Unfortunately, they will also have very little body….

BTW, you can view what URL the link will take you to before you click on it. Just scroll over it and look at your status bar on the bottom (in IE7).

Also works for Firefox.

Could you do me a favor and just say in your own words how many people get this “free” healthcare you keep referring to?

I do not click on links people post on message boards and blog comments for three reasons: 1) if you are so well informed on the subject you should be able to summarize the statistics yourself; 2)I am wary of spy ware and viruses, and 3) in my experience most people who link to sites to prove their points don’t have the first clue what they are talking about, have not read the sites themselves but only link to them because someone else did, and they have no idea what those links actually say.

How many people in Massachusetts who could afford health insurance got free medical care? Use whatever statistics you can find and summarize it here. I won’t click on a link, without a summary, because that would just prove to me that you haven’t taken the time to read it yourself.

Jaynie59 on January 13, 2008 at 1:59 PM

Quoting Mitt’s article in the Boston Globe (Nov. 2004):

People who can afford insurance, but don’t buy it. More than 100,000 of the uninsured have household incomes of over $75,000 a year; 168,000 are over $56,550 a year. I’ve spoken with numerous people who say that they don’t buy health insurance because it’s expensive, they bet they won’t get sick, if they do get sick they won’t be refused healthcare or their employer doesn’t offer insurance. Today our laws prevent insurers from offering policies with only basic benefits. Bells, whistles, and costly options are mandated.

BTW, you can view what URL the link will take you to before you click on it. Just scroll over it and look at your status bar on the bottom (in IE7). You might catch a case of liberalism from the Boston Globe, but you won’t be infected with spyware!

I was disappointed to find that he was completely full of crap. I didn’t even bother to watch the whole interview.

I have continued to be amazed that Rush and others have continued to call this guy a conservative. He is a joke.

Our party is in serious trouble right now. We have a great candidate, but people are too busy bickering to get behind him.

Fred Thompson ’08

FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 6:46 PM

It’s not a fallacious argument at all.

Choice A: Drink too much, get liver cancer, have no health insurance.

Choice B: Drink to much, get liver cancer, have insurance.

Which option provides the most hope for the patient?

Once insurance is mandated for everyone living, if the insurance companies decide to improve their bottom lines by requiring that policy holders give up smoking, drinking or other risky behavior such as skydiving, what recourse do we as citizens have?

FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 6:46 PM

If we were talking about government health care like Hillary Care you would be correct. Taxpayers cover all costs of her plan and to keep costs down the coverage will have to penalize the insured.

Mitt’s plan is not a government plan, anymore than car insurance is a government plan merely because it is mandated that you carry it. The only mandate is that you have insurance. What insurance you choose is entirely up to you.

No it is not! Indeed, I could argue that if you have health insurance you are more at liberty to do whatever you wish, whether it be to eat, drink, or be merry.

Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 6:19 PM

Now that’s a fallacious argument.

And it brings up another interesting point. Our Constitutional rights limit the government, not private industry. Once insurance is mandated for everyone living, if the insurance companies decide to improve their bottom lines by requiring that policy holders give up smoking, drinking or other risky behavior such as skydiving, what recourse do we as citizens have?

Our rights are inherently weakened under such a regime, in more ways than one.

No, the point of the plan is to mandate responsible behavior in order to reduce the burden that freedom and liberty places on the whole of society….
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 4:59 PM

No it is not! Indeed, I could argue that if you have health insurance you are more at liberty to do whatever you wish, whether it be to eat, drink, or be merry.

I chalk it up to enthusiasm, nothing more.

Once again: It is a fallacious analogy because the point of the plan is not to “avoid risk to all”.

Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 4:38 PM

No, the point of the plan is to mandate responsible behavior in order to reduce the burden that freedom and liberty places on the whole of society. Why should society have to pay for the irresponsible behavior of a subset of the population? Whether it’s their decision or failure to acquire health insurance, or their decision to drink alcohol or smoke or their failure to exorcise and/or eat right?

FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 4:20 PM

No one is talking about “banning behaviors”!

Once again: It is a fallacious analogy because the point of the plan is not to “avoid risk to all”.

I recall that a few months ago, Buy Danish, we had a discussion on this topic and you argued in favor of other forms of mandatory insurance as well as helmet, life-preserver and seat-belt laws.

