Which is the better health care plan....Hillary's government takeover, or Romney's private insurance plan?

Question

On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed into law landmark legislation ensuring that every resident of Massachusetts would have access to affordable, portable, quality private health insurance – without higher taxes, an employer mandate or a government takeover of health care.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JimTalent/2007/08/21/mitt_romney_putting_conservative_principles_to_work_in_health_care

tony....good point

Andrew M....I think those in Canada and England might have a different take on it then you do.....

Answer 1

Gee I dunno. Romneys conservative plan that has worked in real life on the state level insuring the uninsured and lowering health care costs for the govt helping to preserve the private system? Or Hillarys socialization plan that got batted down before that never saw the light of day?

Boy thats a tough one!

rmagedon>We are lower middle class. We have very few of the luxuries you speak of but Im laid off right now and just happened to be having our 3rd child. My group coverage at work wouldnt cover it because they wanted $1000/mo to keep it going when it was $15/mo while working. I dont know how much money you have laying around, but I dont have a spare $1000/mo especially while laid off. Without medicaid paying for my wife only, we would be facing a MASSIVE bill that we wouldnt be able to pay.

Some govt help is needed to help well-intentioned people like me and my wife that arent big spenders, dont go to the doctor on every little whim, and simply fell through the cracks and really needed a safety net.

Social programs arent all evil nor the people on them. I dont mind paying a little extra in taxes if it helps people that fell into situations like me. But its a constant fight however to keep them from getting too big and too generous to the point that we are paying people to be unemployed or covering people that arent even supposed to be in this country. But I agree with you in principle that the free market is first and formost the best mechanism for industry.

Answer 2

At - INSUREDEAL.INFO- you can get quotes in just a few minutes

RE Which is the better health care plan....Hillary's government takeover, or Romney's private insurance plan?

On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed into law landmark legislation ensuring that every resident of Massachusetts would have access to affordable, portable, quality private health insurance – without higher taxes, an employer mandate or a government takeover of health care.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JimTalent/2007/08/21/mitt_romney_putting_conservative_principles_to_work_in_health_care

Answer 3

I might suggest that you try this web site where you can get rates from different companies: http://QUOTES-FOR-INSURANCE.NET/index.html?src=2YAiibwiXZ34

RE :Which is the better health care plan....Hillary's government takeover, or Romney's private insurance plan?
On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed into law landmark legislation ensuring that every resident of Massachusetts would have access to affordable, portable, quality private health insurance – without higher taxes, an employer mandate or a government takeover of health care.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JimTa...
Update: tony....good point
Update 2: Andrew M....I think those in Canada and England might have a different take on it then you do.....
1 following 17 answers

Answer 4

If you believe in free market fundamentalism, no private insurance should fear public insurance in fair and free competition. If government can provide a better product at a lower price, of course businesses would fail. If you are grounded in reality, once universal health care comes into effect the private sector will not be able to compete from the public sector because of the nature of the health care. That is why the Big Pharma and Big Insurance are fighting the public option in the health care reform. The government will write the rules but rules to be written would good laws on the book: no exclusions of preexisting conditions.

Answer 5

I would prefer neither. When the government gets involved in business the costs go up and the service goes down.

Making insurance mandatory is a feel good measure and it infringes on the rights of those who choose not to have insurance. It is not like cars where the uninsured can cross the lane and injure me, so I do not see the need.

The fact is simply, if you have a computer, big screen TV, cable TV, multiple cell phones and plans, nice new cars with spiffy tires and wheels, you too can afford your own health care, just give up the luxuries. I went by accident through a ER a couple of weeks ago, you cannot believe the extravagant luxuries that people own that are in the ER saying they have no insurance, it is ridiculous for them to think they can afford their toys but yet want someone else to pay for their necessities.

Let the free market handle health care and let the government deal with roads and national security, like closing our borders and enforcing current immigration laws.

My current insurance plan, which I pay for 100%, has a $2500 deductible which I have to pay upfront, and I can assure you I use it wisely. Those with plans that someone else pays for go to doctors way too often and needlessly. If the insurance companies were not so tightly controlled by Congress we could get just catastrophic coverage only, which reduces the cost. By having a large deductible on mine, the cost is almost 40% less than it was before with no deductible. The free market works if the Congress would get out of it.

People have to be personally responsible for their health care, if they are not, and rely on Mother government to pay for it, the costs will skyrocket and the quality of service will deteriorate. I do not want anything that resembles the failing socialist systems of Canada or the EU, they are horrible.

Answer 6

Romney's plan is better. I can't think of one government operated program that works.

Government healthcare in other nations should be an eye-opener to anyone who thinks Hillary's plan would work. I certainly don't like the idea of waiting 3 months to see a doctor that I don't even get to chose and have them decide when I should have emergency gall bladder surgery. Anyone from Canada who can, comes here for medical care.

Answer 7

It wasn't "Romney's Plan"; he signed a bill that the MA State legistlature passed.

I think the MA is a good start, but it may put too much pressure on businesses.

I think the replication of services between private insurance companies, and the fact that each state has unique rules (and taxpayer funded oversight), puts an unneccessary cost on the consumer.

Anything that can streamline the payment process would result in cheaper insurance, and yet, still provide the choice of doctor, treatment, etc.

Answer 8

Personally, I like Romney's plan. I think Hillary, if elected, will have to compromise a have a similar plan. I like Romney's plan because he has taken issues from both sides of the fence - it's neither entirely Republican nor Democratic.

Answer 9

Sen. Clinton never recommended any kind of 'government takeover of HEALTH CARE. The issue is and always has been HEALTH INSURANCE. Having 'access' to health insurance isn't the same as 'having health insurance'. Private insurers are in the business of making money...if they're forced to insure all comers, they will have to raise rates beyond what anyone can pay. Also, people don't always stay in a given state.....if you move out of state, there goes your insurance...if you could have afforded it in the first place. There may be no really good way to do this, but single payer universal HEALTH INSURANCE tops the list of the best of the worst.

Answer 10

I don't know about Hillary's, but as for Romney's, we already have private health insurance, and that's the problem....it's regional or state specific, so it's hard or impossible to take it with you when you move outside the area, it may not cover people who cannot pay the premiums ( old, or mentally ill, or unemployed, or children), it's very complicate as to what they cover, they do everything they can to keep from covering your health issue, and a huge proportion of the money you pay goes to profit, lining the pockets of insurance execs and paying stockholders....and look at the palatial "campuses" insurance companies build with your premiums.... It's unconscionable that people take business/corporate profit from your health needs, we need to see that what we pay goes to health care instead of profit. I say, keep the practice of medicine private, require all medical practices/doctors to participate in the system, and make the insurance non profit, single payer, and comprehensive. It should cover US citizens and any visiting young child. We do schools, roads, fire and police depts, food inspection, social security, etc. as a community...why not health coverage? It'll cost each of us less when we act as a community than what we pay, now, in premiums.