What Romneycare has cost Massachusetts
Today’s Boston Herald reviewed the results of findings made by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute concerning the effects of Romneycare on the state of Massachusetts. It should come as no surprise that Romneycare is an abysmal failure.
In a nut shell,
The Beacon Hill Institute study found that, on average, Romneycare:
• cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs;
• drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion;
• slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376; and
• reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million.
What an accomplishment, Governor Romney.
In a link in the Boston Herald article you can find the entire study results, should you care to read them.
Of course, all Americans will be subject to Obamacare in 2014. And, Obamacare is patterned after Romneycare.
Can anyone say “higher medical costs than we now have, including higher insurance premiums, and, fewer Americans covered by employer provided health insurance”?
Can anyone say “more jobs shipped overseas”?
More to the point, can anyone say that Obamacare is good for either this country, or its citizens?
22 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
I would like to hear some good news, SOS. You are starting to sound like a “Cassandra”. Do you really want your audience to be despondent? We’re counting on you to make us feel better, not worse!!
Sorry Sammy but I disagree. We are counting on the SOS to keep us informed. Enlightened, if you will.
There is no good news about Obamacare and the more we “see what’s in it”, the worse it gets.?
If you want flowery ?bama cuddling, rose colored outlooks on the damage “the one” has done, I suggest you consult the NYTimes, its clone, The Boston Globe, Newsweak, etc., etc.
?
I live in MA, and I see what this socialized crap is doing to our state.? Now I have to watch it happen to the country too.
?
Maybe you should stop being a Pollyanna.
SOS, Keep the posts coming as they are informative and appreciated……?we have to defeat this president im 2012 & the more information we have the better.?
Sammy, the truth hurts.
Seems like a grrrreat model…let’s run with it.? The American people will be ever so grateful that Obama and Pelosi are taking care of us even if we go broke and lose jobs.? Sweet.
?bamacare is Romneycare writ large.? Orders of magnitude larger….
Egads! Romney wants to keep ?bamacare when, ha, if, he is elected? Talk about doubling-down on stupid! Well, the Republican presidential-hopefuls field is effectively shrunk by one. No sane conservative could ever vote for Romney; to do so would be catastrophic for the country!
By whatever mechanism, we have to defeat ?bamacare!
P.S. Thanks SOS for the posts even if they make some people uncomfortable. Some people have to be moved out of their comfort zone in order to move forward, otherwise, same old, same old. Funny isn’t it, liberals love complacency. Liberalism is founded on lies.? Please keep exposing the lies, no matter who expresses discomfort. I would rather be informed.
I am neither a Polyanna nor a masochist. Flagellation and self-flagellation have a place? in Passion Plays. Obamacare is the law of the land, good luck on a repeal.
Now who’s being a Cassandra?
I would advise caution in using this study. This is a very conservative think tank whose objectivity is not certain. In fact, some of the language used in the report is more suggestive of a point of view (if not a bias) rather than of a clinical analysis. More critically, the headlined conclusions are not empirical results; rather, they are projected measures developed from entering a few data points into their various models. Keep in mind that this is the same type of approach that? climate change alarmists have used; the results are only as good as the models and the completeness, accuracy and relevance of the entered data.
While I am not an advocate of Romneycare, balance requires that we recognize that 400,000 more people have coverage than before; that 2/3 of Mass. residents support the program as do most physicians; and that more employers offer coverage now than before the law (i.e., private sector has not been crowded out. The biggest criticism is that costs are still the highest in the nation – as they were before the law – and the cost trajectory is about the same as before the law.
Again, my only point here is that we should not use a single model-based study by a non-objective organization to…
“balance requires that we recognize that 400,000 more people have coverage than before; that 2/3 of Mass. residents support the program as do most physicians; and that more employers offer coverage now than before the law”…
400,000 more people have coverage whether they wanted it or not and whether or not they can afford to pay for it.? Beyond that, can you please provide a source for your statements above?? I’d be interested to know its political leanings.
Dims, that’s the way it is. Though Eric Fromm said: “Man must suffer to be wise”. Perhaps that’s what it takes to be a Conservative.
True, and that is why I rely on SOS, to point out the liberal suffering being foisted upon the country.? Stuff you can’t get in the MSM, unfortunately.
?
Hopefully, Neitzche was right, and that which does not kill us will make us stronger.
Sure. Go to http://bluecrossfoundation.org/Health-Reform/~/media/D0DDA3D667BE49D58539821F74C723C7.pdf?
I don’t know the political leanings of this foundation but it’s very possible that Blue Cross was an advocate for this law. Nevertheless, my principal point stands: we need to be careful not to draw “the science is settled” type conclusions from any one report, particularly when the report relies on a proprietary econometric or other model.
One piece of data I’d love to see is whether population death rates are dropping in MA. If not, then this would appear to almost scientifically rebut the partially debunked claim that 800 people in the US die each week because they don’t have health insurance.
When I went to that link, this is what I got,
“Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. ?Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly.”? I googled the main words in your link and found the BC/BS report.
While it seems to be scientific on its surface, all this report really does is state the obvious “positives” and does not get into any of the hidden costs & unintended consequences that Beacon Hill Institute brought to the table.? For example:
“Mass. now has the lowest rate of uninsurance in the country” (why?? because you are forced to purchase it)
“Non elderly adults are more likely to be uninsured than children or elderly adults” …I would like to know if these are unmarried, nonelderly adults?? Children are typically covered on their parents’ health ins. plans (up to the age of 26, now)…Elderly adults have medicare (at least for now)…
(contd.)? Another glaring example is this simplistic statement: poor people can’t afford health insurance as much as rich people can (paraphrasing).? As for more employers offering more coverage since Romneycare, there is literally no statistical data offered to support that claim.? The source for most of BC/BS Foundation’s “data” is Urban Institute surveys.? As we all know, it is important how survey questions are worded so as not to be biased and/or confusing,.
I think it’s important to note that the BC/BS Foundation sponsored the “Roadmap to Coverage” study which aimed to expand coverage to everyone in Mass.?
You’re still missing my point, Winnie. I am not defending Romneycare nor holding out the Blue Cross report as definitive proof that RomneyCare is working as planned. My point was and is that the original post by SoundOffSister was wrong to categorically state that “Romneycare is an abject failure” on the basis of one study from a very conservative think tank that was based on some unknown inputs to some proprietary econometric model. Further, if 2/3 of Mass. residents are satisfied, the private market is not being crowded out, & 96% of people are covered, you can say it is flawed but it is almost certainly not an “abject failure.”
SOS called it an abysmal failure. She is off the mark on that too. She has lots of apologists.
Can any gov’t program, constantly bolstered by new infusions of our money (courtesy of pols) ever be called a “failure”??? At least technically?
?
Maybe “relative failure” would be a better term.
zedgar:? is your argument the adjective or the source SOS uses?? you seem to have a problem with both, as your first comment cautions us against using “this study”. ? So, I guess no matter what points I bring up, you’ll tell me I’m missing the point.?? Whatevah…not gonna lose sleep over it.? You may have it both ways if you wish.
More to the point, can anyone say that Obamacare is good for either this country, or its citizens?
It’s all been said before, but think the Beacon Hill Institute?will release thier assessment of Ohzer0 care on the US economy any time son??