Podcast Show Notes
Why the hurry on health care? (Hat Tip: James Pethokoukis.)
RomneyCare ripping off Hospitals. (Hat Tip: Don Surber.)
RomneyCare being gamed. (Hat Tip: Red State.)
Why the Democrats big tax increase will not work. (Hat Tip: Townhall.)
House Obamacare bill to increase deficit $239 billion. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)
White House foreclosure program fails. (Hat Tip: Don Surber.)
Democrats go thuggish on Arizona. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)
Millions being wasted on no-bid contracts.
On the bright side: stimulus helping charter schools. (Hat Tip: Education Watch.)
David Keene puts conservatism up for sale.
You cannot reduce the number of abortions by funding them.
Unborn children remember. (Hat Tip: Jill Stanek.)
Second Amendment update via Gun Watch.
The threat of climate change has to be hyped. (Hat Tip: James Pethokoukis.)
In Britain, efforts are under way to bar parents from taking their children out of sexual education classes.
Music by Exit 417 via Music Alley.
Click here to listen.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:00 am
Adam,
Any thoughts on Keene?
July 19th, 2009 at 4:22 am
RomneyCare being gamed:
It’s too bad that people in MASS. have no problem gaming the system. They can afford to carry insurance, they are just selfish lowlifes. Hope they enjoy the few extra dollars in their pocket by screwing the aged, the young, the poor, and special needs people.
All civilized societies have a shared responsibility to each other if they like it or not, because one of these days it’s going to be them, their child or their parents who would be helped by this system if it was allowed to work as intended. Nobody knows the future.
This program depended on people doing what was right and it doesn’t say much about about the people of this country.
July 19th, 2009 at 6:47 am
A lot of great articles here Adam Graham. Thanks for posting them; I particularly like the article ‘Romney Care ripping off hospitals. We often here about the good aspects of Romney Care and how MA is saving millions of dollars. However, it is not as easy to measure the costs through the back-door. Our family went to a small local Tea party back in June. One of the guest speakers talked about how government is already messing up health care in this country, by paying hospitals less money than private insurance companies for the same medical services because the government is run so inefficiently as it is. Even my wife did not appreciate the whole point. In short, MA is saving some of the money by not paying market value to the private sector. This is the same stunt pulled in places like Canada. At least Mr. Romney tried to put some checks and balances into MA care to keep the system working, but let’s just say that is has not been totally successful. Obama Care will be 10 time worse. We do not need it.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Concerning Romney Care. (I am Romney Supporter)
#1: Never said it was perfect.
#2: Democrats have had three years to monkey with it.
#3: It didn’t adjust for increase in cost.
#4: It didn’t anticipate people gaming the system.
It seems from the article there are two problems. First, the state didn’t adjust for the rising costs (one has to wonder why they are rising), and Second, the state didn’t deal appropriate for those who buy insurance when they have a medical need and drop it later.
The bigger problem is how do you enforce people to buy insurance rather than waiting and letting others pick up the tab (Either the State/Federal Government or the local hospital). Either way, someone has to pick up the tab. Unless someone has the answer to this critical answer, this will continue to be an problem with or without any kind of Health Insurance reform.
So, for those who are critical of Romney Care, what is your solution?
July 19th, 2009 at 7:26 am
Another interesting twist to the Health Care Debate
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/18/congressman-centrist-dems-approached-gop-to-form-healthcare-coalition/
July 19th, 2009 at 8:34 am
“So, for those who are critical of Romney Care, what is your solution?” Well for the most part I think sitting back and letting the private sector work is the best solution of all options.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:55 am
But that’s is not working. Too many people just come to the emergency room for care and we the people pay for it. That is not a solution. So the many still have to pay for the few. That is also a dodge of the question. Try again.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Reading the first article concerning ‘Romneycare’ in the Times, it never mentions his even once. I did find an instance of Gov Deval Patrick restoring cuts to 30,000 immigrants.
Honestly, this boondgoggle is more DevalPatrickCare than anybody’s based on how its been implemented and executed. Romney did make a fully sincere effort to head off a number of issues with the plan but was over-ridden on quite a number of policies.
