I think that Mitt beats all Republican candidates on Republican issues. I think he has a good cross over appeal in general election because he could win as Governor in Massacusetts or Utah. To be popular in the most conservative State and the most liberal one is really amazing.
You can call him a flip flop on abortion, but I believe that is because he believes that a child does not get an immortal soul until sometime after conception (as opposed to Catholics). Mormon's also do not baptize their children until age 8 (the age of reason). Thus on abortion (I think) he can claim that he has "always protected the unborn" (as he defines it). Since he is the furthest right of Hillary, Obama, or Rudi-I say so what-he is from Massacusetts and did not jump up and down on the issue.
Health care is the big reason I support him Blago, Stroger, and Jones, waste so much money here that no one in this State will argue with me that we should give them one more time to run State wide health care. There doctors would be out passing campaign literature. Mitt actually put out an insurance based health program that actually lowed premiums in Mass. a lot. I think he should start out with school linked heatth for children like my guest editorial in the NewsGazette, and maybe he will. We certainly need to build the runways before we start flying the planes.
"To be popular in the most conservative State and the most liberal one is really amazing."
He is not popular in Massachusetts any more, if that is what you mean.
It is difficult for any R to win in Mass. In several elections this was the only State carried by the democrats. It would be like any Republican Candidate staying close in a place like Chicago. The olympics are coming and the goose is getting fat, pleased to put a Romney to help along with that.
I wrote the following for a Life Time Learning Seminar (OLLI) at the U of I. The Seminar was on healthcare policy and what it should be. The moderator asked each of us to submit what we thought was our best idea to reform our health care system.
Policy Reform Suggestion
I believe that we should delay passing any adult universal health care plan until we tackle children’s health care. After we have several models to chose from, then we can decide whether we want a medicare model, or a private insurance model.
PRINCIPALS OF FREE MARKET UNIVERSAL HEATH CARE FOR CHILDREN
1. If every child is entitled to a free public and appropriate education, then surely one must admit that every child is entitled to free public and appropriate health care.
2. Government runs bad programs. There is no organized decision making structure. Too much politics. No long term planning past the next election. Too expensive and inefficient.
3. Government has a role and that role is the collection of premiums for a State of Illinois wide insurance system for children.
4. The "fair share" that each person should pay toward children’s insurance should be proportional to the taxes or tax credits they pay. Parents should contribute additionally monies based upon the number of their children and should give up some of their "exemptions" or "deductions" based upon the number of their children.
5. Every child in the State should be under one standard policy which covers essentially everything. Alternatively, the insurance policy should be the same as the one that Senators have for their children. If a child is covered under a policy paid for by their company, the company will be required to pay the employee additional wages or to contribute the premium to the State plan since all are covered under only one policy. (We are all in this together.)
6. We should attach children’s heath facilities to every school district in this State. This is the infrastructure we need to develop. See Urbana School District 116's public health facility.
7. Special education services should be funded and paid for through this "system".
8. The "providers" should sell their claims under "ususal and customary" principals to the insurance companies who would in turn be reimbursed by the State collection system. If a dispute arose between the insurance company and the State, these disputes would be resolved by a system of mediation wherein the block granting entity (the feds) would act as the mediator. Best evidence of the correct reimbursement rate would be the average of like kind communities in other States. The disputed amount would be paid and subtracted from the next block grant payment to the State.
9. Because the school districts are municipal corporations with some degree of tort immunity this would encourage doctors who wished smaller malpractice premiums to deliver their services at the school.
10. We would assign data assurance managers whose job it would be to collect data, screen and assess medical records or diversionary services. Any teacher or administrator could refer.
WHY THIS IS NECESSARY (Start with something everyone agrees upon)
We do not want to put the insurance industry out of business. We do not want to put government in charge of anything. We should not put a national health care system in place until we have modeled similar successful systems. We have not built a National Health Care infrastructure. We do not want more voters to be dependent upon government. We need to have people pay for what they get in proportion to their wealth in the least regressive way possible. It does not make sense to keep proposing something that has failed before. There is no exit strategy if it is not successful because our infrastructure will be gone. All attempts by government to impose wage and price controls on free enterprise have failed. Health insurance is not health care. It is not a health insurance "contract" if the government only pays what it wishes to pay.
The sooner we start diversion programs for our children, the more money we save in the long run.
WHY DO IT THIS WAY
Children are more entitled than the elderly. We do not want politics to run health care. The least regressive tax is the income tax. The most efficient premium collection system is one already in place. As between two people with the same income, a parent should pay more if his child receives free health care. One standard "cover all policy" avoids the bait and switch of group rate advertising. It is cheaper for a doctor to go see 30 kids at school than for 30 parents to miss work taking their kid to the doctor. Special education policy is an example of government at its worst in so far as delivering "bang for the buck". Politicians will attempt to shift "provider’s" reimbursements to their priorities (reelection) unless there are some checks and balances put in place. The trial lawyer lobby makes very little off of kids, so they will not buy off their political backers over this. One of the biggest draw backs to care for kids is adequate case management especially in special education area.
CONCLUSION (Doctor-Do no harm!- This should apply to us too.)
I would like the federal government appropriate monies to try models similar to this one in about 5 states through block grants. . Now we can compare a government run entitlement program (medicare) with a free market entitlement program. I know medicare is not what I would want for my National Health Care program. But, if this children’s model works efficiently, I would certainly be willing to revisit this National Health Care debate.