Sunday, February 10, 2008

The Bay State of Government-Managed Healthcare
















.
.

OK, so by now most informed Americans are aware that “Hillary-care” and “Obama-care” are pretty much based on the same plan advanced as “Romney-care” in Massachusetts.

If you doubt that, don’t take my word for it, try MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, who advised Romney on his health care reform law and has also advised Clinton, the Massachusetts law has a lot in common with the Clinton plan. Both plans mandate universal health care coverage and subsidize health care for people on low incomes.

What those Americans may well be wondering is, “How well is “Romney-care faring?”

After all, if Romney, who made the Olympics work, resuscitated dozens of failing companies and even made Massachusetts work, couldn’t make government managed care work, it’s pretty safe to say that no one can.

Well, the good news is that Romney/Hillary/Obama-care DOES NOT provide free health care to the vast majority of Americans! Far from it. In fact, all it really does for the vast majority of Americans is MANDATE that they purchase health insurance, the way they are now mandated to buy car insurance in order to drive legally on public roads.

That is certainly very good news for Health insurers, like GHI, Aetna, etc.

Yes, Barack Obama would ONLY mandate insurance for those with children, noting correctly, that they primary reason that many people don’t buy health insurance now, is because it’s too expensive, NOT because they don’t want it. Hillary also correctly notes that the coverage can’t be universal without a mandate that forces people to purchase that insurance.

Hey! I wonder where are all the dolts who said stupid things like, “Healthcare is a RIGHT,” went?

I mean, IF “healthcare IS a RIGHT,” shouldn’t it be FREE and NOT merely a mandated purchase?

The Clinton plan offers a variety of options and a tax credit for the families forced to buy insurance. There is no need, under this plan, to give free health insurance to the poor, as they already have Medicaid.

Opponents of this plan, just as opponents of “Romney-care” claim that it mandates INSURANCE thereby partially subsidizing health insurers. They also claim that its costs are “out of control.”

In the Bay State, Romney’s initial budget called $725 Million to cover the costs of Romney-care, it’s come in, according to the Governor’s revised proposal at $869 Million – a TWENTY PERCENT EXPLOSION in costs over the first year alone!!!

And remember that was Romney, a real businessman, with a real history of making things work, doing THAT. Can we expect a group of hapless bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. to do as well?

Not at all likely!

Moreover, within weeks of the deadline for Romney-care’s mandates, some 400,000+ Bay Staters had yet to purchase the mandated health insurance.

None of that bodes well for either Romney-care, Hillary-care or Obama-care, but at least we’ve silenced those nitwits who used to prattle on about how “healthcare is a right, and should be free.”

2 comments:

Rachel said...

how much is Romney's state insurance?

JMK said...

From what I've read, Rachel, Romney-care, like Hillary & Obama-care merely mandate that those above a certain income purchase health insurance by law. There is a fund to insure those below that income level (which is, of course, very low).

The individual health insurers are mandated to offer a wide range of plans and the thinking is that by forcing everyone to be insured, the overall costs will decrease.

I'm skeptical of the last part of that, as I don't see where the "volume discount" comes from.

The jury's still out on how well Romney-care has worked.

It IS more than 20% over budget and that's something to watch, because one thing Romney is great at is making things run well - he did orchestrate a very well-run Olympics at Salt Lake City and he has brought a lot of failing companies back to life. Not many other politicians have that experience or unique skill-set.

Moreover, with a week left to go before the deadline, some 400,000 Bay Staters hadn't bought health insurance, showing a reluctance on tha part of many Americans about being told how to spend their own money by government officials.

Imagine that?

The other question I have is How is MANDATING care (forcing people to BUY health insurance) the same as "providing universal care for ALL Americans?"

I must be missing something.

When did "healthcare is a RIGHT," turn into, "The government's gonna make you buy health insurance?"

They don't seem like the same thing to me.

American Ideas Click Here!