Since when is it a bad idea to have the federal government administer univeral health care coverage? Somehow the government has done okay with social security and medicare for more than 70 years. Why all the moaning and groaning over a plan for health care run by the government? I realize that many here think the federal government doesn't work because under the Bush adminstration NOTHING works. However, once he is gone and his pathetic and inept administration is history, maybe we can get back to real government that functions for the benefit of its citizens.

Many states are already broke, because they have had to fund disasters normally handled by the federal government. Our infrastructure is crumbling, with bridges collapsing, New Orleans is still a disaster area and states have also had to bear the costs of the uninsured. Why put an albatross around their necks with this lame excuse for a health care plan from Romney? Trust a Republican every time to say, just let the states handle it, then everything will be just peachy. They only like big government when it comes to regulating things like a woman's right to choose, or when it comes to giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest two percent of the population or letting corporations run up huge profits while they steal their employees' pensions.

Romney sounds much better suited to being a used car salesman than a candidate for president. I would take any plan from the Democratic candidates over this guy's half baked ideas.

I agree with the commenter from "coarsgold" that we must stop fighting amongst ourselves and look at right and wrong, not right and left when it comes to health care for all. I'd like to see a basic plan for every man woman and child, that covers wellness care and preventive doctors' visits. The money you pay for that coverage would be offset by a tax credit, so that you're not paying taxes above and beyond what you're paying for the medical policy. Isn't that kind of what Mitt Romney is saying here?

Some people think that because an issue is difficult to solve, we should hand it over to the federal government. Well, the federal government is comprised of people, just like you and I. Do you really think the "government" is better than you at handling your life? Why would anyone think that Congress, of all entities, is a better choice to manage and run your health and well-being. All of us, Democrat, Republican and "other", agree that Congress and Washington in general sucks. Why give them more taxes and tell them to fix the high cost of health care? When did the federal government EVER do a better job at something than private individuals and businesses? We just have to work on it a bit longer and get someone in there who's smart with BUSINESS, not government mangaement.

Steven in Charleston SC–

Yes, companies with branches in different states have to comply with state laws. I work for a Fortune 500 Co. that has employees residing in many states (I believe we may even have people living in all 50 states)and they have always processed employees' checks according to the indiv. state income tax requirements . It's not a big deal and is quite commonplace in firms with sales people and other depts. scattered across the country. That's what the payroll dept and benefits dept do. When we receive materials in the mail, you see addenda at the bottom of the paperwork with state-specific information with regard to health coverage and taxes.

There are many excellent posts in this Romney health care thread.

Has anyone been in an emergency room lately? You sit there looking at people who you KNOW are illgeal immigrants, and as such pay NO HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS.

Just like we did with mandatory car insurance, EVERY man and woman in the US should have to pay a little to contribute to the revenue needed to treat us all . If these illegals want to be here, they too should kick in for the health care system, no?

Correct me if Im wrong, former Gov. Romney is saying he suggests everyone to be required to have basic health care policy, but he also wants to give states the power to vote to do their own thing . Is see this as the epitome of liberty and choice. Isnt that what we're all about inthe US.

Val Davydov of Agawam, MA addresses me directly, writing:

“I think you are just nervous, knowing that Mitt Romney would beat hands down any one of the democratic contenders”

I’m not the nervous type, Val, particularly in this political climate. I think any of the Democrats will beat any of the Republicans because of the obvious incompetence of the current administration, and the fact that all the Republican candidates support the war. Gov. Romney is in fact polling below Mayor Giuliani and Senator Thompson in both national polls and head-to-head match-ups with leading Democrats.

With that said, I don’t like Mitt Romney. I don’t like him because he’s a purely political animal without an ounce of honest conviction, and I don’t think we should have a man like that in the White House.. I’d rather not see a Republican victory, but if I have to I’d sure rather have McCain or Huckabee or Giuliani because even if I don’t always like their politics, at least I respect them as men. I watch politics pretty closely and I don’t see much in Romney to respect. If you don’t believe me, spend a few minutes on YouTube watching him say all things to all people.

