Video: McCain dumps on Mitt’s health care plan
posted at 5:38 pm on January 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A little equal time for Maverick, who’s been taking body blows from the HA team all day. I thought he’d bring this up at the debate as it would have been a dynamite challenge to Romney’s financial acumen, but the opportunity never arose so he’s stuck doing it with an ad. RomneyCare’s on tap for a $400 million spending increase next year in Massachusetts; as Team Maverick (oddly) puts it, that’s … “not very good.”
As for this, does McCain really want a war on who’s the biggest flip-flopper about taxes? Because, dude.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
None of those address the issue I raised which is the MA health insurance mandate is imposed on your right to exist. You’re not building a house, driving a car, practicing as a doctor. In this case they say, if you exist, you must buy insurance. Do you honestly not see the differece? Because if so, there’s no point continuing this.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 8:20 PM
I don’t know about that but are you really suggesting that a plan to try and squeeze more federal money is the more concervative aproach compared to Romney’s attempt to solve the state’s own problems? Will the plan even work? No one knows it is up in the air right now and a Liberal govenor has taken over the reigns. Romney is a magician for simply avoiding a blanket expansion of the government funded care that already existed.
Otherwise known as - move to New Hampshire - a common MA practice.
Resolute on January 25, 2008 at 8:23 PM
That’s a great point, too.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Ya, but now NH ain’t NH anymore. I was thinking about Australia….
You’re being too literal. If you can afford insurance and don’t have it, you pay a fine on your taxes each year iirc. If you can’t afford it, or have limited ability to pay premiums, you sign up for a plan and you’re covered. Now, instead of going to the ER for every little problem you can go see a GP for 1/10th the overall cost.
TheBigOldDog on January 25, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Conservative? Definitely not. More conservative than a mandate that is essentially government regulation of your right to exist? Yes.
Ideally, the states would start pushing back against the Feds. They have no right to regulate care in the states, but they use the Federal purse to grab power not given to them by the constitution. To stop it we’d have to drastically cut taxes. NCLB is another great example. The Feds have no right to enforce that mandate.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 8:31 PM
What do you think they shoot you if you don’t have a plan? Drive you to the border of RI and kick you out? LOL!
TheBigOldDog on January 25, 2008 at 8:33 PM
But the fine doesn’t buy you insurance right? So it doesn’t solve the problem. What does the state do if someone doesn’t pay the fine?
Why not approach it the other way, use some of that billion dollar fund you mentioned and provide tax rebates for people who purchase their own insurance?
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 8:36 PM
TheBigOldDog on January 25, 2008 at 8:18 PM
You are right, Queen Edwards who can speak to the dead should be run out of town, which is why I think they should challenge these lawsuits on the basis that the doctor was not tried by his peers, namely nurses and doctors, instead of people who think General Hospital is real.
Conservative Voice on January 25, 2008 at 8:37 PM
John McCain’s health care approach is more conservative than Romney’s.
John McCain’s frankness with Detroit voters about jobs as compared to Romney’s proposed bailout is more conservative.
John McCain’s foreign policy and staedfastness on the Iraq War is more conservative than Romney.
John McCain is the most conservative of the candidates concerning cutting federal spending.
Unlike Romney, John McCain has never run for office as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate.
John McCain has always voted for conservative judges to be appointed adnd has pledged to nominate strict constructionist judges, which is what he pledged in January 2007 to the Federalist Society he would do; Romney as Governor appointed quite a few Democrats and his overall record on judicial appointments showed no discernbable conservatism at all.
John McCain is the only Republican shown in the latest poll, reported on page A4 of the Wall Street Journal today, as beating Hillary Clinton. Guiliani, Huckabee and Romney all are shown as losing by wide margins to Hillary Clinton, with the widest loss margin against Romney.
So can we conclude that with all the hammering by the Hot Air people of John McCain that Hot Air is in league with Hillary Clinton to submarine the one Republican and conservative in November who can win the general election? I think you might as well be in leaggue with Hillary Clinton.
Phil Byler on January 25, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Then you’re a tax evader and your going to jail. It’s like having a tax break if you are covered.
Now, if you don’t sign up and go to an ER they can force you to sign up or pay cash as part of treatment. Problem solved.
TheBigOldDog on January 25, 2008 at 8:38 PM
You don’t still get it. Let’s try it this way:
A) If you want to drive a car, you have to buy auto insurance.
B) If you want to live in MA, you have to buy health insurance.
In example A, the government is regulating your right to drive. In example B, the government is regulating what?
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 8:41 PM
I wonder how McVain’s going to pay for all his new amigos he wants to make citizens? How’s he going to fund all the Social Security he’s going to let them collect?
