Big ‘Romneycare’ secret: It didn’t rein in costs

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Aug 27, 2008
18,450
1,823
205
It’s one of the greatest stories never told.

An ambitious Republican governor passes a revolutionary health reform plan that promises health insurance coverage for everyone but fails to reduce health costs or the growing reliance on the state’s overburdened hospitals — and depends heavily on the financial support of the federal government.

But that’s not the narrative you hear about Massachusetts.
The uniqueness of this 2012 presidential election — in which one candidate is the author of the plan, the other borrowed it to craft his own health law — has created a situation in which the voters aren’t hearing about the warts in Massachusetts’s health care law. Rather, both Democrats and Republicans talk about the successes — or don’t talk about it at all.

Big ?Romneycare? secret: It didn?t rein in costs - Jennifer Haberkorn and Kyle Cheney - POLITICO.com

Here's some of the good parts:

Health care costs per capita were 27 percent higher in Massachusetts than in the rest of the country in 2004, two years before the state plan was signed, Holtz-Eakin says. By 2009, it was 30 percent higher than the national average.

The law’s failure to rein in health care costs is widely acknowledged by nonpartisan analysts, as well as conservative critics. But there’s more material for critics to work with if either party wanted to use it. For example, emergency room use has gone up, not down — undermining the law’s effort to get that problem under control by expanding coverage.

State health policy officials issued a report last month showing a 6 percent increase in emergency room use from 2006 to 2010, the first four years when the law was in effect. That figure has confounded proponents of the law, who hoped emergency room care would plummet when residents had access to insurance and primary-care doctors.

Detractors in the Bay State also say the law has done little to dent the surging demand seen by the state’s largest safety-net hospitals.

It’s getting harder for Massachusetts residents to see a doctor, too. A report released last month by the Massachusetts Medical Society found that only half of the state’s primary-care providers are accepting new patients, down from 70 percent in 2007. And the average wait time to see a doctor in family medicine is 45 days — up from 34 days in 2007.

So I know we're all shocked that more government intervention in the health care market has simply made the situation that much worse.
 
It’s one of the greatest stories never told.

An ambitious Republican governor passes a revolutionary health reform plan that promises health insurance coverage for everyone but fails to reduce health costs or the growing reliance on the state’s overburdened hospitals — and depends heavily on the financial support of the federal government.

But that’s not the narrative you hear about Massachusetts.
The uniqueness of this 2012 presidential election — in which one candidate is the author of the plan, the other borrowed it to craft his own health law — has created a situation in which the voters aren’t hearing about the warts in Massachusetts’s health care law. Rather, both Democrats and Republicans talk about the successes — or don’t talk about it at all.

Big ?Romneycare? secret: It didn?t rein in costs - Jennifer Haberkorn and Kyle Cheney - POLITICO.com

Here's some of the good parts:

Health care costs per capita were 27 percent higher in Massachusetts than in the rest of the country in 2004, two years before the state plan was signed, Holtz-Eakin says. By 2009, it was 30 percent higher than the national average.

The law’s failure to rein in health care costs is widely acknowledged by nonpartisan analysts, as well as conservative critics. But there’s more material for critics to work with if either party wanted to use it. For example, emergency room use has gone up, not down — undermining the law’s effort to get that problem under control by expanding coverage.

State health policy officials issued a report last month showing a 6 percent increase in emergency room use from 2006 to 2010, the first four years when the law was in effect. That figure has confounded proponents of the law, who hoped emergency room care would plummet when residents had access to insurance and primary-care doctors.

Detractors in the Bay State also say the law has done little to dent the surging demand seen by the state’s largest safety-net hospitals.

It’s getting harder for Massachusetts residents to see a doctor, too. A report released last month by the Massachusetts Medical Society found that only half of the state’s primary-care providers are accepting new patients, down from 70 percent in 2007. And the average wait time to see a doctor in family medicine is 45 days — up from 34 days in 2007.

So I know we're all shocked that more government intervention in the health care market has simply made the situation that much worse.

But...But Romney is such a severe conservative he would never ever put legislation like that :lol:
 
It’s one of the greatest stories never told.

An ambitious Republican governor passes a revolutionary health reform plan that promises health insurance coverage for everyone but fails to reduce health costs or the growing reliance on the state’s overburdened hospitals — and depends heavily on the financial support of the federal government.

But that’s not the narrative you hear about Massachusetts.
The uniqueness of this 2012 presidential election — in which one candidate is the author of the plan, the other borrowed it to craft his own health law — has created a situation in which the voters aren’t hearing about the warts in Massachusetts’s health care law. Rather, both Democrats and Republicans talk about the successes — or don’t talk about it at all.

Big ?Romneycare? secret: It didn?t rein in costs - Jennifer Haberkorn and Kyle Cheney - POLITICO.com

Here's some of the good parts:

Health care costs per capita were 27 percent higher in Massachusetts than in the rest of the country in 2004, two years before the state plan was signed, Holtz-Eakin says. By 2009, it was 30 percent higher than the national average.

The law’s failure to rein in health care costs is widely acknowledged by nonpartisan analysts, as well as conservative critics. But there’s more material for critics to work with if either party wanted to use it. For example, emergency room use has gone up, not down — undermining the law’s effort to get that problem under control by expanding coverage.

State health policy officials issued a report last month showing a 6 percent increase in emergency room use from 2006 to 2010, the first four years when the law was in effect. That figure has confounded proponents of the law, who hoped emergency room care would plummet when residents had access to insurance and primary-care doctors.

Detractors in the Bay State also say the law has done little to dent the surging demand seen by the state’s largest safety-net hospitals.

It’s getting harder for Massachusetts residents to see a doctor, too. A report released last month by the Massachusetts Medical Society found that only half of the state’s primary-care providers are accepting new patients, down from 70 percent in 2007. And the average wait time to see a doctor in family medicine is 45 days — up from 34 days in 2007.

So I know we're all shocked that more government intervention in the health care market has simply made the situation that much worse.

But...But Romney is such a severe conservative he would never ever put legislation like that :lol:

No, no, no. Don't you get it? It's different at the state level. Capitalism and free markets change depending on the level of government you're at, obviously. :lol:
 
Big ?Romneycare? secret: It didn?t rein in costs - Jennifer Haberkorn and Kyle Cheney - POLITICO.com

Here's some of the good parts:



So I know we're all shocked that more government intervention in the health care market has simply made the situation that much worse.

But...But Romney is such a severe conservative he would never ever put legislation like that :lol:

No, no, no. Don't you get it? It's different at the state level. Capitalism and free markets change depending on the level of government you're at, obviously. :lol:

No, that story is soooo last month. Romney had no choice. There was a mandate from the people! (insurance lobbyists are people too, right?).
 
But...But Romney is such a severe conservative he would never ever put legislation like that :lol:

No, no, no. Don't you get it? It's different at the state level. Capitalism and free markets change depending on the level of government you're at, obviously. :lol:

No, that story is soooo last month. Romney had no choice. There was a mandate from the people! (insurance lobbyists are people too, right?).

I had forgotten that excuse. :lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top