VK wrote, "
Let's see how it would work...no more Medicare, VA insurance or any other form of government funded health insurance whether you paid in for fifty years or not...then the government is going to give you a voucher and tell you to have at it, buy whatever insurance you want but don't come back for more if the insurance companies raise premiums above the voucher amount. But not to worry folks, the competition between the insurance companies will keep premiums affordable. And stuff like pre-existing conditions or policy drops? Competition will protect you on those fronts too. Like Gordon Gecko said in the movie "Wall Street"...greed is good.

Oh yeah, that'll be popular. And I'm sure that everyone will have implicit trust in the insurance companies not to raise their premiums above what can be afforded with the fixed amount of voucher money.

Let's see, since I retired in 1998, my health insurance premiums have just about tripled. If someone gave me a voucher that would cover my premiums back then, you figure how far under water and uninsured I would be now. That voucher idea doesn't sound to good to me.

By the way, that's the Paul Ryan proposal, isn't it?"
__________________________

I would like to hear some like Bucco or RichieLion address the facts in VK's posting, which I think hit the nail on the head. They are always asking for a discussion of issues. This is a major issue.

If those are not the ideas in Paul Ryan's proposal and would not be the ones that Mitt Romney would support, what exactly does Romney support for health care reform?