Tuesday, December 27, 2011

It's Opposite Day again for Republicans; They hate freeloaders, so…you guessed it, they will encourage health care freeloading!!!

On the campaign trail, the two GOP front-runners are men who have both embraced the hated “individual mandate” in the past. Both Gingrich and Romney … have proposed similar ideas.

In a jaw dropping vision of a freeloader utopia:
WP: What about people who remain uninsured? Romney would allot each state a pool of taxpayer money to provide for their care.
How nice! Hey, Romney believes in the freedom to freeload. Gingrich goes one step beyond;
Gingrich envisions a system in which the government puts aside the tax breaks that a particular uninsured person would have received. The taxpayer money would then be sent to his or her local community to pay the doctor bills if the person gets sick.
Huh? And what happens if that amount isn’t enough, and higher costs started taking money away from  other taxpayers? Isn't that what the whole entitlement argument is about?  

And then there’s this outrageous statement from Newt:
“You don’t want to buy the insurance? Fine,” Gingrich explained on CNN this month. “Your share of the tax credit goes into a charity pool. Something happens to you, you’re taken care of by that charity pool.”
Is anything more nanny state or irresponsible? Does anyone think a person’s tax credit will begin to pay for even a minor fracture, much less cancer treatment?

These people have no clue about health care’s biggest problems or what it costs.

Just as surreal, on the subject of selling insurance across state lines and letting insurers do what they want, Romney incredibly thinks VOTERS will somehow stop the abuses. To sum it up; voters have to figure out what politicians weren’t doing enough to regulate insurers, by politicians that hate regulations in the first place, and then vote them out…my head is hurting.
If a state’s insurers got out of control, the states’ residents could solve the problem by themselves. “The people of that state are going to vote out of office the people that don’t do a good job,” he said at a speech in May.
More upfront, draconian and frightening:
Romney has also said he would do away with the Obama plan’s rule that prevents companies from denying coverage for “preexisting” conditions. Romney would offer that guarantee only to people who have maintained continuous health insurance — not those who are without it. Gingrich’s plan does not offer that guarantee: He proposes expanding state “high-risk” coverage plans that people with preexisting conditions could buy.
And that means unaffordable premiums for the sick instituted by government health care risk pools.

As for the Republican plan for reform...:
If “repeal” is enough for the GOP primary, then the details of “replace” should wait until later. “You don’t want to be terribly detailed,” said Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), who advised McCain in his presidential run, and saw the details of his ideas turned into weapons by Obama. “It’s a whole lot easier to demagogue the ‘con’ than it is to defend the ‘pro.’ ”

No comments:

Post a Comment