Monday, July 20, 2009

Mass-Care Model for Obama-care Already a "Failure", is "Unsustainable"

From The CATO Institute Forum...

"Government-run health care has failed in Massachusetts and will fail nationwide if Congress does not heed the lessons of the Bay State’s three-year-old health care experiment, three conservative health care analysts warned at a forum hosted by the Cato Institute.

In April 2006, then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney signed into law a controversial state health care reform bill. The bill mandates that individuals purchase health insurance and that employers with 10 or more employees provide health insurance for their workers. Under the plan, the State of Massachusetts runs a statewide health insurance exchange and provides health care subsidies for families with incomes up to 300% of the poverty line.

Massachusetts’ 2006 health care reform has taken on new relevance in recent months, as the debate over univeral healthcare has heated up in Congress. Senate Democrats proposed a draft bill on June 9 called the Affordable Health Choices Act and House Democrats unveiled a similar bill last Friday. Both the Senate and House health care bills mandate health insurance coverage in a bid to achieve universal health care. The 2006 Massachusetts bill took a similar tact.

“Massachusetts’ biggest mistake was that they made universal coverage the cornerstone of the system,” Cato senior fellow Michael Tanner said.

Tanner recently published a report that outlines what he says are the five unintended consequences of Massachusetts’ health care reform: (1) a lack of universal coverage, health care (2) costs that remain above the national average, new regulations (3) and bureaucracy, uncontrollable cost growth (4) and (5) increased waiting times for medical care.

Another panelist, Greg D’Angelo, a health care policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, argued that Massachusetts’ health care system is poorly run and, ultimately, unsustainable. He specifically criticized Massachusetts’ employer mandate.

“[The employer mandate] sets a bad precedent and opens the door for government intervention,” D’Angelo said.

Employer mandates, along with several other controversial aspects of the Massachusetts system, will likely be included in the health care legislation that Congress is expected to pass later this year. According to D’Angelo and Tanner, that would be a mistake.

Instead of borrowing from Massachusetts’ health care system, Tanner argued, we should be drawing lessons from its shortcomings.

“I think there is a lot we can learn from that failure,” Tanner said."


Blogger Red S Tater said...

Mass-care was also one of the reasons Mitt Romney did not win the Republican nomination in 2008... something the Mittster is going to have to address if he is going to win the nomination in 2012 I assure you.

4:22 PM  
Blogger Otter said...

There is no getting around this. The government can not and should not force anything on anybody.

They can not force health care on people. They can not force individuals to purchase it. They can only suggest that people purchase it to try and keep costs down by educating on the fact that people that only go to the doctor when they end up in the emergency room is a contributing factor to the rise in health care costs. You keep going to the ER with no insurance, that drives up the costs for the rest of us because the hospital has to recoup that money somehow. That isn't the hospital's fault. They aren't trying to rack up profits. They are trying to break even.

They can not force a company to purchase group plans for their employees. They can suggest that it is a good idea, again to keep costs down. And they give tax incentives to companies that do provide health coverage for its workers. But they can not and I saw again they SHOULD NOT be mandating it.

Nation-wise universal coverage is only going to contribute further to the rising costs of health care and eventually lead to rationing and poor quality.

Why rationing? Under the Obama plan who is their right mind is going to want to be a doctor. They might as well get a job driving a cab. Fewer doctors means fewer available services means rationing of health care services. Not healthy, no pun intended.

Why poor quality? Again, who will want to be a doctor. Fewer doctors not only leads to rationing but will also eventually lead to less stringent requirements to become a doctor because the country will need more doctors, hospitals and medical schools will have to lower their standards.

Massachusetts definitely made a big mistake. And it is THEIR mistake. We do not need the federal government forcing Massachusett's mistake on the rest of us.

1:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home