Health Care: RomneyCare Makes Things Worse

One of the main selling points for ObamaCare (for any socialized health care scheme) is the ludicrous claim that it will lower costs.

What happened when Governor Mitt “RomneyCare” Romney and a gang of socialist Democrats imposed socialized health care on the people of Massachusetts in 2006?

According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University did a study of this pre-ObamaCare experiment in American socialism which, as the report points out, some have said is “essentially identical” to ObamaCare. It produced a lot of surprises…not.

Cost?containment is often a major goal of health reform plans. However, this particular health care reform legislation did not provide an effective means for containing costs. The promise of cost?containment rested on a vague hope that the newly insured would seek preventive care, access their primary care physicians earlier in their illness and avoid costly emergency room visits.    Yet, the number of emergency room visits rose from 2.351 million in 2006 to 2.521 million in 2009, or by 7.2% over the period.  The total cost of emergency visits has soared by 36% over the period, or by $943 million.

The report points out

The Division of Health Care Finance and Policy estimates that per capita spending on health care in Massachusetts is 15% higher than the rest of the nation, even when accounting for the state’s higher wages and  spending on medical research and education.

Yet another aspect of socialized health care that we have seen come true over and over and over and over around the world has now manifested itself in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. For those who think that the rest of the world just doesn’t know how to do socialism right, that we in America are the only ones smart enough to finally make socialism work: the proof is here that yet again you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

As government health care schemes always do, it drove costs up. The only way government health care systems can have even a remote hope of lowering any costs at all is through the use of rationing board or “death panels” that decide who gets what care and who doesn’t. Of course, the tremendously long wait times always seen under socialized health care schemes create an unofficial system of rationing themselves, sometimes leading people to resort to DYI medicine and performing surgery on themselves.

the promise of expanded coverage at lower costs contradicts another basic economic theory.  By increasing demand for health care services without an equal increase in their supply, the universal health care law guaranteed that the price of health care services and health insurance would increase.  Our findings are consistent with this most fundamental tenet of economic law.

Of course, socialism ignores every fundamental tenet of economic law, as well as every fundamental tenet of common sense and every fundamental tenet of reality.

Well at least health care insurance premiums went down, right?

It is clear that the healthcare reform law sparked increases in private health insurance premiums.   Premiums for plans covering a single person rose by $284 per year by 2009 and increased family plan premiums by $2,504 per year.

According to one report this study looked at, premiums in Mass. are rising 21% – 46% faster than the rest of the nation.  Nice, huh?

It is absolutely maddening to those of us who knew this would be the result to see everyday Americans fall for this garbage. I might be tempted to accuse the architects of this monstrosity of “falling for it,” but I cannot believe that people so intimately involved in the process can be that stupid; they have to know…and simply don’t care, so long as their glorious socialist utopia gets built.

We’ve been flirting with socialism and government meddling with the market for decades going back to when FDR originally threw the system off-balance by implementing the wage controls which spawned the employer-provided health care system in the first place. Actually, we’ve done more than flirt with socialism: we’ve had an adulterous affair with it, and it’s led us to the same place adulterous affairs always lead.

Socialism and big government didn’t make us the greatest, most free and most prosperous nation in human history.  No, along with God’s blessing, freedom and the free market did that. Freedom for every American to decide how they will live their own lives and spend their own money, and a free market which has built-in incentives and penalties to control prices.

It really doesn’t take a PhD–nor does it take having lived under socialist systems as some of us have–to understand that human nature will kill any efficiencies found in socialism every time. If you subsidize or make something free so that consumers don’t feel the pain of paying for it, consumers will consume more of it. Duh! If more people are using the system more, that will make those goods and services harder to obtain, increasing wait times and driving up costs. Duh! If a third-party/single payer with deep pockets picks up the tab, the one providing goods and services will jack up the prices because the market is now able to bear higher prices. Duh!

Mitt “RomneyCare” Romney, allegedly a Republican, can’t figure this out? (Just as he can’t figure out that the anthropogenic global warming scam is just a hoax?)

I’m sorry, but we don’t need someone that stupid–or that slavish to principles counter to American ones–running the United States, no matter what letter they have after their name.

2 Responses to “Health Care: RomneyCare Makes Things Worse”

  1. You people’s math is all wrong:”One particularly unfair attack: The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation stepped in and claimed…they found that health care, which was 16 percent of the state budget in 1990, had jumped to 35 percent in 2010.”The problem: Romney’s plan was passed in 2006, not 1990. By that time, health care costs had jumped in Massachusetts (as they had around the country), adding up to 32% of the fiscal year 2006 budget — according to the same organization’s 2005 assessment. So the growth has been from 32% to 35%, hardly out of line with the national picture.”This is the sort of misleading stuff you see “reported” on Fox.RomneyCare is popular with the residents, as of June 2011:”The poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe found that 63 percent of Massachusetts residents support the 2006 health law, up 10 percentage points in the past two years. Just 21 percent said they were against the law.One of the major cost issues is how you Republicans insist on private insurance companies handling the system. Get rid of those and you can have major savings like any other country in the world. (Oh, government can’t do anything bla bla bla).

  2. Wow, you really have a problem with only one news outlet not being properly with the herd (ABC ), don’t you? Afraid of a little truth, are we?

    Kinda like what’s been offered up here. Facts are never friendly to socialists.

    Of course, bottom feeders, slugs and other non-producers who rely on other people to meet their needs are more likely to be sitting around waiting to answer the phone and tell some liberal pollster how much they love being handed things on a silver platter. Not a real surprise there, especially from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.

    The bottom line is RomneyCare–like all socialist health care schemes–was sold on the claim that it would lower health care costs. It didn’t. Study after study after study after study finds the same thing (the same thing that always happens any time socialism is tried).

    Sorry, no amount of wishful thinking or crying about Fox News will every change the fact that SOCIALISM. NEVER. WORKS.