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.

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.

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.

“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 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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

"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.

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’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.

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.

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."

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.

Rudy Giuliani is good on health care, too.

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.

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?!

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.

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

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 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.