PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
As the New York Times, CNN and Obama supporters have repeatedly told us, the model for ObamaCare is RomneyCare--the Massachusetts system for "universal" medical insurance. It's a government-run program. It's subsidized by taxpayers. And, we were promised, by giving everyone coverage, costs would go down.
That's what the O-bots are about to shove down our throats in Washington, so let's check in with today's Boston Globe-Democrat to see how well it's working for us canaries here in the ObamaCare coal mine:
In just the past year, with inflation driving prices down 1 percent, health care costs in Massachusetts went UP 5 percent. And we pay more for our insurance than any other state in the country. AND we pay more in taxes than anyone else thanks to our state-run "Commonwealth Care" system, which was supposed to cost $100 million a year, but in fact took around $700 million of the current state budget.
Here's the painfully ironic quote of the day:
That's right, folks. Our version of ObamaCare has only been in place for TWO YEARS, and it's already 600% over the original budget.
This is shocking news to the Boston Globe-Democrat, which supported an even larger, more expensive and more government-centric version of RomneyCare. But the Wall Street Journal and others have been writing about this for months. Here was their conclusion back in March, when the news wasn't as bad as it is today:
And remember: The only people who DON'T want to repeat this disaster at the national level are racists.
That's what the O-bots are about to shove down our throats in Washington, so let's check in with today's Boston Globe-Democrat to see how well it's working for us canaries here in the ObamaCare coal mine:
Or to use a little doctor's office lingo on you: "Ouch!"Boston Globe Democrat said:Health costs to rise again
Insurers to boost rates about 10%; Shift of expenses to workers likely
The states major health insurers plan to raise premiums by about 10 percent next year, prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers.
Increases will range from 7 to 12 percent, capping a decade of consecutive double-digit premium increases, according to a Globe survey of the states top health insurers. Actual rates for 2010 will depend on the size of the employer and the type of coverage, with small businesses and individuals expected to be hit hardest. Overall, premiums are more than twice as high as they were 10 years ago.
In just the past year, with inflation driving prices down 1 percent, health care costs in Massachusetts went UP 5 percent. And we pay more for our insurance than any other state in the country. AND we pay more in taxes than anyone else thanks to our state-run "Commonwealth Care" system, which was supposed to cost $100 million a year, but in fact took around $700 million of the current state budget.
Here's the painfully ironic quote of the day:
Tim O'Brien said:State health care reform has had some unexpected results, suggested Tim OBrien, senior vice president at Blue Cross Blue Shields headquarters in Boston. The actual costs have been much higher than what were anticipated when health care reform went into effect in 2007.
That's right, folks. Our version of ObamaCare has only been in place for TWO YEARS, and it's already 600% over the original budget.
This is shocking news to the Boston Globe-Democrat, which supported an even larger, more expensive and more government-centric version of RomneyCare. But the Wall Street Journal and others have been writing about this for months. Here was their conclusion back in March, when the news wasn't as bad as it is today:
WSJ said:Which brings us to Washington, where Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats are about to try their own Bay State bait and switch: First create vast new entitlements that can never be repealed, then later take the less popular step of rationing care when it's their last hope to save the federal fisc.
The consequences of that deception will be far worse than those in Massachusetts, however, given that prior to 2006 the state already had a far smaller percentage of its population uninsured than the national average. The real lesson of Massachusetts is that reform proponents won't tell Americans the truth about what "universal" coverage really means: Runaway costs followed by price controls and bureaucratic rationing.
And remember: The only people who DON'T want to repeat this disaster at the national level are racists.
Last edited: