Fred Endorses Mitt's Health Care Reform?

It’s become apparent to me that Fred Thompson likes Mitt Romney’s Health Care Reform so much that he has decided to endorse it by adopting it onto his platform. Here are some excerpts from Edmund F. Haislmaier’s speech about Romney’s health care reform compared to Fred’s plan posted on his website.

Portablilty

Mitt's Plan:
"The first part is a reorganization of the state's insurance market to provide small business with a simple and practical way to defined-contribution their workers into individual, portable coverage of the workers' choice without, in the process, losing any of the benefits of current federal standards and tax preferences for employer-group insurance."

Fred's plan:
"Every American should be able to get health insurance coverage that is affordable, fully accessible, and portable."

Consumer-Centered Approach

Mitt's Plan:
"Credit for starting from a consumer-centered approach goes principally to former Governor Mitt Romney and his administration."

"Better Value for the Money. The first reason is to get the system to deliver better value. Market-oriented health reformers have long argued for improving the health care value proposition by making consumers, as opposed to employers or government, the ultimate decision-makers in the system. It is only when the users and the payers are one and the same that the incentives in the health care system will be properly aligned to produce better value—that is, better results at better prices."

Fred's Plan:
"I am committed to a healthcare system that:
Realigns programs and creates a system around individual consumers and patients by providing more information and more opportunities to choose affordable health care options that best meet their needs and those of their families. Coverage should meet their individual needs and put them in control."

Chronic Care Management

Mitt's Plan:
"The creation of Medicaid and Medicare, combined with increases in the costs and complexity of care resulting from advances in medical science, and the imposition of a federal treatment mandate under EMTALA have collectively produced the current situation wherein the vast majority of residual "charity care" in the U.S. health system is delivered in hospital emergency departments. because the EMTALA mandate applies only to hospital emergency departments, it also has the distorting effect of shifting more care to that venue and away from lower-cost, and often more appropriate, alternatives such as clinics and physician offices. In the case of individuals with chronic conditions, that shift often produces less continuity of care, resulting in poorer outcomes and higher system costs."

Fred's Plan:
"Improves the individual health of all Americans by shifting to a system that promotes cost-effective prevention, chronic-care management, and personal responsibility"

Free Market Solutions to Reduce Costs

Mitt's Plan:
"The Massachusetts Record Thus Far

Barely one year later, the Massachusetts reforms are still in their start-up phase. Nonetheless, we do have some sense of how implementation is going.

After receiving bids from 10 carriers, for the first plan year, six different carriers are now offering 42 plan options through the Connector for the unsubsidized population, and enrollment in those plans began on May 1. That's approximately 41 more options than most Americans have today. Nationally, 80 percent of companies offering health benefits provide workers a choice of one plan—take it or leave it. Outside of federal workers in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, Massachusetts citizens getting health insurance through the Connector are among the only group of Americans who can shop in a competitive health insurance market with such a broad range of health care choices.

Pre-reform, the lowest premium for a typical uninsured 37-year-old in Boston was $335 per month with a $5,000 annual deductible. Now, through the Connector, the same individual can get health coverage for $184 per month ($118 pre-tax) with a $2,000 deductible—well below the $250 a month target set back when the legislation was being developed. Indeed, most can get a health plan worth twice the value at half the price."

Fred's Plan:
"Increases competition and consumer choice while streamlining regulations through free-market solutions that benefit individuals and reduce costs for employers."


Notice any similarities? There are more similarities but I think it’s apparent that the Fred Thompson Health Care Plan is a simplified explanation of the Mitt Romney plan. Of course, a simpler explanation of Fred’s stance would have been “I support Mitt Romney’s Health Care Reform”.

Thanks for the endorsement Fred.

On the subject of Religion-as if anybody cares.

It seems to me like some would have us believe that our presidents have all been “mainstream” Protestants with the single controversial election of a catholic.

They would also have you believe that Religion has been an important issue in politics.

They would have you believe that the American public is clamoring for information about Romney’s religion, and isn’t satisfied with Romney’s response.

While there have been quite a few Protestant Presidents, there have also been some that were explicitly non-Christian, and even more that many would deem “non-Christian” because their church didn’t subscribe to the Trinitarian view of God.

What’s possibly more telling is that a dozen Presidents were either not linked to a denomination or their religion is disputed. As if History is telling us that it’s such an insignificant factor in a President, that nobody saw any need to record it.

If there ever was a more boring subject than politics, it’s religion. People may be interested in their own religion but, very few people are interested in other people’s religions. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints maintains something like 50 thousand full time missionaries, who go door to door pleading with people to listen to them about the Latter Day Saint Church, but the vast majority of Americans just aren’t interested.

When Romney did give a response about his religion during the New Hampshire debate, it more than satisfied voters.



So why all the hubbub about Romney’s Religion? Because it’s an attempt to try and get Romney’s campaign stuck in the quagmire of unresolved religious debates. Imagine if Romney’s campaign had to solve all the doctrinal disputes among Christians before he could become elected President. It would be like the police telling you that they’ll find your stolen car, just as soon as they’ve solved all the murders. It’s just never going to happen.