you run into a Romney backer - here is his solution for healthcare. Fines.

[DS1]

His initiative, which is currently being nullified ( I believe ) in Massachusetts where the contingent of "idiot shitwhistles" voted him in office, essentially fines the citizen if they don't have health insurance.

This goes beyond funneling money to the corporations who have no interest in actually helping you. You either give them money to possibly help you, or you give the state money.

Can't afford health insurance? Pay up, sucker.

Romney's plan says everyone should: The state would work harder to enroll all residents eligible for Medicaid; employers, most of whom already offer insurance, would be encouraged to continue doing so voluntarily; and individuals who don't have insurance would have to sign on to one of two new insurance pools, one of which would be subsidized for lower-income residents.

Failing to sign up could lead to a loss of a personal tax exemption or garnishment of wages.

Romney's plan comes as politicians, employers and benefit consulting firms are focused on the latest trend in health care cost control: "personal responsibility."

link : http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2005-07-04-health-insurance-usat_x.htm

[JenniferJuniper]

1. Can you imagine

the bureaucracy that is going to have to be created to police this? I'm in Mass, and a neighbor told me recently that she cannot afford a policy and would rather take her chances and "let 'em find me". I'm sure most healthy 20 somethings with crummy jobs feel the same way.

And ultimately, this will all end with employers who currently subsidize health coverage telling their employees they can go buy their own policies through the pool. The employers win, the insurance companies win, and just like with the pensions, the people lose.

[JenniferJuniper]

2. and just to be clear

it was not nullified. It is the law in Massachusetts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937.html

[JDPriestly]

3. I do not understand how the government can have the right

under the Constitution to require people to pay private companies for health insurance. I do not question that the government can require people to pay for government-run programs. The analogy with car insurance does not work. Driving a car is not an innate right. The government requires you to buy car insurance in exchange for obtaining the right to drive a car. That is questionable enough.

But, being alive is an innate right. I do not see how the government can force you to pay a private company upon penalty of any kind including a fine just to be alive. And that is what it sounds like Massachusetts does. If you breathe, you have to pay a private company for your health insurance. I may be wrong, but I understand, what is more, that you can't just pay any health insurance company, but that you have to pay your monthly fee for living to a private company approved and selected by the government. To me, that is a sort of slavery. Pay your fee to this company or we will fine you. Considering that money represents value, either time/work or assets, it is as if you were forced to give your time/work or assets directly to the private company.

It will be very difficult to simply eliminate private companies from the health care provider scenario. They are not going to go peacefully. That is why, although I would prefer a purely government system like those I enjoyed in Europe, I think Edwards' plan is the most practical for our country now. Let the private insurance companies compete with the low cost of a government plan.

The doctors I met in Europe appeared to be very happy with the plans there which gave them a lot of autonomy. The relationship was direct between the patient and the doctor. The government required that certain pre- and post-natal care be given, and expensive or innovate medications had to be approved, but we had several unusual medical problems in our family, and the care was always approved without a problem. We paid small co-pays for medications -- to prevent abuses of the system.

I do not like the idea of requiring people to buy into these horrible private plans. And I don't think the government can do that. It is essentially equivalent to taking people's property for private use. I know the Supreme Court voted to allow that, but I don't think that will or should hold up. I believe that decision was a huge mistake.

[DS1]

4. You've cleary given this more thought than Mitt Romney

:thumbsup: