Please proceed, Governor...

Quote:Romney said that shortly after he was elected, Mr. Stemberg asked him why he ran for governor. Romney said he told him that he wanted to help people, and Mr. Stemberg replied that if he really wanted to help, he should give everyone access to health care, which Romney said he hadn’t really considered before.

“Without Tom pushing it, I don’t think we would have had Romneycare,” Romney said. “Without Romneycare, I don’t think we would have Obamacare. So, without Tom a lot of people wouldn’t have health insurance.”

Of course, the good Governor is absolutely right:



Better late than never!

I think there is a difference between "giving" and "selling"

Oh, so NOW you're a fan.

Lol I was always a fan of Romneycare! I'm glad he is now too!

(10-23-2015 05:12 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Lol I was always a fan of Romneycare! I'm glad he is now too!

That'd be why you voted for him, right? Right?

So, let's see here, a law that was promoted as providing health care for all has in fact provided health insurance to roughly 1/4 of the people who did not have health insurance--and we're celebrating?

And by the way, there's no more health care than before, so all we are doing in effect is reallocating shortages from one group to another. And the program includes substantial economic disincentives to those who might be additional health care providers in the future. Net result--more people will wait longer for poorer--but maybe cheaper--health care.

If the goal is to provide health care to all, why don't we try providing health care (not insurance but care) to all (not 1/4 of those who didn't have it before)?

another worthless chart.....

so more people are insured....

and that means what?

your wait time goes up?

your care is more dissolved?

more admin costs?

more patients - same amt of doctors - more hrs/less income

less incentive to become a doctor?

where do the negatives end.....

hell, I guess in the scope I foresee, it falls right in line....

I voted against him in part because at the time he was against Romneycare and Obamacare.

Yes, it's only provided insurance to 15 million so far, but that number is climbing. The fines for not having insurance is rising by the year (started at $95 last year and will be $695 next year) and more and more states are buying into the Medicaid expansion part of the law (Alaska, Indiana and Pennsylvania just did so this year, and Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Missouri and Wyoming are close to doing so). So it will be incremental. But I support Bernie's push for Medicare for all.

More people insured means more people have access to health care. If you can't see the huge benefit to that in a country where 45,000 people were dying every year for lack of health insurance then I can't help you. See:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/20...-coverage/