However if Romney and his followers continue to claim credit for the program’s successes then they deserve to be associated with the failures.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I believe that we will hear a lot more about MA and Romneycare this week. Glenn Beck has already previewed it for his upcoming discussion on Monday. Being that he was once a big Romney supporter, it will be interesting to hear how he goes about attacking it. Wonder if he will have Romney on to defend his plan.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:38 am
I don’t know enough about the so-called “Romney-care” program to judge whether it’s bad or good, but I do applaud Romney for at least attempting something creative. Republicans in our governments have long been plugging their ears with their fingers and shouting “lalalala I can’t hear you! Nothing’s wrong!! Free market!!!” instead of actually devising solutions for the health care crisis.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:42 am
The “Romney Care” articles don’t give a full picture by any means.
The so called “ripping off hospitals” article leaves out some important facts
1) hospitals were caught making millions of dollars in unsubstantiated claims, last I heard it was going to court
2) If one hospital isn’t receiving it’s fair share of reimbursement for unpaid bills, that can easily be corrected (probably not the problem)
3) The real problem is unpaid bills, going away from the reform would only increase this problem.
4) Part of the problem is tied to the economic downturn
5) Boston Medical receives the same payouts from Medicaid as everybody else, who don’t seem to be having the same problems as Boston Medical. Also, is moving people off insurance, to medicaid and others off medicaid to nothing really the answer?
Also as the article points out, this is really more of a political move, “a political and economic battle going on in the state about how to pay for health care”. Boston Medical received 1.5 billion from the state last year, “Boston Medical received $1.5 billion in state funds in the past year”, and it’s been suggested that their real problem if efficiency, “Boston Medical could reduce costs by operating more efficiently”. Also the hospital is sitting on a reserve of about $190 million.
In a more free market model, some hospitals are going to have to become more efficient, and can’t be propped up by large government spending based on politics. If this is however a case of misappropriated funds, that can easily be fixed.
” a recent report by the Massachusetts Hospital Association found that the number of uncompensated care hospital visits appears to be declining at a rate that is virtually identical to the take-up rate for the new subsidized coverage.[11] This not only indicates that the reforms seem to be working as intended but also that the state should be able to fund higher than planned Commonwealth Care enrollment out of lower than planned spending on uncompensated care. Yet, state payments for uncompensated care do not seem to have decreased as much as these trends suggest they should have.
One explanation may be that some hospitals are attempting to compensate for providing less uncompensated care by charging the state higher rates for the uncompensated care they still provide. Indeed, in FY 2007, these institutions could not substantiate $102 million in Section 122 payments that exceeded the hospitals’ costs but were below what they charged the state. While the state paid the hospitals, the federal government rightfully deferred its $51 million matching payment to the state. This issue is now a pending legal matter.[12]”
On the article “being gamed”, the truth of the matter is that the problem is not as bad as it was before. The claim is that people are signing up for health insurance, getting medical care, then canceling their insurance a short time later. First, I’m sure that already happened to a degree beforehand. 2nd the result is higher premiums for everybody else (which are lower than pre-reform), but before reform, the costs of the uninsured were already being passed on to the insured through MUCH higher premiums, and taxes. So basically the reform has REDUCED but not ELIMINATED this problem. If Massachusetts made the wise choice of allowing insurance providers to look at pre-existing conditions, that would further reduce this particular problem. (don’t hold your breath)
July 19th, 2009 at 10:44 am
#9 Glen Beck supported Romney? Are you sure? I wasn’t aware of that.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:49 am
“I think sitting back and letting the private sector work is the best solution of all options.”
Romney’s reform is what is allowing the private sector to work in Mass. The problem is that people b & m when the private sector starts doing its job. There are people who actually think they’re being conservative when they complain that Mass should use the government to allocate more of the money in health care.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:55 am
#3 “In short, MA is saving some of the money by not paying market value to the private sector.”
