from a political perspective, I dont have a problem voting for a Mormon like Mitt.

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;103309]

Are you okay letting doctors or hospitals turn away others even for emergency care?

As I said, Ron Paul has pointed out that no hospital will turn away any person who is in trouble.
So any person that has been in an accident will receive care no matter they can pay or not.

But we are not people's mother.

Its not our decision if people want to live healthy or not.

its not our decision if a person wants a nice car, or wants to walk to work.

That decision is up to each one of us, alone.

If I decide that I don't want health insurance, then that is my decision, not yours!

Its none of anyone's business what I spend my money on , or not on.
Its called living in a free country....

Do we really want to start to put people in jail for doing nothing other than refusing to get insurance?..because that is the meaning behind the term "MANDATE"


the idea behind the term "mandate" is that you have to do this...or else.

"Mandate" means enforcement
It means the IRS goes after you..

and if that don't work?
It means the cops are called.

And when the cops knock at your door and you don't get up to answer that knock?
They break it down...


Do we really want the IRS to become seen like the German SS troops, who move in and simply take over a situation where people are guilty of only being different?


A man just wants to be left alone, who has done nothing wrong, will one day hear his front door getting kicked in?
That's Mitt's and Obama's America, not mine!

What government can do is provide for a means for people who wish to get insurance to get the cheapest insurance .

That means that Mitt should have worked hard to lower insurance price, not try to set up some type of Communistic system that robs people of their freedoms.
This is where Mitt went wrong, and this also is the reason Mitt will never be able to count on the Conservative voter.

Obama has his liberal base supporters always ready to go to the polls to vote for him, but Mitt will never have his conservative base supporters ready to vote for him in the same manner.

That is the problem here.

Mitt will always have this problem with his record and conservatives.

Next-
Mitt will never have the Christian base support, not only because he is not Christian (and yes that is a area i struggle to bring to an end), but also because he has a very disturbingly poor record of the core issues close to the hearts of all Christians.

Once again, Obama has a very good record on the same issues with the non-Christian/liberal voter. So once again Obama enjoys a built-in advantage over Mitt that mitt can NEVER equal in depth.

So where does this leave mitt's chances?
Only with the mood of the country against Obama due to the economy.
Thus Mitt has only that one issue to use to gain the support of the middle-of-the-road voter.

The problem with that is that there is a very good chance that a full year from now the economy might have picked up a bit.
Even a slight lowering of unemployment will be held up by the media as proof that Obama's recovery plans are working fine.

So I expect the economy to sorta pick up a bit , at least in the minds of the average voter, and that will take that issue more or less off the table.


This is why i give Mitt about a 50/50 chance if winning the election next year.
Mitt just is not anywhere close to being the best person to go up against Obama from the Republicans side.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

As I said, Ron Paul has pointed out that no hospital will turn away any person who is in trouble.
So any person that has been in an accident will receive care no matter they can pay or not.

And here lies the problem. When a person enters the emergency room, the emergency room cannot tell if the illness is life-threatening until they at least do a basic exam. Here lies the other problem---if people do not have insurance, and they know the hospital cannot turn them away without at least a basic exam----that is what the problem is today. We have people turning up to the emergency room all of the time and this is one of the reason hospital bills are so high---the hospital is covering the uninsured that go to the emergency room through the insured that show up at the hospital. In turn, insurance goes up. So, as long a hospitals CANNOT turn away those with no insurance, the problem continues.

But we are not people's mother.

Yes, but then your whole ideas for solutions comes down to telling people how to be parents. I don't see this working either.

Its not our decision if people want to live healthy or not.

its not our decision if a person wants a nice car, or wants to walk to work.

That decision is up to each one of us, alone.

If I decide that I don't want health insurance, then that is my decision, not yours!

I wish it was that easy. If a hospital or doctor could turn away those without insurance or proof of how they are going to pay--yes, I would agree with you on this. The minute you tell a hospital they HAVE to care for the "emergencies" is the minute you make others foot the bill and you tell me I HAVE to pay for someone else. That isn't freedom either.

Its none of anyone's business what I spend my money on , or not on.
Its called living in a free country....

See above.