Romney is the chameleon candidate. Put him down in a red state and he turns red. Put him down in a blue state and he turns blue.

America deserves better than that.

I'm sorry, I'm just confused about how I pay for all my benefits, health care account, personal social security account etc. on wages that don't keep up with inflation ( which is still with us by the way! ) will these accounts be at a fixed price so my wages don't dteriorate further through the years?

David, Salinas, CA wrote: But I don’t understand why ANYONE would vote for Romney.

I think you are just nervous, knowing that Mitt Romney would beat hands down any one of the democratic contenders, either it is Hillary, Edwards, Obama, or Biden for that matter, as in your previous posts you wrote that you want a democrat to win the presidency.

There are numerous reasons why citizens of our Good Land would want Mitt Romney as their next leader, our next president.

As for myself (and my family) I truly believe that Romney’s approach to governing our nation will be solid and sound as it will be based on the already proven business, leadership and financial principles — experience that no other candidate possesses. I would certainly vote for Romney because I believe he will be the most credible and capable among the current candidates (both democratic and republican) to tackle problems head on that our politicians have swept under the carpet for decades.

As the governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney turned a huge deficit into a balanced budget, while at the same time addressing major health care and educational issues at the state level.

I believe that he will be open minded and his leadership will inspire new solutions in education, energy, and health care. He definitely manifests the ability to see where things are going and where they should be. Mitt Romney will do what the President of the United States suppose to do.

Romney is suggesting to push down Federal responsibilities to the States and the States will push down the Healthcare responsibilities to the counties and there is the rub; the rich and poor counties in the USA. Guess whole has the better healthcare plans

President Franklin Roosevelt. The quotation was:
"One thing is sure. We have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment… if it doesn't turn out right, we can modify it as we go along."
Mitt Romney actually made a plan to do something, instead of criticizing other people, and make fun of the healthcare plan. He plans it out, and hopefully will implement it when he gets elected.
I see you bloggers said that he goes back on his words. Let us try this out. If State A have 10,000 people, State B have 9,000 people, and State C have 2,000 people, that we average out to 7,000 people. If we make a universal healthcare program for everyone, who will benefit the most? State C. Who will complaint the most? State A and B. But if we tailor the healthcare system to the States benefit, who will get the most out of it? The people that live in the states? Maybe that is why he said that, if one works in one state, it will not work in other states. He did not go back on his words. You have to treat people according to their needs, not treat them “universally”.
If you think he is wrong, when didn’t you do something about it, instead of complaint about it, you can write letters of complaint to the state that you live, and see what other people have written in as well. So that way, all of you benefit. Use your democratic rights. Don’t complaint of what you didn’t benefit, complaint what you, your family, your relatives, and your neighbors did not benefit. Stop being selfish.

Complaining will get you nowhere, Vote! Choose the right Candidate.

One of the largest costs in health care are the uninsured that show up in the emergency room for every ailment. They have nom insurance because they need to spend the little money they have on thin gs like food, housing and such luxuries. Rocco is right but did not hit this major point. I bet the guy making his comments from Rio, possibly his summer estate, never considered the poor people or elderly that this guy's plan does zero for. The GOP seldom considers anyone that cannot visit their 1000$ a plate dinners. To fix health care you have to get the greed out of the industry. That means more regulation, oversight and a Government run alternative for the poor. You have to stop forcing the elderly to pick between their prescriptions and eating. Go ask your mothers what a morally responsible person would do.

[...] it. Doesn't go far enough, unfair to the poor, yada yada yada. I'm more interested in Giuliani's response, through a spokesman: “Mitt Romney’s legacy is the creation of a multi-billion dollar [...]

I have to agree with the core principle of Terry's post, but I have to disagree on the labeling of liberal vs conservative. I think EVERYONE, both left and right, want to see a workable health care system in this country. I think both the left and right have failed miserably up to now. Romney is at least giving it a shot. I think it's time to get off our butts, get to work, and quit with the petty labeling. We are all in this together, lets find a solution together.