That’s not correct. Their reform actually reduces that problem. More of the money hospitals get is from private insurance, thus follows market pricing. Less of the money hospitals get is based on politics, and politicians shifting around money. That’s the problem though, you can’t go to daddy every time you max out your credit card anymore.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:59 am
If you want to read some real articles about “Romney Care”, then look at this:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1035.cfm
July 19th, 2009 at 11:01 am
and this:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/hl1044.cfm
These articles are from an actual conservative who intimately knows the details of the plan.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
There’s not a dime’s worth of real difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare.
Let’s not go the RINO path. Please.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Flip,
Ever heard of the Heritage Foundation? Educate yourself.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1035.cfm
July 19th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Flip dixon you have long ago given up any sign of intelligent life.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Glenn supported Romney in a Youtube announcement from a hospital bed the day Iowa voted. It wasn’t exactly big news and it wasn’t exactly a very helpful endorsement considering the timing and the medium. He claimed he wanted to support Romney sooner but didn’t want people thinking it was because they are the same religion so he had talked up Rudy instead.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
please sign the petition at free our healthcare.com
July 19th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
You know what…
People need to take care of themselves. Being responsible for their own health (and health care costs) creates enormous incentives to do things like the following:
1) Brush your teeth.
2) Eat right.
3) Have annual physicals
4) Know your family history
5) Stay with one doctor who knows you and your family’s medical history.
High-deductible (or catastrophe) plans should work for almost everyone on the off-chance that you get cancer or get caught in a meat-grinder.
Insurance should be for covering UNLIKELY EVENTS, not everyday events like taking your dang cholesterol medication.
Further, the requirement for hospitals to treat everyone who comes in the door isn’t working. It’s incentivizing people to wait until they’re really, really sick to go and get help.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
So the Heritage Foundation says it and that makes it right to require people to buy health insurance.
As this article in Human Events states, nearly every other conservative group out their opposes this thing:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24141
And Michael Lewis wrote this in 2006 quoting the Wall Street Journal to suggest the plan would be the death of small business:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14651
Regardless of its well-intentionedness, it violates conservative principles with its individual mandates. It violates free market principles. Once again, in order to support Mitt Romney, you have to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Well aft, I did read your Heritage articles; I must say it is a feather in Mr. Romney’s cap that he was trying to level the health care playing field between large and small employers, not to mention trying to promote doctor stability. However, it was market distortions, not the free market itself that caused such problems in the first place.
On another note, yes there are hospitals and medical organizations that do milk the government across the country. While I am not familiar with the particulars of MA in that regard, the point stands that government tend to underpay hospitals and this is no way to run a system in the long-run.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Pinning most of these problems on Romney would be like if Obama started making a series of foolish meddling decisions in Iraq and it turned for the worse and then we all blamed it on Bush.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Reply to 23 adam
So what do you do about those who refuse to get insurance then show up at the hospital for free medical care, let them die.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
#9: Beck won’t have the other side on. He only likes people who agree with him, so he can look smart.
I think Romney ought to get out there and talk about it, at least the good parts and how he thinks it can get back in control.
Fox has been beating up on it without mentioning his name since Thursday, beginning with Huckabee on Hannity’s show, and now Glen Beck.
Beck is a Palin supporter.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
26 – in a free market, yes that’s what you’d do, unless someone wanted to help the guy out monetarily for the sake of his conscionce. Who knows, might happen. However, there is already tons of government interference standing in the way of the free market when it comes to medicine so closing our eyes and pretending we’re already there isn’t going to help.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
28*conscience
July 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
#26, #28
Last time I checked, forcing someone to work for free is known as slavery.
Only in this instance, the government also “allows” hospitals to charge everyone else for their costs in providing free care, so it’s really just a gigantic transfer tax on those with health insurance to cover those who do not pay their hospital bills.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
#23 Regarding your first article
The thing that he gripes about the most is the individual mandate. Though he notes himself, “it must be emphasized that Romney has not included the individual mandate in his presidential reform proposal.” It should also be noted that Romney didn’t put the individual mandate in the Mass plan. “Governor Romney did not propose a health insurance mandate.[11] What he proposed was that those who still insisted on going without coverage in a reformed system demonstrate proof of their willingness and ability to pay their own bills by posting a bond or establishing an escrow account. The Massachusetts legislature replaced those provisions with a requirement that individuals buy health insurance or be fined—essentially an individual “play or pay” requirement.[12] I contend that the governor had the better idea, on both philosophical and economic grounds.”