Do we really want to start to put people in jail for doing nothing other than refusing to get insurance?..because that is the meaning behind the term "MANDATE"

No, I see a problem with this as well. For me, it would be better to allow someone to opt out or if they have an "emergency", then the society gets to garnish their wages to pay for their bill. For example, I think the person without insurance who shows up to the emergency room for care---society could say, okay, now the courts gets to figure out what part of your paycheck it is going to take to pay for this. I think that is the system I have heard about---where once you show up for care without insurance, than you get to pay for insurance PLUS a fine garnished from your paycheck. But I don't know Mitt's system that well, I do not livein M***.

Do we really want the IRS to become seen like the German SS troops, who move in and simply take over a situation where people are guilty of only being different?

No, which is why I would opt for allowing hospitals to turn down those without insurance. That is total freedom for both the tax payer and the insurance payers. It is also total freedom for the person who chooses to be irresponsible to pay the consequences for their irresponsibility.

That means that Mitt should have worked hard to lower insurance price, not try to set up some type of Communistic system that robs people of their freedoms.

I can see where you are coming from on this. I just don't kow Mitt's system that well. He said he used the free-market system. That does mean it should have helped lower costs. But I also heard that he sees health insurance like car insurance which we have mandates for and which you can go to jail for if you drive and hurt someone without it.

Next-
Mitt will never have the Christian base support, not only because he is not Christian (and yes that is a area i struggle to bring to an end), but also because he has a very disturbingly poor record of the core issues close to the hearts of all Christians.

I can see that. But it is amazing to me that Christians would get behind "christians" who don't live christian values and go against someone who lives christian values but is more open minded to the real problems that we are facing--as noted above regarding what is currently happening in regards to our emergency room care and the cost to society.

This is why i give Mitt about a 50/50 chance if winning the election next year.
Mitt just is not anywhere close to being the best person to go up against Obama from the Republicans side.

[/QUOTE] Newt is rising in Iowa---I am not sure you are right about Mitt making it through the primaries.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

But I also heard that he sees health insurance like car insurance which we have mandates for and which you can go to jail for if you drive and hurt someone without it.

There is NO LAW that says you have to drive a car....so that means that you can require all sorts of things to cover the people who do decide to get a car and drive.

You can require insurance, you can require they are old enough
You can require they p*** a test
You can require they are tall enough...there are all sorts of things you have the power to do, because driving is totally and completely Voluntary!

But mandated insurance had a hold over you for just being alive...

You have no choice....

If you are breathing, you are forced to get insurance.

This is why Mitt's plan is nothing like car insurance.

car insurance is based on "FREEDOM"
Mitt's plan is based on "FORCE"

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

There is NO LAW that says you have to drive a car....so that means that you can require all sorts of things to cover the people who do decide to get a car and drive.

You can require insurance, you can require they are old enough
You can require they p*** a test
You can require they are tall enough...there are all sorts of things you have the power to do, because driving is totally and completely Voluntary!

But mandated insurance had a hold over you for just being alive...

You have no choice....

If you are breathing, you are forced to get insurance.

This is why Mitt's plan is nothing like car insurance.

car insurance is based on "FREEDOM"
Mitt's plan is based on "FORCE"

I agree we are not forced to have a car, but we are not forced to go to the hospital either. I think the "mandate" should only come into effect when you "enter your car" so to speak by entering the hospital.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

.... I think the "mandate" should only come into effect when you "enter your car" so to speak by entering the hospital.

Thats not the plan that Mitt turned into law....

If you are breathing , you face a mandate to get insurance...
The current Obama law as planned has the IRS doing the dirty work of being the muscle to enforce the mandate.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Thats not the plan that Mitt turned into law....

If you are breathing , you face a mandate to get insurance...
The current Obama law as planned has the IRS doing the dirty work of being the muscle to enforce the mandate.

Are you sure? When do they discover the person does not have insurance? When do they "go after" them so to speak? I don't know the M***. law that well and I suspect, you haven't read it personally yourself either.

That said, if that were the case, the law could easily be tweaked to be that way. So, would you support a mandate the minute a person walked into the hospital for care? Would it then be okay to go after them for covering themselves?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

So, would you support a mandate ....

Why do you have this fixation with the "mandate"?

why do you only see the answer in the use of a mandate?

why do you read my words and think for one moment I suggest a mandate when i have over and over told you clearly that the mandate is unAmerican, and will never work, and will lead to putting people in jail that were never sick a day in their life?

why always the "mandate" with you?