‘

No I did not. Either you are confusing me with someone else or you are misconstruing whatever arguments I may have given. I can state with absolute certainty that I have not discussed life preservers at any time.

I have made a comparison between having to have liability insurance on vehicles and Mitt’s health insurance plan, and I stand by that comparison.

McGuyver, how would that make Fredheads any different from the die-hard W supporters, who say every stupid move he’s made was some brilliant Rovian plot, etc.
funky chicken on January 13, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Or the Mittens for that matter.

Banning other behaviors, or mandating them away, is based on the exact same a subset of the logic comprising as Mitt’s health-mandate plan, not an extension of it that logic.

Updated.

You are also using a slippery slope argument and taking it to extremes, like -

If you eat carrots eventually you will die.

Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Time and again slopes have proven to be slippery regarding these matters, but my point is hardly limited to the slippery slope affect, however valid those arguments would be. Requiring people to have insurance simply because they are alive, (a living-fee), actually leapfrogs in severity several of the other examples in my list at 1:07 and a few of my later comments. The reason is that being alive is involuntary, and many of the other behaviors are only voluntary. It is MORE intrusive. Banning other behaviors, or mandating them away, is based on the exact same logic as Mitt’s health-mandate plan, not an extension of it that logic. It’s not a slippery slope; it is an ice-skating ring.

I’ve often found that the people who appose the slippery-slope argument are those who enthusiastically support slippery slopes. I recall that a few months ago, Buy Danish, we had a discussion on this topic and you argued in favor of other forms of mandatory insurance as well as helmet, life-preserver and seat-belt laws. Do you deny that Mitt’s insurance-mandate is further down the slope from all of those others?

Once you force people to behave in a responsible way to prevent risk to all, you open the door to forcing people to behave responsibly in other ways as well.
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM

It is a fallacious analogy because the point of the plan is not to “avoid risk to all”.

You are also using a slippery slope argument and taking it to extremes, like -

If you eat carrots eventually you will die.

I am not arguing anything of the sort! You are making a fallacious argument and I am not going to spend the day chasing around red herrings and wild geese.

Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 2:57 PM

For an explanation why my argument isn’t fallacious, check out my comment at 1:07.

You are making a fallacious argument…

Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 2:57 PM

*chortle*

I am not arguing anything of the sort! You are making a fallacious argument and I am not going to spend the day chasing around red herrings and wild geese.

Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Well, then, that was easy. FloatingRock 1, Buy Danish 0.

It appears that he does this every time he wants to get elected to an office. He adjusts his image to fit whatever he thinks will get him the most votes. He makes all the promises he has to.

29Victor on January 13, 2008 at 2:51 PM

I think of him as the chameleon candidate.

All of a sudden you’re arguing that people should be allowed to drink alcohol because they are taxpayers.

FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM

I am not arguing anything of the sort! You are making a fallacious argument and I am not going to spend the day chasing around red herrings and wild geese.

how much of that 1.3 billion in unpaid bills was rung up by otherwise responsible, employed citizens of MA?
funky chicken on January 13, 2008 at 2:40 PM

The answer is that prior to Mitt’s plan: all or most of it. That is precisely what Mitt is trying to fix, not exacerbate.

Have you read Jim Talent’s article that I linked to at 2:26?

Here’s another, where Mitt described the problem and his proposed solutions in 2004.

Here is a good overview from USA Today.

Romney is all about image. That is why he appears to be the perfect conservative. He has completely divorced himself from any principles that his history has shown us he may or may not have and has donned the mantle conservative superhero.

It appears that he does this every time he wants to get elected to an office. He adjusts his image to fit whatever he thinks will get him the most votes. He makes all the promises he has to.

I see Romney as nothing more than a Republican Bill Clinton.

funky chicken on January 13, 2008 at 12:33 PM

The republicans are pushing AFFORDABLE health care. The dems want GOVERNMENT PROVIDED health care.

Mitt’s plan took the dems nanny state plan and moved it toward the free market. It is not a perfect plan, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.

I don’t understand how your argument is germane.

Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM

You don’t?

All of a sudden you’re arguing that people should be allowed to drink alcohol because they are taxpayers. That is the opposite of what you were arguing in regard to Mitt’s fondness for mandates. How far do those taxes on alcohol go towards reimbursing a family killed by a drunk driver? What percentage of those taxes compensate employers for late or absent employees?