The only real argument I could pull out of the article against the mandate was when he said we “don’t like the government’s micromanaging our healthcare.”, which is not an apt argument. In the commonwealth plan people get their own insurance rather than relying on government healthcare plans, so YOU get to manage your own healthcare more under Romney’s plan. Now if he would have argued that we are a bunch of babies that like the government to pick up the tab, then that would have been an apt argument.
The irony of the mandate is that so many “conservatives” are against this mandate, which is really a missed exemption, but the same people cheered for joy when McCain talked about a much larger tax incentive for getting insurance. So if you call it a tax incentive, make it larger, and make people believe it’s free money from the government, “conservatives” line up to support you.
The rest of the article had a bunch of inaccurate musings and “facts” such as claiming that “expanding the health insurance pool apparently isn’t lowering insurance premiums, as supporters have claimed it would.” Of course, this is NOT true. “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.[17] Indeed, most can get a health plan worth twice the value at half the price.”
The most interesting part of reading this article is that all his sources are from the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe, which he sites in his article. It appears this guy knows no more than the stories in the paper. He doesn’t seem to know how the system functions, nor what the outcomes have been.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
For the record, I’m all for putting in an out for people who are too stupid to buy insurance, don’t want to pay any taxes for health care, and want to die if they show up at a hospital emergency room without the ability to pay. They could sign an idiot waver, and be left to die, but somehow I doubt many people would sign it just to get out of paying a bit more in taxes. But good for you guys who advocate for them
.
July 19th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
#23 Regarding the second article:
These quotes seem to go together
“the Wall Street Journal reported May 5 that the well-intentioned bill is actually a death warrant for small business in the Bay State.”
“The legislation also sought to mandate that companies move to provide all employees with health coverage.”
“The new healthcare law, according to the Wall Street Journal, requires businesses with 10 or more employees to provide them health insurance, or face a yearly $295 penalty per employee.”
“Romney initially vetoed the provision which levied a $295 per employee penalty on businesses, only to be overruled by the Democratic legislature.”
Unfortunately, he didn’t get the facts quite right. “Employers with more than ten employees must provide a “fair and reasonable contribution” to the premium of health insurance for employees.” They aren’t required to provide insurance coverage, just contribute to it. “..employers are deemed to have offered “fair and reasonable” coverage if at least 25% of their full-time workers are enrolled in the firm’s health plan. Alternatively, a company meets the standard if it offers to pay at least 33% of the premium cost of an individual health plan.” If a quarter of your employees sign up, then you did good enough, otherwise you have to cover a third of their premium costs.
“…shams individuals in that it requires a specific kind of policy be purchased. “
There’s a little truth to this part. The congress made minimum coverage too high for the tastes of the rest of the country, though 70% of Massachusetts residents seem to be plenty happy with the plan as it is.
“Additionally, Section 65 of the law mandates that individuals buy HMO policies, rather than PPO plans, which allow much more consumer choice in providers and treatments.”
This is what section 65 says on the matter:
““Carrier”, an insurer licensed or otherwise authorized to transact accident and health insurance under chapter 175; a nonprofit hospital service corporation organized under chapter 176A; a non-profit medical service corporation organized under chapter 176B; or a health maintenance organization organized under chapter 176G”.
It seems that more than just HMO’s are accepted, and I’m pretty sure this only applies to plans subsidized by the government.
“A Republican has betrayed the people by restricting choice insurance plans. What a sad day for the party.”
In reality people have more choice under this plan. It’s only restricted in the sense that there aren’t unlimited options, but with the health connector, people have a variety of choices about what plan they want, rather than just choosing whether or not they want their employees plan. Sure there could be some more improvements, but it is already an improvement. I doubt they’re going to make too many changes though, because, I saw one survey done that said that 70% of the people in Massachusetts were happy with this plan.