So, let me see if I understand this…..if I am the owner of a company with employees in all fifty states, and I wish to offer health insurance to my employees, then I have to comply with 50 different health care plans? And this bright idea is from a "small government" conservative?

I think that whoever said that the real idea behind this plan is to allow Romney to adapt his story state-to-state is right on the money.

I posted: "We don't need Constitutional arguments explaining why many of our children are destined to receive poor care, due to the brilliance of the founding fathers."

Then David, Bay Area, CA posted "Yes, that pesky Constitution shouldn't play a role in our government at all, ideally… If you really support the "outcome" over the "process", I'd imagine you'd be supportive of the current administration. Who cares about the rights granted to suspected terrorists if using outlawed torture techniques (the process) could potentially save American lives (the outcome)? …"

David raises a good point. The Constitution controls the behavior of the elected and appointed men and women who are our government. I respect those who fear the power of government. I fear it too, though its power has been used in America, by and large, to my benefit, unlike the power of large corporations or religious groups who have been held in check by it.

What I was trying to say it this: To the Liberal, our children are a sacred trust. It is imperative that every child who breathes American air and toddles on American soil receive the best health care. Liberals are not so icky about procedural issues. Those who are concerned about power flowing through proper Constitutional channels should help us invent a delivery system for children's health care that will meet their standards but which will still succeed.

The test of America's child health care system is this: does every child receive all recommended preventative medical care? And, do all sick children receive the recommended treatments for any diseases, injuries, or deformities they may have? Health care can be delivered, as far as I am concerned, by any method as long as it is delivered competently and efficiently to all young Americans.

Unlike Bay Area David, who seems to be a careful thinker, most Conservatives use Constitutional arguments to block laws and programs which they really oppose for other reasons. The real reason why most Conservatives argue that the "government should stay out of health care" are these:

1. It might result in higher taxes. Most Conservatives belong to the "free lunch" club. They treat America as if it is a buffet at someone else's house.

2. Government delivered health care is secular. Government clinics would probably provide abortions pretty much on demand. Ditto birth control. Ditto sex education. Ditto condoms. Fundamentalist messages associated with chastity, abstinence, and pregnancy would not reach the government's patients.

3. The medical/pharmaceutical industry fears government oversight and price controls big time. They have a very nice thing going for them. They are raking it in.

4. The old slippery slope. Give it to kids, then you have to give it to the kids' mothers don't you? And why not the father too? Give 'em an inch and they'll take everything we've got.

However, if the Conservative leadership expressed these real reasons for their opposition, they might lose the argument. Supporting the wisdom of the founding fathers is much more respectable than a desire to save a few bucks by withholding medicine and medical treatment from sick children. The thing to remember about the Conservative leadership is this: they do not say what they think and they do not mean what they say. "Things are not as they seem; milk masquerades as cream."

Mitt Romney’s Health Care plan is just like the Prescription Drug Plan for Seniors of which I am one. It is designed to benefit insurance and pharmaceutical companies. If seniors get any benefit from it, well that’s just the way it is. No plan can be absolutely perfect.

We all need to wait and see how things work out in Massachusetts before we jump on this "mandatory" healhcare bandwagon. The plan in MA received huge influence from the insurance companies, so rest assured they are making out in the deal (even more).

Canthis come up with an original idea? This sounds an awful lot like Rudy's plan. It's good, but not what he enacted in Mass, which was actually taken out of the dem playbook (e.g., a bad idea).

We have to Stop the Cash Bleed to Vampire Insurance Companies.

Insurance Companies make money by denying health care benefits wherever they can. Usually it is by not paying the doctor after the services are delivered. Stealing from your doctor can’t go on forever.

Putting the burden on business means exporting more jobs and bankrupting business.

We don't need Constitutional arguments explaining why many of our children are destined to receive poor care, due to the brilliance of the founding fathers.

Yes, that pesky Constitution shouldn't play a role in our government at all, ideally…

If you really support the "outcome" over the "process", I'd imagine you'd be supportive of the current administration. Who cares about the rights granted to suspected terrorists if using outlawed torture techniques (the process) could potentially save American lives (the outcome)? The same for American's right to privacy if illegal wiretapping (the process) could prevent another terrorist attack (the outcome)?