[alanmolstad]

one of the problems I have with the Liberals is that on the question of health care, they only see the "mandate" as the answer....

They dont step back and look at the problem as a whole, and set down a clear understanding of the type of future America they want to live in.

All they see is that if you want poor people to have insurance, all you need to do is p*** a law and force them to....

[alanmolstad]

I suggest, that the liberals put down the "stick"...and pick up the carrot....

[alanmolstad]

let me tell you about the type of future I seek on this issue:

[alanmolstad]

a baby is born...

and goes home with it's mother who is single and dirt poor.

the mom is already on all kinds of State aid, and so it looks like this child also has a lot of State aid in the future as well..

and this pattern goes on and on for generations...


how to break it?....i will tell you how

[alanmolstad]

The mom signs up for some insurance that will cover the child for it's life.

to sweeten the deal, lets make the first 5 years (or whatever) of the child's life to be nearly totally free!

What mom would not jump at the chance to have their child receive free insurance for the most dangerous years the child will face?
It's a no-brainier.


So the mom signs for the child that this child will be covered by insurance for it's life...
That means as the child gets older every paycheck it earns will have a little taken out...even from the very first paychecks from McDonalds when they are under age.

So the child grows up covered, and becomes an adult with an insurance plan already set up from the get-go.

well....now lets say the child reaches age 30 (or whatever age it is) and decided to drop paying for insurance?
well....they still owe for them first 5 years, and thats likely about $20,000 bucks, and so the Insurance company has a right to ask for that money if the child wants to drop their coverage.

So the child will never drop coverage.....
I mean who would dare drop their coverage?...no one!


Its in the child's best interest to keep the coverage every day of their life...for as long as they keep the coverage they never have to pay back the company for the free insurance they already received!
Now sweeten the deal again, and if the child signs up it's own futuer children under the same plan, this lowers the fees for the whole family!

Suddenly its grandpa and grandma that are putting the pressure on the new parents to make sure the baby is covering under their same insurance!

The government gets to stay out of that conversation...as it should be.

everybody wins!

The hospital will always get paid.

The child receives very good health care coverage,(freaking free)

and part of the ding each paycheck the child earns will be for a life-insurance plan that will pay the $20,000 back...so the insurance company is happy knowing that they will always get their money back for covering the baby


It's so simple...

No government mandate needed,

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

The mom signs up for some insurance that will cover the child for it's life.

to sweeten the deal, lets make the first 5 years (or whatever) of the child's life to be nearly totally free!

What mom would not jump at the chance to have their child receive free insurance for the most dangerous years the child will face?
It's a no-brainier.

So, what do you do for the moms who don't do this? And is the dad in the picture here?

So the mom signs for the child that this child will be covered by insurance for it's life...

IF the mom signs up. What do you do if she doesn't do this? Every idea past this is a moot point IF the mom opts out.

That means as the child gets older every paycheck it earns will have a little taken out...even from the very first paychecks from McDonalds when they are under age.

What if the kid doensn't want to pay for this--what if they kid, as a teenager, thinks he is indestructable (imagine that), do you force him to pay for this insurance?

So the child grows up covered, and becomes an adult with an insurance plan already set up from the get-go.

well....now lets say the child reaches age 30 (or whatever age it is) and decided to drop paying for insurance?
well....they still owe for them first 5 years, and thats likely about $20,000 bucks, and so the Insurance company has a right to ask for that money if the child wants to drop their coverage.

How did you get the kid to "opt in" in the first place? Was it by force? What if both the mom refuse to pay or the kid refuses to allow the money to be taken out of his paycheck?

So the child will never drop coverage.....
I mean who would dare drop their coverage?...no one!

You are ***uming they bought in in the first place.

The government gets to stay out of that conversation...as it should be.

How is your idea brought about? What happens for those who say no?

Actually, the problem with having insurance taken out before getting the paycheck is the same problem with having taxes taken out before hand---it allows for abuses.

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;103351]

And is the dad in the picture here?

I was just giving an example that would be of a child with only one parent, and comparing that situation as it ends now, (State AID forever)
with the way i would have it end. (no need for State aid)

Right now a mom in that situation where she would actually lose some healthcare if she got a better *** ....

