Some problems with the Massachusetts Health Care Mandate

From the Washington Post:

In 2006, the state of Massachusetts required every single one of its residents to get health insurance, and every single one of its businesses to provide it. Otherwise, residents and employers would be fined.

Some have asked, as national healthcare reform works its way through Congress, is there anything we can learn from the Massachusetts experiment?

Yes, according to the state's treasurer, interviewed today on CNBC: Whatever you do, don't do what we did.

In a blisteringly frank interview, treasurer Tim Cahill laid out some jaw-dropping stats, which eviscerated the plan and excited every conservative's worst fears about government getting further into the health insurance business:

-- The program has so far cost 30 percent more than anticipated.
-- It already has a $9 billion shortfall projected over the next two years.
-- Costs have risen 41 percent since the program's inception, well outpacing the rise in healthcare costs nationwide, which stands at 18 percent.
-- We thought this program would mean fewer people would go to hospitals, which is the highest cost any insurance plan has to pay. In fact, fewer people are not going to hospitals.
-- A Harvard study shows 60 percent of state residents are unhappy with the plan. The most unhappy? Those whom it should be helping the most -- those making $25,000 to $50,000 per year.
-- To cut costs, the program is now having to kick out legal immigrants.

Cahill summed up: "This is not a miracle by any stretch of the imagination." . . .

Labels: ,


Blogger se7en said...

It's funny. Romney has a piece out today saying his plan costs about what was expected (via Drudge): http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/mr-president-whats-the-rush.html

I've read enough reports on his plan to know it's not pro-market and pro-liberty. Markets, not mandates, will solve the health care problem. Praising the Mass. plan will not help his case.

Per your other comment, Romney has said that he only supports Cap and Trade on a global scale, that a U.S. only plan would be bad. I disagree with him on that, but it's an important distinction. It's quite silly, and also silly to think nations (including China and India) would join in. But he doesn't support it for the reason of Global Warming, from what I understand. As early as 2004, he said he doesn't believe (or disbelieve) in Global Warming.

Palin has also said she supports capping carbon emissions: (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/15/did-sarah-palin-flip-flop-on-cap-and-trade)

I don't know her reasoning for capping the emissions, whether for global warming or for air pollution, but I don't agree with capping carbon emissions.

7/30/2009 11:43 AM  
Blogger Angela said...

Romney defended the plan in USA today:


7/30/2009 12:10 PM  
Blogger aditya said...

Information for the people who are weak, have obesity ,depressed, nervous, lacking proper diet, smokers, and suffering from different types of diseases, which a common man have always in a daily routine.
Read this for a while. It is helpful

7/30/2009 2:56 PM  
Blogger 1 said...

Congressman Pat Ryan Schools MSNBC's Obamazoids on Health Care Competition and Free Markets

7/30/2009 3:26 PM  
Blogger wheelchairs : Manish Steel Works said...

Superb blog post, I have book marked this internet site so ideally I’ll see much more on this subject in the foreseeable future!

1/24/2011 2:51 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home