I've no Romney fan, but this is the first health care plan I've heard from any candidate that is a) actually a plan (unlike Clinton and Guiliani) and b) uses federal government power in an appropriate fashion to promote the general welfare (unlike all the other Democratic candidates).

As the third distinct Californian named David to comment on this post, I feel I have some authority in this matter.

Sorry fellow bloggers and bloggettes:
I quoted the "Father of American Liberalism" in an earlier post, but did not identify him as President Franklin Roosevelt. The quotation was:

"One thing is sure. We have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment… if it doesn't turn out right, we can modify it as we go along."

Sounds like a plan to me.

Terry from Texas, the quote at the bottom of your posting is perfect.

All of the naysayers, be it bloggers or politicians, almost automatically hammer an idea if it is from someone whom they may differ with without looking at the substance and without offering anything to the discussion.

"Run to my website and see what I think", I would rather hear it from their lips so we know it is actually their own thoughts and ideas and that they have a "clue" on what they are posting on their website.

Many elders (my favorite group of people in the world as they have earned whatever we can provide, unlike our healthy young layabouts)do not have access to a PC, so where does that leave them?

This is a start, not a handout to layabouts and do-nothings, but a structured "shell to build on".

Just as your quote touched on.

I agree entirely with the insightful post by Terry in El Paso, TX and thank him for the quote from FDR. This isn’t about playing politics or abstract philosophies, it’s about taking care of 40 million Americans in need.

I’m still struck by Romney’s hypocrisy. The only thing that ever interested me about the guy was his health care plan in Massachusetts, and now it turns out he doesn’t believe in that enough to recommend it to Iowa or California. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, since Romney said a lot of things in Massachusetts that are the exact opposite of what he’s pitching on the campaign trail. It’s not about what he believes, it’s about what he believes he can sell.

I’ve come up with the perfect campaign mechanism for Romney: He should put up an interactive web site where voters can input their opinions on the issues that matter to them. Then the site will send them an email in which Gov. Romney agrees with all their positions. With this system, modern technology will allow Romney to pander to each and every voter individually. It’s the future of politics – every citizen gets their own personalized flip-flops.

Even though I disagree with many of their positions, I can see how an honest Republican voter could support McCain, or Huckabee, or Brownback, or Hunter, or Paul, or even Giuliani. But I don’t understand why ANYONE would vote for Romney. He doesn’t believe in your cause. He doesn’t believe in anything. He’ll sell you out in a second if he thinks it will buy him a vote.

I'm pretty against this. What happened in MA was basically just a boost for the insurance companes, and state tax revenue.

It doesn't give everyone helpcare. It does theoretically give some of the poor healthcare. However, I'm a 'contractor' and if I make over x, and don't get healthcare, then I have to pay more in taxes at the end of the year. So either I'm am forced to give the insurance company money, or the State.

Romney's program isn't making the states more like Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Cuba, etc… It's making it so that the insurance companies have 100% enrollment rates. I do wonder how much stock he holds in some of those.

As a good Liberal I want people who can't afford good health care to get it anyway, especially children. I am glad that a variety of solutions are being proposed. Romney proposes that the states take the lead, despite the fact that he is running for President, not Governor.

Under such a system, as we all know, New York and California children will be provided better health care than children from Texas and Mississippi, states usually found at the bottom of most lists).

Conservatives argue that the PROCESS is more important than the OUTCOME. Providing health care to children from the STATE level is superior to that provided from the FEDERAL level. This argument is a phoney one, and it is used to obscure the real intent of the speaker. If we ignore it, we will be better off. "Consistently, Conservatives want control to be ceded to any level of government that favors their interest. Consistently, Conservatives favor lessened control of themselves by all levels of government. Consistently, Conservatives favor heightened control of non-Conservatives by every level of government." (http://www.liberalandproudofit.com/html/conservative_myth.html )

To the Liberal, what matters is the OUTCOME, whether the process is located at the local or federal level. We do not care if excellent health care is delivered to children by the private sector, by churches, by local government, by the federal government, or by the YWCA. What we want to see is more innoculations, more checkups, fewer preventable illnesses, fewer days of school missed, better physical condition, fewer sports injuries, higher IQ's (intelligence is linked to nutrition), more pre-natal checkups, etc. Measurable progress toward the goal of better health is what we want to see. We don't need Constitutional arguments explaining why many of our children are destined to receive poor care, due to the brilliance of the founding fathers.