Infact, the more money a mom would make by getting a better paying ***, the more the State would back-away from picking up her and the child's health care bills .

This means that the mom actually is under a lot of pressure to NOT get a ***.
Or to get a *** that does not pay very good....and to stay in a *** that has no future.

I suggest that this whole system of the state picking up the bills for the poor is wrong
.
It will only force more and more people to stay poor, or risk losing the aid they are getting now.

A better way to go is to have the mom sign up the baby for life-time health care insurance....with the first 4, 5 or 6 years for free!



At that point the mom will see the advantage in signing up for 5 years of free healthcare that will not be effected if she gets a better paying ***.

So the mom can feel free to search for a way more better paying *** and not worry that she will have to give up anything!

5 years later the child is in school now, the mom's life is more stable and she has a better *** , and that that point the normal insurance fees go into effect...

the first 5 years of free insurance are the reason the mom will stick with the plan.

Stay in the plan = never have to pay that money back.

They also are the same reason the child will always also stick with the plan.

Suddenly you have in place a health insurance plan that is a normal part of every person's life, and the government is not in the story at all!!!!


Now thats just my example of a child with only one parent...and I hope you can see that I was not saying that the "dad" cant be part of this idea....

I hope the dad is very much in the story of each child.....

it will not change the insurance of the child, and it would make the life of the child better...

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Infact, the more money a mom would make by getting a better paying ***, the more the State would back-away from picking up her and the child's health care bills .

This means that the mom actually is under a lot of pressure to NOT get a ***.
Or to get a *** that does not pay very good....and to stay in a *** that has no future.

I suggest that this whole system of the state picking up the bills for the poor is wrong
.
It will only force more and more people to stay poor, or risk losing the aid they are getting now.

I am a stay at home mom---sometimes money is not the issue for choosing to stay home or stay poor. I think there is a benefit (a large one) to society when mothers take care of their own kids.

A better way to go is to have the mom sign up the baby for life-time health care insurance....with the first 4, 5 or 6 years for free!

Nothing is ever free. Who is going to pick up the tab on this?

At that point the mom will see the advantage in signing up for 5 years of free healthcare that will not be effected if she gets a better paying ***.

What if the mom doesn't want to sign up for something (as there are always strings attached)?

So the mom can feel free to search for a way more better paying *** and not worry that she will have to give up anything!

5 years later the child is in school now, the mom's life is more stable and she has a better *** , and that that point the normal insurance fees go into effect...

the first 5 years of free insurance are the reason the mom will stick with the plan.

Stay in the plan = never have to pay that money back.

And here is the catch as to why some may not sign up.

They also are the same reason the child will always also stick with the plan.

Suddenly you have in place a health insurance plan that is a normal part of every person's life, and the government is not in the story at all!!!!


Now thats just my example of a child with only one parent...and I hope you can see that I was not saying that the "dad" cant be part of this idea....

I hope the dad is very much in the story of each child.....

it will not change the insurance of the child, and it would make the life of the child better...

But, you have written the father out of your policy here---a dangerous thing to do in my book allowing the father to 'opt-in' to being a father.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Nothing is ever free. Who is going to pick up the tab on this?

perhaps I could have made this more clear...

Under the legacy healthcare insurance plan, the mom will never have to pay for the first 4,5 or 6 years of their child's insurance coverage.

But this amount is recorded, and it is credited to the child.
this means that when the child is old enough to decide to cancel theiur own insurance, that the total bills for their own first 5 years of coverage would now come due.

In every-day terms, what Legacy insurance means, is that you only have to pay for the first 5 years of your coverage if you stop paying your monthy fees.

it does not matter for what reason you stop paying your insurance fees...be it because you dont want to have insurance anymore, or you die.

at that moment that you stop paying your month insurance fee you then owe your bill for the first 5 years.

if you decided to just stop having insurance?
fine, that's your right...
the terms of the contract your mom signed on your behalf are thereby fulfilled, and you now just have to pay off the bills for the first 5 years....(might be about $20,000.00 so good luck with that)


But what if you die?
Your monthly insurance fee also has within it a life insurance coverage payable to the company at your death, so they get paid back for covering you for your first 5 years..

So everyone ends up happy.

No one is forced to carry insurance.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

perhaps I could have made this more clear...

Under the legacy healthcare insurance plan, the mom will never have to pay for the first 4,5 or 6 years of their child's insurance coverage.