You know at some point, the people who post criticisms of this plan should really do the work of learning about it by themselves. It’s pretty lame to just take potshots and post opinion pieces that have the facts wrong as your argument. It shows no personal responsibility, as such posters just move on to posting another negative opinion piece without learning, or addressing the positives and counter-arguments.
July 19th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
No, you’re forced to pay an insurer who has lobbied effectively to manage your “health care.” The efficacy of the insurers’ lobbying efforts mean that you are a captive consumer, and all the “competing” insurers’ policies are indistinguishable from one another thanks to legislated coverage mandates.
We used to expect to pay the bill we incur. Under a MassCare plan, we are now essentially to be taxed by health insurers to ensure there are no freeloaders. Whether you’re a person who stays away from the doctor except in case of severe complaints and pays your bills in full, or you’re the type who runs to the doctor to malinger or to spend hours visiting specialists to treat your toe fungus — you have no choice other than to pay your mandatory tributes to the health insurer.
That’s the Superhighway to Serfdom beneath the tires, son!
July 19th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
#30 Unfortunately it’s a federal law that you can’t turn somebody away because they don’t have the ability to pay. Governors can hardly change that law, but by all means if you can change it please do so (a snowballs chance in..).
While we’re at it lets reevaluate this whole “if you can’t afford an attorney thing”.
For my view-see #32
July 19th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
#34 That’s the socialist argument at work. Your claim is that the free market doesn’t work. That companies collude in order to screw the consumer instead of competing for consumers. If the free market doesn’t work then surely you must support a single payer system. Fact is, now consumers can choose from a variety of insurance plans, rather than just saying yes or no to their employers plan. Hmmm, who’s the real captive consumer there? I would say that many choices is better than one, of course that’s assuming your job offers insurance at all.
You (kind of) make a good point about legislated coverage mandates. For any other state, they should definitely be lower, to me it should be minimal coverage that is mandated, and Romney has stated that he thought they should be lower. However it appears that the majority of Massachusetts residents are happy with their plans.
As I’ve stated several times before Romney wrote in ways you could essentially self-insure, but the congress took it out, and override his veto. Surely we could also find additional intelligent ways for people who have the ability to pay to opt out. When talking about “Romney Care”, those criticisms aren’t really apt. Sure Massachusetts has some quirks, it’s hardly a red state, and it has the right to govern itself. Ideally, I certainly wouldn’t want the exact same details in my states plan (though it would be an improvement to what we have now), but it was a definite improvement to Massachusetts’ system, and it’s the structure, not the congress’s choices in the details that’s brilliant.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
To the contrary. Being forced to pay for an intermediary (a health insurer) to interfere in interactions between me and my health care provider, however, is not a free market.
The problem at its source is government involvement to “fix” problems that it actually exacerbated. Discussions of health care reform that are the talk of the town within the Beltway rarely ever consider the government itself as the problem.
As you point out, the compulsion for hospitals to take all patients regardless of their intension to pay “solved” the problem that a non-paying customer may not receive treatment in the emergency room. But it also gave the rest of the populace the signal that there’s no need to make any provisions for one’s health, whether through savings or insurance.
The MassCare solution merely fixed a problem caused by government initially with another onerous government incursion into individual freedom. In the process, rent seeking health insurance companies saw the writing on the wall and found it more profitable to invest in lobbying than in attracting customers by providing good, innovative service.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
#37 As I’ve pointed out many times, Romney provided provisions for those able to pay, to opt out. Furthermore, there are other creative ways beyond what Romney originally proposed that could be utilized. It doesn’t seem like you’ve acknowledged that though, unless your arguing that people shouldn’t have to be responsible for their health care bills. If that’s the case I feel no need to counter that.
I see no counter arguments against the fact that the reform lowered insurance costs, moved much of the primary care from expensive emergency rooms to a primary physician, that it moved money from being allocated by physicians to being directed by consumers, , that it made insurance portable, that it reduced free riding, or that it’s popular among Massachusetts residents. So I assume these points have been conceded.
I do see in your arguments a distinct distaste for insurance and the free market as you claim that insurance companies are colluding (without any sources), and claim there is no competition, yet people pay lower premiums and have more choices than before.