To the Conservative, the important thing is not child health but what corporation gets the money and and how weak are the restrictions regarding its use? State government is much easier to bribe and manipulate, especially in the states that are traditionally at the bottom of every list, like my own Lone Star State. (I'm not talking about the conservatives who read this blog; I'm talking about the Conservative leadership that has convinced you that they really have principles.)

I say, let's deliver health care to all children from every level. Over the years, we can evaluate the effectiveness of each program. And corporate good citizens can provide volunteer executive talent who can help us design the administrative structure of the delivery programs.

As the father of American Liberalism said, "One thing is sure. We have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment… if it doesn't turn out right, we can modify it as we go along."

Mitt will say whatever he thinks will get him elected. Like all campaign plans, no details, just slogans.

His plan is ignorant and impossible. This shows how out of touch he is with states. Does everybody not realize that states pay 80% of medicare for patients in their state, and that is ALREADY such a huge portion of a state's budget. This issue could bankrupt many states.

I'm not advocating for national health care or critizing anyone on here, but this is a very naive. Health problems do go across state lines, and no state would be able to afford this plan.

Everyone is a critic, but at least Romney offers a plan. What does Giuliani offer? Just more of the same. This country better start looking at what is good for the whole society and stop its greedy ways. Everyone in this counrty from the Street bum to the Corp greed of the CEO deserves basic health care, is it not time something was done about it?

Romney is showing he's just another rePUKElican puppet for his corporate masters, like Cheney & The Shrub. By not promoting a NATIONAL plan, and allowing the INSURANCE COMPANIES decide how to do healthcare coverage in each state, we'll have NO CHANGE at all, and a continuation of the status quo where Insurers make billions from average Americans and enrich their billionaire CEOs, and the average Joe Schmoe gets worse coverage and has to deal with EVIL insurance companies refusing to pay.
Thanks a lot Puppet Mitt !

Buy more insurance? In America?
Senator Romney cannot be serious.
American insurance companies must be some of the worst in the world, most notably since they literally find ways not to pay out claims.
His "solution" puts a bandaid on gapping wound, and would only line the pockets of insurance companies, most of whom are absolutely, utterly useless.
Fantastic idea coming from a millionaire.

Doctor Ron Paul has more credibility than Mitt Romney on the issue of health care. Dr. Paul has been in the medical field for decades while Mitt Romney is becoming a career politician.

Rudy Giuliani is good on health care, too.

It doesn't matter whether a health care plan is labeled "federalist," "universal," or "free market": any plan that fails to address the cost side of the equation is doomed to fail.

So now do we wait awhile for Mitts' next plan that directly contradicts this one?

It's simple: Get the Government out of our lives. Vote Ron Paul '08!

If you go to a hospital and you're sick, you get treated. Now, let's say Person A hasn't used her insurance in two years, but she's paying several hundred dollars anyway. Along comes Person B, who gets in a motorcycle wreck and receives $60,000 in free health care because HE DOESN'T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. As a matter of public policy, it's reasonable to require all Americans to have a basic amount of health insurance, just as it's resonable to require every driver to have auto insurance.

I generally agree with the belief that government should get out of healthcare all together, but if we are unfortunate enough to have Romney on the Republican ticket, this will definitely help him get my vote. It may not be the ideal way to do healthcare, but I find it preferable to some of the Democrats' proposals.

How will deregulation change any rates? It will only lead to more people (likely in lower income brackets) being cheated. And for states that have price control regulations I assure you that Romney's plan will raise your insurance costs.