But this amount is recorded, and it is credited to the child.
this means that when the child is old enough to decide to cancel theiur own insurance, that the total bills for their own first 5 years of coverage would now come due.

In every-day terms, what Legacy insurance means, is that you only have to pay for the first 5 years of your coverage if you stop paying your monthy fees.

it does not matter for what reason you stop paying your insurance fees...be it because you dont want to have insurance anymore, or you die.

at that moment that you stop paying your month insurance fee you then owe your bill for the first 5 years.

The problem I see with this program is that the parent is locking the child into a bum deal---either stay or pay. That doesn't sound like freedom at all to me.

Compare it to a phone company---you start, it seems like a real good deal--but as the year goes on, the service gets worse and worse. You want out, but you have this big charge if you do. Yours is one step worse--where the parents opted in with the child having no voice. And with a $20,000 opt out bill, who could afford it. It is subtle bondage, but bondage all the same.

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;103372]

The problem I see with this program is that the parent is locking the child into a bum deal---either stay or pay.

Julie you got to ask yourself, what is the goal?

You seem to have as a goal to make it easy for kids to drop their insurance?

trust me Julie, thats the case right now,,,
so how has that worked out?

[alanmolstad]

Julie, I think you need to take a look at the goal you have in mind as you think about this issue....

You listed the situation where a guy walks in to the ER because he is sick, and he has no insurance....

The hospital treats him, and the bill gets paid by the State.

This situation is the same as what the insurance companies have been warning the country about for over 20 years!

thats if you make insurance unneeded, you invite people to treat their State supported healthcare as if it were a All-you-can-eat buffet.

The goal you should always have in mind is finding a way to get people to have their private insurance.

so in the future when that 31 year old man walks into the ER, he has an insurance card in his pocket.

The best way to bring about such a better future is to bring up that young man in a home where from birth he learned the value of good insurance.

the best people to teach him that valuble lesson is not the state, nor the IRA....,but rather the pest people to handle that *** are good old mom and dad.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Julie, I think you need to take a look at the goal you have in mind as you think about this issue....

You listed the situation where a guy walks in to the ER because he is sick, and he has no insurance....

The hospital treats him, and the bill gets paid by the State.

This situation is the same as what the insurance companies have been warning the country about for over 20 years!

thats if you make insurance unneeded, you invite people to treat their State supported healthcare as if it were a All-you-can-eat buffet.

The goal you should always have in mind is finding a way to get people to have their private insurance.

so in the future when that 31 year old man walks into the ER, he has an insurance card in his pocket.

The best way to bring about such a better future is to bring up that young man in a home where from birth he learned the value of good insurance.

the best people to teach him that valuble lesson is not the state, nor the IRA....,but rather the pest people to handle that *** are good old mom and dad.

Yeah, but your system is not to "bring up the young man where...he learned the value of good insurance." Your system is to put your children in bondage to a corperation known as an insurance company. You are meeting one goal with something that could be far worse.

[alanmolstad]

Im talking about a system that is different than Mitt's system to be sure.
And my system is based on the idea that we want to make insurance the most easy for every man to have when he walks in the door of the ER.

My system is completely voluntary...and thats the thing that a lot of Mitt supporters dont know how to deal with about Mitt's past..

a fact is a fact, and it is a cold hard fact that one of the issues that was the very foundation of the Tea Party is the Clinton, then Mitt/Obama health care push to bring in a mandate.

This is also the reason for the media being so kind to Mitt, while it tries it's best to destroy anyone who is a challenger to Mitt to leading the ticket.

The liberal press wants Mitt to win the primary!

The liberals know that the moment that Mitt wins the primary, the whole health care mandate issue is taken off the table.

[alanmolstad]

clearly our goals are not the same....

You seem to always be worried about if its easy to drop the health insurance?

You also seem to always come back to the issue of a hospital tossing out a sick person who has no insurance.
Time and time again you keep getting to that image of a hospital shutting its doors in the face of need.

Well....my wife works at a hospital, and let me tell you something, no one that works at the hospital got into the work because they thought that down the line that sort of dark future would be real.

Lets design a system where that never happens....thats should be our goal.

Not to toss a few people out on their ****s, watch them die in the street, and hope others, "Learn a lesson"


My concern is that i want to make growing up with insurance to be a normal way to grow up for everyone.