The best arguments against Commonwealth Care could easily be started with “I agree with Romney’s original form of the bill…”
I’ve already said that I would agree to an opt-out for people willing to self insure or put their lives on the line if they get in trouble. Those points are minor, in that the first was in Romney’s original plan, and could be reinstated is Mass desires, and the second would require getting rid of a popular federal law.
This song and dance though that missing an exemption, because the government taxes the uninsured rather than the general population to recoup costs of unpaid bills is some sort of loss of freedom is just disingenuous.
Nobody seems to have any problem with the government recouping that money through a general tax on everybody, but releasing those who have insurance is somehow offensive? It just doesn’t register as sincere. Besides, I remember how people here cheered when McCain proposed a huge tax incentive to “help people buy insurance”, as if that’s not the exact same thing.
July 19th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Sorry, I seem to have entered the discussion under the mistaken assumption it was about health care reform and health “insurance.” You seem to see the health element as a means to the end of proselytizing from Romney.
Romney should be ashamed of himself for his involvement in creating the MassCare fiasco that is today. Saying that he was brilliant and the Democrats screwed everything up afterwards is like saying the bomb-making instructor bears no responsibility for deaths the terrorist causes. But in my view, Romney was merely erecting the program for a future White House bid, because the national press has been screaming for socialized medicine for decades now.
That’s all well and good.
But I’d like to hear a candidate — Romney or whomever — talk about the free-rider problem and the problem of onerous coverage mandates legislated by the states. Government is the problem. Whether someone buys health insurance has no business being chiseled into statute. That merely piles more collectivist/socialist/corporatist manure onto the existing steaming heap.
July 19th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Reply to 39 MarkG.
By your analogy, no one should be required to buy car insurance either. No pure system of anything works. Neither Pure capitalism nor Pure Democracy. History has shown time and time again they fail. You must have practical solutions, not soap box theories.
July 19th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
The analogy falls short. Mandatory vehicle insurance makes sense because someone operating a heavy machine on public roadways has the potential to do severe damage to others for which the operator should be held liable. The size, weight, and power of the machine makes the potential damage quite severe, and it is reasonable to assume that drivers will not have the assets to cover the high costs resulting from an accident.
Health insurance as currently mandated bears little resemblance to auto insurance. Were auto coverage similar to health insurance, your car insurance would also cover oil changes, new tires, and fueling stops — with a modest copay, certainly.
Health insurance as currently mandated ensures waste by eliminating all incentives for patients to keep an eye on costs.
July 19th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Everyone has ideas. How those ideas turn out after going through a legislature is a different thing. Who has brought their milestone achievement from start to finish? I don’t know what Pawlenty’s, Palin’s or others ideas will look like when it comes out in the end. But we do have a candidate who made the attempt.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
#39 “Saying that he was brilliant and the Democrats screwed everything up afterwards”
I haven’t said that. I see that you don’t provide any facts as a rebuttal to any of these issues:
“I see no counter arguments against the fact that the reform lowered insurance costs, moved much of the primary care from expensive emergency rooms to a primary physician, that it moved money from being allocated by physicians to being directed by consumers, , that it made insurance portable, that it reduced free riding, or that it’s popular among Massachusetts residents. So I assume these points have been conceded.”
So once again I must assume they’ve been conceded. What I would say on the matter you brought up is that the basic structure & original plan are both sound, and that the implemented reform has been a great improvement as evidenced by the support for the plan, and the figures related to the plan that I’ve already posted. There are some aspects of the plan that only Massachusetts would choose, but that’s their prerogative. At no time did Romney suggest Massachusetts plan should be adopted by the entire country. He’s always said each state should fashion it’s own plan.
“…in my view, Romney was merely erecting the program for a future White House bid”
All that shows is you have a bias against Romney. Were you aware that several other plans were being proposed at the same time? Not only did this plan beat out plans that would have increased entitlements, it greatly improved the system and opened it up to the free market.
Whether someone buys health insurance has no business being chiseled into statute. That merely piles more collectivist/socialist/corporatist manure onto the existing steaming heap.
I’ll just copy and past my former response, since it hasn’t been addressed and is still applicable.