‘Straight Talk’ Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth
TheBigOldDog on January 25, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Behavior. If you don’t want it, you don’t get the “tax break” and lose the “right” to free care at an ER.
TheBigOldDog on January 25, 2008 at 8:46 PM
You’re not engaging in any behavior other than living. That’s my point. And the fine isn’t even tied to whether or not you’re even asking for care. It’s tied to whether or not the government thinks you can afford to buy insurance or not.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 8:52 PM
Behavior is the choices you make. The things you do, like driving a car. Mandates regulate your choices, your behaviors. Taking a risk and going without health insurance is a behavior - a choice - that the community bares some of the risk for since we pay if you bet wrong and lose.
TheBigOldDog on January 25, 2008 at 8:55 PM
You’re applyng flawed logic and comparing two things that don’t line up. Again look at it this way:
To drive a car or not drive a car is a choice. If you choose to drive, you must pay for insurance.
To live in MA or not live in MA is a choice. If you choose to live in MA, you must buy health insurance.
If you’re fine with the latter example, if you believe the government has the right to impose those kinds of laws… that’s your right. But that’s where we disagree.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Going without health insurance is a behavior. A choice. With that choice comes risk. A risk you alone do not bare. If you choose to take the risk you do not get a tax break. It’s simple.
You can choose to drive a car without insurance and to do so incurs a risk that you will be pulled over, fined, have you car towed, etc.
They are completely analogous and I just proved it.
TheBigOldDog on January 25, 2008 at 9:25 PM
No it’s not. It’s the absense of behavior. Buying a policy is behavior. Not doing something does not constitute behavior. THe only behavior at issue is living.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Ok. conversations is over. You are incapable of intellectual honesty.
TheBigOldDog on January 25, 2008 at 9:29 PM
You’re either incapable or unwilling to get the point, but that’s your limitation, not mine. MB4 got it, so I know it’s not due to me being unclear. You’re bending over backwards to justify a mandate going so far as to say,
doing something constitutes behavior. You’re not doing millions of things right not. Wow! You must be busy.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 9:35 PM
In case you missed it:
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Going without insurance is doing something. It’s making a conscious decision to take a risk. Really, it’s not that hard to understand for most people which leads me to believe you must be intellectually dishonest because you don’t appear to be slow.
TheBigOldDog on January 25, 2008 at 9:39 PM
First, quoting MB4 is no way to impress me. Believe me. Second, he does not have the benefit of this detailed discussion.
TheBigOldDog on January 25, 2008 at 9:43 PM
I just don’t believe the government has the right to impose conditions on my right to live in the US. MA has said that if I want to live there, I have to buy insurance. That’s a regulation on my right to live there and on nothign else.
You’re trying to justify it by saying they are regulating my choice to buy insurance or not buy insurance. That’s absurd. There is no choice! They stated as a matter of law that I have to buy it. My only recourse is to pay a fine, go to prison (according to you) or leave the state. There is no other recourse. Unlike with the auto insurance mandate, I can choose to take the bus instead. I can take the train or ride a bike. I have choices. There is no choice here. That the point!
Lastly, it extremely presumtious to say that everyone who does not have health insurance has made a conscious decision not to buy a policy.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Knock him if you want, but he immediately understood a concept you seem incapable of grasping.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Seriously, I’ve wasted way too much time already.
Then don’t move here. Or, move here and forgo the tax break, and free ER care. Your choice. Just like choosing to take the bus (although I’m not sure how you do that when most of the state has no public transportation and your bike isn’t going to get you very far) It’s not as if you’ll be arrested if you chose not to buy insurance.
Not in this state. That’s the point isn’t it? If your dirt poor it’s free. Anywhere between there and limited ability to pay is subsidized. So, in this State not being covered in a conscious decision.
I got you don’t like it. Good.
TheBigOldDog on January 25, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Wait a minute here. with all the round about discussions and arguments you seem to have overlooked the fact that you have just endorsed the foundation of Romney’s plan without even realizing it. I’m not sure what you think you are continuing to argue against except the Federal law mandating care - which is kind of irrelevant.
Resolute on January 25, 2008 at 10:08 PM
First off, it’s not a tax break, it’s a fine. So who’s really being “intellectual dishonest”?
The fine is levied on the uninsured who pay taxes — not on the uninsured who actually go to hospitals.
The uninsured who pay taxes are already paying into that state fund for the uninsured, right? So, through their taxes they’re paying for healthcare whether they receive it or not.
The only ones receiving “free” care are the uninsured who don’t pay taxes. Romney’s plan gives them free healthcare. In the meantime, it slams the middle class with a mandate they cannot escape and charges them a fine to pay for care they didn’t even get. Yeah. I don’t like it.
