Obama said that Romney's plan in Massachusetts was the blueprint for his plan. Romney says that it was "right for Massachusetts" but not for the country as a whole.

Well, here's an example of what I find despicable...

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/pol...&position=also

First, MA is being quiet on the fines they've collected from people who didn't buy health insurance - but THIS... Get this!

The Herald column recounted the plight of Lauren and Nick Destito, who were fined $3,000 by the state even though they had a $750-a-month health care plan, because the family could afford better coverage. The fact that the state decides how much insurance a family can afford, Gingrich said, is a classic example of “big government.”

The STATE figures out what they can afford????

Look, you can argue the health care issue from many sides and come up with all kinds of solutions, from single-payer to subsidies, etc. But the idea that $750/mo isn't enough out of someone's pocket? I'm on a plan that costs a little more than that (combining my cost with the employer-paid part). But the law, as I understand it, says you have to buy only if your employer doesn't cover you .. And the employer doesn't have to buy a premium plan AND they get better prices than individuals.

Anyone else see a dump truck full of "What's Wrong With This"?

Total bull......., Get rid of this part too if its in the Fed plan. This is the stuff that infuriates me.

From the same article:

“People have made good use of the appeals process, and it has been administered in a fair and flexible way,” Shor said. Residents have filed 10,353 appeals since the law went into effect in 2007, and the state has granted 65 percent of those appeals."

We were part of the appeals process. What a nightmare. Could not wait to leave that state. Obamacare will be a nightmare, sold to you by a snake salesman.

Originally Posted by djplong

Obama said that Romney's plan in Massachusetts was the blueprint for his plan. Romney says that it was "right for Massachusetts" but not for the country as a whole.

Well, here's an example of what I find despicable...

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/pol...&position=also

First, MA is being quiet on the fines they've collected from people who didn't buy health insurance - but THIS... Get this!



The STATE figures out what they can afford????

Look, you can argue the health care issue from many sides and come up with all kinds of solutions, from single-payer to subsidies, etc. But the idea that $750/mo isn't enough out of someone's pocket? I'm on a plan that costs a little more than that (combining my cost with the employer-paid part). But the law, as I understand it, says you have to buy only if your employer doesn't cover you .. And the employer doesn't have to buy a premium plan AND they get better prices than individuals.

Anyone else see a dump truck full of "What's Wrong With This"?

It's what we've been trying to tell y'all for years now!

It's STATISM at its best. And that is what democrat darlings Sean Penn, Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon want the most......for the rest of us....while they fly off to foreign countries in their private jets to relax and get their necessities.

Just for the record, from the beginning, I have been against 'the mandate'.

By the same token, I've yet to see a plan that addresses the real problem of health care in this country - the fact that we pay MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH PER CAPITA than any other country and yet so many are uncovered and undercovered.

My position is that, as much as I don't like it, *if* you're going to have national health care or a hybrid plan with a public option or WHATEVER - the ONLY way you're going to be able to pay for it, from a Constitutional standpoint, is a national sales tax.

One thing that bring down health care cost is standardizing costs around the country. I had a surgery here at the villages hospital the 24000.00 My brother had the same surgery in Ohio cost 13000.00 That I would say is one problem.Make the cost the same around the country and the system we have would be affordable to all. If Washington wants to control something that would be a better place to start.

Originally Posted by djplong

Just for the record, from the beginning, I have been against 'the mandate'.

By the same token, I've yet to see a plan that addresses the real problem of health care in this country - the fact that we pay MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH PER CAPITA than any other country and yet so many are uncovered and undercovered.

My position is that, as much as I don't like it, *if* you're going to have national health care or a hybrid plan with a public option or WHATEVER - the ONLY way you're going to be able to pay for it, from a Constitutional standpoint, is a national sales tax.

This is exactly why the current tax code being demolished and replaced with a flat tax or FairTax system is being promoted and has been for a long time.

Uneven and unfair--even discriminatory--taxation is a big reason nobody can fix healthcare financing.

It's not right that people who work legally and pay their income and payroll taxes carry the load for those who are working here illegally, who refuse to work, or who are working for cash under the table. In all three of these groups, all are consuming healthcare without paying into the healthcare finance system.

A national (consumption) sales tax is the way to address this.....but only if the current federal income tax and payroll taxes are wiped out completely by law and replaced with the sales tax.

That's why Cain's 9-9-9 idea is a good one to start with, having the FairTax as the goal in Phase 2.

"The Fair Tax rewards and encourages economic success and is progressive. It eliminates all federal personal and corporate and payroll taxes; it replaces that with a revenue neutral consumption tax on only new products and services. Rebates are provided to low-income earners.

The zero percent corporate tax rate will position the U.S. as an entrepreneurial haven for domestic and foreign investors. More jobs will be created in the U.S. as a result. Furthermore, the Fair Tax eliminates the IRS along with a $430 billion annual burden or almost 3 percent of our economy. Technology is in place for tax collection at point of sales. How much of the $430 billion (total cost of the IRS, plus compliance) contributes to economic growth? Likely none."

"But instead of paying a federal income and payroll tax, people would pay what amounts to 23 percent federal sales tax. That would translate into a paying a 30 percent sales tax at the store.

In return, there would be no federal tax on buying used items, including houses and cars.

“A used house, a used car, a used anything is only taxed once,” he said.

Every household would receive what’s called a prebate, to insure families earning less than the poverty line can offset the tax. For example, a family of four earning $29,140 would get a $565 prebate a month."

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...e=news_current