“Nobody seems to have any problem with the government recouping that money through a general tax on everybody, but releasing those who have insurance is somehow offensive? It just doesn’t register as sincere. Besides, I remember how people here cheered when McCain proposed a huge tax incentive to “help people buy insurance”, as if that’s not the exact same thing.”
Apparently you’re in love with the idea of the tax burden for unpaid medical bills being spread across the entire population, which is the real collectivist/socialist position. You also insist on ignoring the fact that Romney provided ways for people to opt out of buying insurance, and ignore the fact that additional means of opting out could also be made available.
Undoing the reform (which is what I’m assuming you would support), would mean putting more burden on taxpayers and those who carry insurance and pay their bills. It would mean reducing the choice of insurance plans, and making insurance non-portable in Massachusetts. It would result in doubling insurance premiums, and doubling deductibles for the average person. It would mean increasing the government run part of the system, and going back to the medical financial crisis they had before hand.
Rather than that, they could tweak the plan a little, and have an even more efficient system, but they seem pretty happy with the way it is.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Apparently, you’d rather spin my position than present a cogent argument.
I see no reason for some pol not to grow some ‘nads and promise fire and brimstone — plus a bit of wage garnisheeing — to the freeloaders. People who run to the emergency room should be required to pay outright or provide government ID upon admission so that they may be made to pay if they otherwise refuse: attach property, confiscate toys, whatever it takes.
You seem to believe that since there are free riders, we should all be punished in advance as potential miscreants by being forced into insurance plans designed by captive regulators and industry lobbyists.
I contend that the health insurer is unnecessary as many middlemen are. If I stay the hell away from hospitals, I don’t know why I should be made to pay for others’ hypochondria.
This will be the inevitable result of the MassCare fiasco no matter what. Plus higher taxes and/or public debt to pay for cost over-runs. Plus care rationing as is already under discussion as the next government fix to the government fix to the government fix before that, and so on ad infinitum.
I’m not buying the MassCare con job and its ObamaCare offspring.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
#44 I don’t think you understand what your defending most of the time (government making health care choices & freeloader expenses being spread across the entire population). I’ve already stated that if you can get rid of the federal law (which a state law can’t trump, thus commonwealth care could not legally do anything about it), then I would happily support an opt out for anybody who is willing to let themselves be denied life saving treatments because they don’t have the money.
The idea of solving the problem with wage garnisheeing is problematic. 1) you would have to deny people care if they cant show you a state ID. 2) You would have to deal with identity theft problems that would arise from this policy. 3) You would have to let people die who don’t/cant produce ID 4) You would have to be able to actually collect from everybody after-the-fact, which means 5) You would have to do away with bankruptcy 6) hope that nobody dies after treatment 7) hope that people have the ability to repay after-the-fact
hope that people don’t “disappear” afterward 9) hope that the collections can be done free or cheap, or the costs could be added in somehow.
Seems to riddled with problems to ever be a realistic solution, not to mention how unpopular it would be to even suggest such a solution.
“This will be the inevitable result of the MassCare fiasco no matter what. Plus higher taxes and/or public debt to pay for cost over-runs.”
Maybe our problem is that you are “seeing into the future”, whereas I as using facts that are currently available.
“Plus care rationing as is already under discussion as the next government fix to the government fix…”
No doubt that somebody is talking about care rationing, as they have been talking about that for years, but that article was only talking about changing the way they pay for the care of the uninsured. Not that I support their proposal, but I would have to guess by your indignation that you think the government should be offering the uninsured unlimited health care.
Of course, I must still assume that my points that weren’t addressed have been conceded.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Looking over the article about McCain’s $5,000 a year mandate, I failed to find any righteous indignation. Though I did find this clever comment.
# Sean M Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Actually alot of this sound’s like Romney’s plan that he unveiled last year.
Kudos to whoever Sean M is.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Wow, those articles are not kind to Willard and his RomneyCare legislation.
Funny enough it was Romney Care which was Willard’s signature accomplishment during his (1 term) governorship. But I am sure that, much like his supporters defend his $20,000,000,000 promise in Michigan to bail out the auto industry, the Willardbots will defend this with one excuse or another all the while calling themselves (and their candidate) the only “3 legged conservative” in the race.”
