RomneyCare's Unhappy Anniversary

Whovian · Apr 26, 2011

welcome to Obamacare...
RomneyCare's Unhappy Anniversary - Forbes.com

The anniversary has proved especially inconvenient for former Massachusetts Governor and probable Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who argued forcefully for his state's reforms. In 2006 he boldly stated, "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the cost of health care will be reduced."

Five years later, that prediction has proved false. Worse, the Massachusetts experiment offers an ominous preview of what lies ahead for the rest of the nation under ObamaCare.

When signing the bill into law, Romney claimed that it would "take about three years to get all of our citizens insured." In 2006 the number of uninsured in Massachusetts ranged from 372,000 to 618,000. Five years later, over 100,000 remain uninsured.

Failure to insure everyone, a chief tennent of Romney/Obamacare

The Massachusetts Medical Society found that 56% of physicians are not taking on new patients. Wait times for appointments are climbing. Just two years after reform took root, one clinic in Western Massachusetts had amassed a waiting list of 1,600 patients.

Doctors refusing new patients, increased wait times for PC visits. Chalk one up for Romney/Obamacare.

Of the previously uninsured individuals who have signed up, 68% are receiving free or subsidized coverage.

Many of these people aren't even citizens of Massachusetts. A recent report from the Massachusetts Inspector General found that state agencies have failed to implement controls to prevent ineligible people from making claims. In 2010 millions of dollars were spent on medical services for individuals from 48 other states and several foreign countries

Mismanagement. Hello Romney/Obamacare.

Despite the expansion of insurance coverage, people are continuing to seek routine medical care in expensive emergency rooms. Emergency room visits climbed 9%--or 3 million visits--between 2004 and 2008. The bill for uncompensated care has exceeded $400 million.

No one will have to use the ER for general medical care anymore!!! Welcom to Romney/Obamacare

An analysis from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation found that state spending on health care reform grew from $1.04 billion in 2006 to about $1.75 billion in 2010. Over the next 10 years, RomneyCare will likely cost $2 billion more than predicted.

Cost overruns. So much for saving money on insurance administration. Howdy Romney/Obamacare.

A 2010 study published in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy found that health insurance premiums in Massachusetts were increasing at a rate 3.7% slower than the national average prior to the implementation of RomneyCare. Post-overhaul, they're increasing 5.8% faster. Annual premium hikes in the state have averaged 7.5% since 2000.

Romney/Obamacare will reduce your insurance costs!

As health costs have risen public approval of the law has dwindled. A poll by Suffolk University found that 49% of state residents do not think that RomneyCare has been beneficial. That represents a 20% drop since the law passed in 2006

Everyone will support this law, once it's passed and they know what's in it. Romney/Obamacare.

lpast · Apr 26, 2011

Romney Care was a bad idea and Obamacare was far worse....thats it in a nutshell

Whovian · Apr 26, 2011

lpast said:
Romney Care was a bad idea and Obamacare was far worse....thats it in a nutshell

Yet most liberals defend it vigorously. Sad.

donsutherland1 · Apr 26, 2011

Whovian said:
welcome to Obamacare...
RomneyCare's Unhappy Anniversary - Forbes.com

A 2010 study published in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy found that health insurance premiums in Massachusetts were increasing at a rate 3.7% slower than the national average prior to the implementation of RomneyCare. Post-overhaul, they're increasing 5.8% faster. Annual premium hikes in the state have averaged 7.5% since 2000.

Click to expand...

I have not seen all the details of the study, but this kind of situation might provide additional evidence that the health care challenge facing Massachusetts could have been better addressed by including a supply side approach. By that, I mean that steps that would have significantly increased the number of practitioners might have led to a better outcome. Such an approach would have entailed a serious examination of licensing and it would have meant knocking down barriers that greatly limit the ability of foreign doctors to practice in the state, among other things. A greater supply of practitioners relative to demand could have eased cost pressures and wait times. It would also have reduced the leverage of existing practioners to withdraw services from the market, as others would then capture the abandoned market share.

In the longer-run, much as the health services industry will loathe such a notion--and any industry that enjoys protections that tend to cap the supply of industry participants would feel the same way--those approaches will have to be examined if the nation's excessive health cost growth problem is to be addressed. IMO, that problem, which was not addressed under Governor Romney's initiative nor the Obama health care law, is an important contributor to the incidence of uninsurance.

Whovian · Apr 26, 2011

donsutherland1 said:
I have not seen all the details of the study, but this kind of situation might provide additional evidence that the health care challenge facing Massachusetts could have been better addressed by including a supply side approach. By that, I mean that steps that would have significantly increased the number of practitioners might have led to a better outcome. Such an approach would have entailed a serious examination of licensing and it would have meant knocking down barriers that greatly limit the ability of foreign doctors to practice in the state, among other things. A greater supply of practitioners relative to demand could have eased cost pressures and wait times. It would also have reduced the leverage of existing practioners to withdraw services from the market, as others would then capture the abandoned market share.

In the longer-run, much as the health services industry will loathe such a notion--and any industry that enjoys protections that tend to cap the supply of industry participants would feel the same way--those approaches will have to be examined if the nation's excessive health cost growth problem is to be addressed. IMO, that problem, which was not addressed under Governor Romney's initiative nor the Obama health care law, is an important contributor to the incidence of uninsurance.

Well said, all around.

Back in college, I worked for a national group practice based in Philadelphia, staffing ER's across the country. In addition to assisting in physician interviews and giving them tours of facilities we were trying to hire them for, I was involved in reviewing and verifying the medical credentials of all new contracted physicians. About 60% were foreign educated. In many cases, the foreign physicians were as well or better qualified for ER work than many of the American educated physicians we dealt with. I'd be perfectly fine with a system that allowed more foreign educated physicians to work here, helping to alleviate the problems that systems like Romney/Obamacare perpetuate.