I want to make the chances great that the person walking into the ER in the future will have insurance because they always had it from the beginning.

I actually want to make it 'hard" for a person to drop their insurance.


You want to make it easy to drop insurance.


I want it to be that the chance that a person has dropped his insurance to be very rare...

You want it to be common.

Well guess what?
It is already common.....and thats the problem.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

clearly our goals are not the same....

You seem to always be worried about if its easy to drop the health insurance?

You also seem to always come back to the issue of a hospital tossing out a sick person who has no insurance.
Time and time again you keep getting to that image of a hospital shutting its doors in the face of need.

Well....my wife works at a hospital, and let me tell you something, no one that works at the hospital got into the work because they thought that down the line that sort of dark future would be real.

Lets design a system where that never happens....thats should be our goal.

Not to toss a few people out on their ****s, watch them die in the street, and hope others, "Learn a lesson"


My concern is that i want to make growing up with insurance to be a normal way to grow up for everyone.

I want to make the chances great that the person walking into the ER in the future will have insurance because they always had it from the beginning.

I actually want to make it 'hard" for a person to drop their insurance.


You want to make it easy to drop insurance.


I want it to be that the chance that a person has dropped his insurance to be very rare...

You want it to be common.

Well guess what?
It is already common.....and thats the problem.

You are clearly not seeing my perspective on this. Right now, the problem exists because those who have insurance pay for those who do not have insurance either via medicaid or higher insurance and/or hospitial costs. So, effectively, we have a tax already. The question is, does the government address this tax we are paying in the form of higher medical bills and insurance costs or not.

Your plan puts someone in bondage TO an insurance company. That gives the insurance company all kinds of leverage to abuse. I have seen this already with cell phone plans---easy in and then a fee to opt out. This is why I personally would rather pay for my phone then to renew my plan with a "free" phone as I have seen the difference when you can say--well, I am done with this company, I am going to go to another and how they treat you versus when you would have to pay a few hundred to opt out. And yet, you want to slap this $20,000 bill to opt out---sheesh. That would be worse than a tax. Imagine the person who is at odds with their insurance company over a bill and would rather go to another insurance company? And that company has a $20,000 bill to hang over their head. Talk about ugly.

So, no, I am not talking about it being easy to drop insurance, I am talking about keeping the playing field level between the insurer and the insuree.

Your idea is terrible and only the naive would adopt it.

And the reason I bring up hospitals being able to turn down people without a way to pay is because that is total freedom which is what you say is YOUR goal. Total freedom means that not only do you have the choice to do what you want, but so do others so others do not have to pay for your bill if you choose to be irresponsible. The question is---do you want THAT much freedom or not?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Im talking about a system that is different than Mitt's system to be sure.
And my system is based on the idea that we want to make insurance the most easy for every man to have when he walks in the door of the ER.

My system is completely voluntary...and thats the thing that a lot of Mitt supporters dont know how to deal with about Mitt's past..

a fact is a fact, and it is a cold hard fact that one of the issues that was the very foundation of the Tea Party is the Clinton, then Mitt/Obama health care push to bring in a mandate.

This is also the reason for the media being so kind to Mitt, while it tries it's best to destroy anyone who is a challenger to Mitt to leading the ticket.

The liberal press wants Mitt to win the primary!

The liberals know that the moment that Mitt wins the primary, the whole health care mandate issue is taken off the table.

I don't know if I like the idea of a mandate, which is why I like the opt out options, but your idea is worse than a mandate, it is bondage to an insurance company. It is a terrible idea and lures the parent in and then traps the child. I don't know if the press really wants Romney all that bad---it seems they go for the person who is at the "top of the polls" which Newt is right now.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I don't know if the press really wants Romney all that bad--

Rush had something up on his website the other day on this topic.
Rush was talking about all the attack stories that the Liberal media had going against the others in the race....

Take MSNBC for example, story after story attacking all the other guys.

and how many attack stories against Mitt?......none?


Mitt is the Liberal's dream!

Mitt will take the Health Care issue off the table....

Think of that for a moment.

The very foundation of the Conservative agenda, totally taken out of the election?????

Obama must get down on his knees every night and thank GOD that "Mitt the Flip-Flopper" is about to be his only opposition in the next election.