I’m not worried about moving to MA, I’m worried about other states following suit. And more than anything, I’m worried about what the government believes it can mandate next.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Oh, wait a minute. I do endorse tax breaks. Is that his plan? I thought his plan fined people for not buying insurance. Seriously, I’d like to know, because this is my main sticking point with Romney. If I’m misinformed, please set the record straight.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Or are you making a distinction between his federal plan and his state plan? My problem was with the mandates in his state plan.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 10:18 PM
In order to get health insurance you have to provide a plethora of private information and even subject yourself to tests, right? Do you guys seriously not see that a mandate is a violation of your consitutional rights?
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 10:23 PM
He didnt give them anything. They already had it. Your assumption this plan increases that is exactly wrong. The whole idea, the fundamental point of this plan which you dont seem to grasp is to eliminate the entire class of people who show up to the emergency room with no paperwork whatsoever. Hospitals try to sign people up to insurance on the spot or retroactively even.
That is not really true anymore since part of the whole idea is to eliminate said fund. If it will actually be gone or how this will all play out comes about under Deval Patrick not Romney.
actually it has very little effect on the middle class who get thier insurance through an employer.
let me lay this out to the best of my knowlege:
-anyone who has insurance - there should be little net change
-poor people who already got defacto free care - are folded into the subsidized gov’t insurance, which by the way already existed before and is not a Romney invention
-self employed or others who find it hard to afford insurance - partially subsidized thier insurance premium
-wealthy who for whatever reason decided not to buy insurance - this is the only group that faces an actual penalty (IMHO the only reason that part is there is in order to make this whole thing “comprehensive” and passify the libs who wanted instead government run solutions)
Resolute on January 25, 2008 at 10:46 PM
f you call something a tax break for some or a tax hike for others is really a subsective question isnt it? It is like how rolling back Bush’s tax cuts is someone magically never called raising taxes. How it works is you get a simple tax deduction based on if you have insurance. If that is technically a tax break or atax raise… I suppose that would depend on if the baseline tax rate that the deduction is based on has actually gone up or down…which frankly I have no idea it has probably gone up but what has that to do with this health plan?
Resolute on January 25, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Just to make it clear, my only real issue with his plan was the mandate which I view as an assault on personal freedom. I don’t buy the argument that it’s justified because some people screw over the taxpayers. My response would be to go after and fine those people.
I don’t see how fining wealthy people solves anything since they can afford to pay their hospital bills and have the most to lose by not paying them.
Did MA actually study the issue and find that wealthy people were stiffing hospitals? I would think that most people not paying their bills were lower-income.
I didn’t mean to suggest that Romney was giving the poor free care with his plan (I know that they can get it through Medicare anyway). I was responding to the suggestion that people who are uninsured are somehow cheating the system by getting free care and so it was okay to fine them.
I wanted to point out that Romney’s plan only fined taxpayers who, through their taxes, help pay for/subsidize care. So they’re not getting free care. The only ones getting “free” care are uninsured people who don’t pay taxes.
Time will tell if this works. But in my mind it would have to be a resounding success to justify a mandate and even then I’d have serious issues with it.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 10:59 PM
It makes a huge difference to me depending on how it’s done because it’s the difference between rewarding behavior and punishing people for not adopting government preferred behavior.
If there is a box on the tax form that asks “Do you have health insurance?” and if so you can deduct the premium, that is a big difference from if not, you owe an additional $1,500 in taxes.
I doubt it’s the first case though, because for PR purposes I couldn’t fathom why he would call it a mandate and refer to fines when he could call it a tax break.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 11:08 PM
I believe that the original plan called for a choice of buying health insurance or posting a bond along the lines of $10,000 against any hospital care for those who did not want to bother with the whole insurance system and self-insure.
It was the Mass. legislature that changed it to buy insurance or be fined.
Deety on January 25, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Ah, that’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that before. If I understand correctly, the whole point behind the mandate was to force young people into the market to help drive down the costs for everybody else, since they were the ones least likely to actually need care. Of course, most young people probably could not afford a $10,000 bond, so that wouldn’t have affected them anyway.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Expanding the risk pool does help to drive down costs but I think that the major factor is making available bare-bones catastrophic care policies which are more appropriate for most young people anyway.
Also, if they can’t afford a $10,000 bond why should the people of Mass. pay for a visit to the E.R. after those hippies get punched? ;)
Deety on January 25, 2008 at 11:24 PM
I agree. I just checked, if you’re under 30, you can get a policy for $45/month with a $4,000 deductable.