I really like what I hear about what Massachusetts has been able to implement with health care. It's too bad we cannot require all states to take a look at some kind of model for health care. Romney is a Republican, I am a registered Democrat, but I am listening Mitt. We need a drastic overhaul when it comes to medical care. I work for public education, love my job, but God forbid if I were to get sick I would lose everything. Our medical benefits are horrible in education, and the pay is not all that great either. I cannot see getting out of a profession that inspires me though because of medical benefits. I just pray that nothing drastic happens to me. I also think it's very wrong for insurance companies to deny treatment. Since when did helping others become a profit situation. Healthcare should be a given for all of us, not just the ones who are financially at the top.

I really don't think the federal dept of health, or whatever it would be called would be BETTER than private organizations because federal services do not have employees who are working to compete for customers; they have no incentive to put out their best effort. Im not saying federal employees are not hard-working. Im just saying that some are not motivated to excel because they have pretty good unions and job security. The thought of someone who works for the federal govt taking care of me is a scary thought. I would opt for private even if others vote for this national health care service.

Mitt Romney makes perfect sense. One state may not want universal health care but it may work for another state. Don't force the national government health care thing on me, but let the individual people decide by putting it to referendum.

Can anyone point to a federal – level department or operation that is run well, is financially efficient and solvent and that people think provides high quality, customer-oriented service? Isn't that what you want for your health care– to be personal?

I like Mitt Romney's idea for each state to decide. The national health care thing sounds like a big waste o' money waiting to happen.

We really need to get the price of medicine and hospital care and doctors' visits lowered.

But when you have a problem, you don't automatically hand it over to the US government, do you? When I think of the federal government, I think of wasted tax money (Congress), bungled operations (FEMA, Veterans' Affairs) and big big bureaucracies (the IRS ). Why would anyone want something as important as their health taken over by the government?!

This totally makes sense to let the states decide.

I don't think it's a good idea to hand the health care system over to the same government that has failed so badly with the borders, Katrina, Homeland Security, and Walter Reed Hospital.

Havent had time to see details of Gov. Romney's plan, but I do like the idea of choice. Everybody wants a choice. I also like the states having sovreignty in some areas, as they do in abortion, state income tax, state sales tax, etc.

The federal government is too inefficient and just too big to handle the operations and bureaucracy of yet another department.

Romney's plan makes a lot sense for those of us who care for and treat the sick. You're going to see a lot of physicians support Romney. Good job Romney.

Romney does not have credibility on any issue, unless flip-flopping is considered an issue. This sleaze will say anything to get elected.

Did you mean 'merciless' companies?

A single payor system will be the death to health care quality in the U.S. (which has, despite UN reports, one of the best systems in the world, when measured soley on QUALITY). Only market solutions will work, starting with deregulating insurance companies on the state level.

This report is so poorly written it is amazing. Maybe you should hire me; I have a basic grasp of syntax and conjugation.

YEAH, GREAT. I AM 69 YEARS OLD AND DRAW $691.00 A MONTH. I AM SURE I COULD AFFORD TO PAY A INSURANCE CO. FOR COVERAGE AND STILL PAY MY UTILITYS RENT CHEAP GAS EAT AND ALL THAT.

I'm voting for Hillary, but I quite frankly don't see anything wrong with Romney's plan. I think it's a grand idea, practical, and Constitutional to boot. Hopefully, even once he loses the election he'll keep advocating towards this end (Romney:health care as Gore:global warming?)

This way, all the anti-health care red staters can continue to suffer, be sick, and get ruined by mercenary health insurance companies in the name of free markets and tiny government, while the rest of us can do what's necessary to protect the lives and well-being of our sick children and aging elderly.

Here's my plan: GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF HEALTH CARE.

We would save billions by doing so and everyone would be able to afford health care.

This is the perfect Romney plan. It allow him to say one thing in New Hampshire and another in Iowa.

Maybe he should call it PanderCare.

This guy is starting to sound more and more like RON PAUL. How funny

Romney is the only candidate with any credibility on this issue. The best part of his plan is that it fosters innovation at the state level. But I'm sure all the lawyers running on the democrat ticket won't like it…