July 19th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
You appear to rely on that assumption. I disagree. I prefer not to debate the issue by stirring in all sorts of side points.
Yet your points fail to address potential cost effectiveness. I lived many years in Germany, and I assure you, the German corporatist state never tackles problems created by government by fixing government, but instead by piling on more draconian laws to make the presumably free society comply with the needs of central planners. Your German-like determination to restrict individual liberty for the collective “good” will result in more activist government, higher taxes, lower growth, and higher unemployment rates.
FWIW, I’m not inherently opposed to Romney. But I also do not see in him yet the makings of a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism and individual liberty. He can certainly win me over on those points — however unimportant such a gain may be for his ambitions. But he and his advisors won’t fool me by praising the imposition of MassCare.
The costs of MassCare are rising faster than the ridiculous pace set by the ill-conceived government programs of Medicare and Medicaid, for which we all pay through taxes and higher health-insurance premiums, along with future higher interest rates, higher inflation, and higher taxes.
If you keep propagandizing Romney as an aquapedestrian, I’ll be against you every step of the way.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
“…it was Romney Care which was Willard’s signature accomplishment during his (1 term) governorship”
Some have said that was the case, but he cut out a lot of duplication in their government, he did some great things in the area of education including incentives for performance, he forced a ton of budget cuts down the legislatures throat, and left them with a budget surplus. He passed a law that reduced the arrests of repeat drunk drivers by half. He Fought against a bunch of liberal social policies. He wrestled away control of the big dig project and fixed it, and he instituted a more fair way of nominating judges. So I’m not sure it I would consider that his signature accomplishment, but some have.
“$20,000,000,000 promise in Michigan to bail out the auto industry”
I think these are more accurate.
“Romney also proposed spending $20 billion a year on “energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology.”"
“This is the plan he proposed:
1. Easing federal regulation with respect to auto standards.
2. Easing federal regulation with respect to auto workers.
3. Bringing in $15 billion more in federally-funded research connected to the auto industry. This would bring the amount from $5 billion to $20 billion.”
So while I agree that it would have been good to reduce regulations and fund more money into “energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology” to bring our auto industry back into a strong competitive position, I guess things worked out anyway.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
#48 Once again, all you give me is opinion. That’s fine if your opinion is that our current system with growing medicaid, medicare, and SCHIP, is better than Massachusetts reform, or if you like some other plan, that’s fine as well. However, if your going to start posting negative comments about the reform, you should have your facts straight, and you should be able to back them up.
By the way, let me know when you find a “conservative” model you support, and I’ll let you know if it’s based on Romney’s model or not. There was a republican or two who did run without putting forward similar plans, but I’ll keep it to myself who they are.
I’ll just end with these stats.
These statistics compare 2006 to 2008:
People with a primary doctor is up from 86.4 % to 91.3%
Dental care visits in the last 12 months is up from 67.8% to 75.5%
Most recent ER visit being nonemergency is down from 15.9% to 15.2
Had problems paying medical bills in the last 12 months is down from 20.4 to 17.9
about 70 percent of those surveyed in 2006 through 2008 said they back the first-of-its-kind law
Massachusetts now has the lowest percentage of uninsured residents, less than 3 percent, compared with an average of about 15 percent elsewhere
These are as of 2007:
“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.[16] That’s approximately 41 more options than most Americans have today.”
“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.[17] Indeed, most can get a health plan worth twice the value at half the price.”
“For the year to date over the prior period (October 2006–May 2007), uncompensated care pool utilization has decreased by 12.8 percent, and the associated hospital costs are already down by 9.3 percent”
July 19th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
All of the cited stats reflect positively on central state planners who have the aim of increasing certain numbers. None of them show the long-range cost estimates, nor do any provide data on health outcomes.
In other words, the program you’re promoting is all present and accelerating future cost (which bureaucrats don’t care about) and no measurable individual benefit (which no bureaucrat cares about).
July 20th, 2009 at 1:35 am
please sign petition at http://www.freeourhealthcarenow.com