I think the real problem we need to solve is to get us off the employer-based model. Our economy is different than it was in the 30’s and people switch jobs a lot more often. People need to own their policies so they can take them with them. Plus, it will enable people to pick their own plans as opposed to a one-size-fits-all option.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 11:33 PM
I’m going to go out on a limb, both Spolitics and Big Ole’ Dog need to SIMMER DOWN NOW. I know you want to battle na, but sim, sim, sim, sim, sim, sim, sim, SIMMMMMMERRR DOWN NA.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 25, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 11:33 PM
I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s not just a matter of portability. The more people are able to tailor their coverage to fit their needs, preferences and budgets the better off we all are.
There is no reason why a single male should have to pay for a plan that includes prenatal and obstetric care simply because some state has passed a law mandating that all policies include it (just for an example).
On the other hand, if someone wants a low/no deductible plan to cover their weekly visits to their aromatherapist and they can find a company who will cover that, I say let ‘em buy that plan if they figure the higher rate is worth it.
Deety on January 25, 2008 at 11:48 PM
The point I always like to make is that we have these problems in the first place because of government legislation. We’re on an employer-based system because of wage controls in the 30’s. Most employees are stuck with HMOs because of a pro-HMO legislation in 1973. It was government that, over the years, destroyed the private market. I think we need to get government out of the way more than anything else.
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 11:55 PM
This is so boring that both of you should be taken into custody?
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 26, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Actually my comment of
was in support of the second paragraph of AttilaTheHun’s January 25, 2008 at 5:55 PM comment.
I not sure who the joke is on here.
MB4 on January 26, 2008 at 12:26 AM
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 25, 2008 at 11:41 PM
I wondered on the McCain/Hernandez thread if you hadn’t overdosed TCO. You worry me a little. You worked a bit too much today.
Entelechy on January 26, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Really? My comment here. Your comment here. But even if you were intending to attack my point, it’s clear you understood the point I was (and have been) making (even if you don’t agree with it).
Spolitics on January 26, 2008 at 12:50 AM
My point was that being alive (owning/driving a body) was analogis to owning/driving a car. In either case if something goes wrong you can owe some pretty big bills and should pay them.
If you drive a car you should therefor have liability insurance or a big escrow bond to cover costs that might incur to you. If you are alive - ditto.
MB4 on January 26, 2008 at 1:08 AM
Sounds like we viewed the issue in the same way, we just disagreed. I agree that in this case the gov is saying, “If you’re alive, you have to have an insurance policy to cover your healthcare costs.” I just don’t think they have the right to pass those kinds of laws.
Anyway, sorry for bringing you into it. Your comment implying the only way out of it was to be dead spoke to the point I had been trying to get through.
Spolitics on January 26, 2008 at 1:25 AM
As a surgeon who has been called to the ER on a regular basis for nearly 20 years, I can attest to the huge number of people who show up at the ER, get care, and have absolutely no intention of ever paying anything for the care they receive. My financial reports show a collection percentage of less than 2% for all care rendered to the uninsured in our local ER’s over the past 19 years. Sending these accounts to collections has virtually never had any effect.
This has slowly resulted in the loss of doctors, of all specialties, who will respond to ER call at all. I was the last ophthalmologist in town to reluctantly give up covering the ER (last year), as most others had quit ten years ago. There is now not a single ophthalmologist for 75 miles in any direction who will go in to our ER and see a patient–insured or not, as according to our hospital bylaws we can choose to either accept ER call and see everyone they call us for, or opt out of ER coverage entirely. So, due to the overwhelming abuse of the ER by the uninsured, NO ONE gets emergency ophthalmic care here. NO ONE.
Romney’s plan requiring people to buy insurance is not perfect. No plan is or ever will be. But if it would allow everyone to get emergency care by allowing doctors to be able to afford to go back to the ER and provide care again, knowing they would at least be reimbursed for the extra malpractice insurance it costs us to take ER call and take on these difficult and litigious cases, it might be worth considering.
EyeSurgeon on January 26, 2008 at 1:49 AM
Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Mitt’s presidential campaign site suggests this. Many states don’t have state income tax (mine doesn’t), so this is perhaps something easier to implement on the Federal level.
This is also on his site; here’s the issue link:
Actually there are insurance brokers, at least for small business. My husband and I quit our jobs and started our own company, (which didn’t do any business before he was lured into a startup, but regardless…), and when Cobra was running out we naturally looked for our own insurance for the company. I called around a few places and requested info and when we chatted with Pacificare, I mentioned it was hard to get good, useful information from insurance companies and she asked if we had used an insurance broker, and she suggested a few.
The broker, Jennifer, was super and really had some good information and was able to explain things in detail. So there are, you may just have to look a while.
linlithgow on January 26, 2008 at 1:31 PM
crap, I thought I hit close tags. Here’s the Mitt link:
linlithgow on January 26, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Okay, it shows up for me, so this is weird. One last try in plain text:
http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/healthcare
linlithgow on January 26, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]