RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare - yes it's the same.

Posted by Arkady K. On 9/29/2009

As a resident of Taxachusetts my fellow residents can attest to what ObamaCare has in store for the rest of America. A lesson in RomneyCare is also a lesson in the danger of relying on so-called fiscal conservatives Republicans who will sell their allegiances in a heartbeat to further their political agendas. Beware of Romney and beware of Obama(Romney)Care.

Primarily RomneyCare set out to cover our uninsured and while the jury is still out on how many remain uninsured, most will agree that a large number of people are now covered. Despite mandates and penalties, anywhere between 100,000 to 200,000 remain uninsured which in a population of 6 million is close to universal coverage. Sadly, this is precisely where the merits of RomneyCare end assuming that universal coverage is something we need to strive for (more insurance is not the answer).

What did Romney promise us in this grand experiment?

- Reduced costs for insurance premiums.
- Health coverage will become affordable for all.
- Manageable costs to our budget

Do those sound familiar? They should, because these are precisely the promises being sold to us via ObamaCare. So a mere two years after the passage of RomneyCare how are those promises stacking up?

First of all, our insurance premiums are up double digits and this is according to one of the most liberal papers in the nation - Boston Globe. Meanwhile greedy out of control insurers in the rest of the country have gone up at half the speed. But responsible taxpayers are not the only ones hurting, the insurance plans under Massachusetts Commonwealth Care designed to subsidize low-income families are on the rise as well, also by double digits. According to CATO, our state already suffered from high insurance premiums due to oppressive regulations and domination by several large insurers, now the problems have exploded. Certainly seems like government intervention tends to raise insurance premiums, no? Imagine this on a national scale now.

Second of all, Romney promised the cost of this life saving experiment would not exceed 1.5 Billion and Common Wealth Care(CWC) would cost just north of 700 million. This may be hard to believe, but these projections missed their mark, just a little bit. For starters CWC clocked in at 870 million, more than 20% increase just this year alone. According to our governor, within the next three years CWC will DOUBLE in cost! We are already unfairly relying on federal subsidies to pay for these costs and will suffer when they stop, but what will the federal government do when it's subsidies spiral out of control? Want a hint? It involves a printer. Meanwhile our legislature is scrambling and trying to comprehend the out of control rise in health care expenditures, just brilliant. The only medical insurance we should be subsidizing is the one covering brain examinations of legislators.

How will the state's one party domination attempt to cover the project pitfalls in funding? Our sales tax has already been raised and everything from soda/candy taxes to alcohol/cigarette taxes are on the table. Deval Patrick is openly mulling over increasing fines to small businesses as part of the employer mandate and the ultimate liberal response to battle costs - price controls! Why liberals continue to believe in one of the most egregious economic fallacies is truly baffling, but we the citizens must endure this continued stupidity. FDR's price controls caused food shortages (not the dust bowl folks, FDR), Carter's price controls caused oil shortages and California's legislatures caused massive rolling blackouts. Ultimately Romney's vision of affordable insurance will be realized, assuming we want to afford rationed care and deterioration in quality. Still skeptical? After all, why would this happen? No reason why a collection of brilliant Harvard educated men can screw something up so badly, right?

In a piece from NY Times:

The share who accept new patients has dropped, to barely half in the case of
internists, and the average wait by a new patient for an appointment with an
internist rose to 52 days in 2007 from 33 days in 2006. In westernmost Berkshire
County, newly insured patients are being referred 25 miles away, said Charles E.
Joffe-Halpern, director of an agency that enrolls the uninsured.

The proof as they say, is in the pudding. Wait times almost doubling in the first year of practice is frightening especially when it is happening to yours truly. Why would anyone wish this upon the rest of America?

In conclusion, the following is obvious. Romney is NO fiscal conservative and should be defeated in the primaries as quickly as possible. He is nothing more than an opportunist and while he speaks eloquently on the merits of fiscal responsibility, does whatever is necessary to survive. Use Romney's debacle here in our state as an example of what NOT to do, perhaps that can be the lasting benefit of RomneyCare to the rest of the nation.

What is equally obvious, government intervention and regulation cripples an industry that so desperately needs the opposite. Let us also not understate the moral infractions committed by a government forcing us to pay and buy something we do not want or need. How dare anyone punish us for not purchasing coverage and how is that any different than Stalin mandating what peasants can or cannot grow? Citizens are now forced to pay hundreds of millions extra in mandates and penalties, money we can be using to fund our HSAs or make other investments. Let us also recognize that limiting insurance companies, limiting how many physicians can practice, limiting how much coverage is acceptable and finally relying on someone else to pay the bill is not only backwards, but morally reprehensible.
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” - M. Rothbard