RomneyCare in Massachusetts has been a jobs killer.

Suffolk University's Beacon Hill Institute, in a report that could give real ammunition to his opponents for the Republican Presidential nomination, say RomneyCare has cost Massachusetts more than 18,000 jobs.

“Mandating health insurance coverage and expanding the demand for health services without increasing supply drove up costs. Economics 101 tells us that,” said Paul Bachman, research director at the Beacon Hill Institute, the conservative think tank that conducted the study.

The Beacon Hill Institute study found that, on average, Romneycare has 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.

They found that instead of reducing health-care expenses as the plans advocates had promised, Romneycare actually increased costs by $4.3 billion.

WOW!!; Let's go national with this great plan!!

I'm thinking Mitt Romney and his staff better stay up late and come up with some new awesome talking points.

(Sorry hrp; that I didn't actually have time to take a trip to Massachusetts)

http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies...n2011-0915.pdf

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...ome&position=0

Having insurance does not mean there's a doctor who can see you.

"Massachusetts has the highest ratio of doctors per population in the country, but that doesn’t mean its residents can find a primary care physician who is accepting new patients. It got harder to secure a slot after 2006, according to one of three reports on health care released by the state today.

Last year 60 percent of family medicine doctors’ offices were accepting new patients, down from 70 percent in 2007, the first full year after passage of a state law mandating near-universal health insurance coverage. Last year only 44 percent of internal medicine practices were accepting new patients, down from 66 percent in 2005......"

http://www.boston.com/news/health/bl...husetts_2.html

For the life of me I don't knnow why Romney doesn't back away from Romneycare. All he has to do is say it was a mistake and he's sorry he signed the bill. He says he will repeal Obamacare, if he wins the election, so obviously he doesn't think it is any good.

Originally Posted by Sally Jo

For the life of me I don't knnow why Romney doesn't back away from Romneycare. All he has to do is say it was a mistake and he's sorry he signed the bill. He says he will repeal Obamacare, if he wins the election, so obviously he doesn't think it is any good.

He keeps saying his plan wasn't against the Massachusetts State Constitution, but that ObamaCare is against Federal Constitutional mandates, I believe.

It ain't gonna fly.

Originally Posted by Sally Jo

For the life of me I don't knnow why Romney doesn't back away from Romneycare. All he has to do is say it was a mistake and he's sorry he signed the bill. He says he will repeal Obamacare, if he wins the election, so obviously he doesn't think it is any good.

I agree. He should say it was a mistake. This issue will defeat him, I think.

I know, I've heard him maike this comment. It's still a lousy law. Why doesn't he admit it didn't turn out the way he had hoped?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

He keeps saying his plan wasn't against the Massachusetts State Constitution, but that ObamaCare is against Federal Constitutional mandates, I believe.

It ain't gonna fly.

it is possible to ask the governments mandate certain things. They mandate licensing such as drivers licenses, Plummer's licenses, real estate licenses. State governments can do this it is their right.

But everybody fails to realize or perhaps they realize they just don't mention it is the motivation behind the Massachusetts plan. Massachusetts was being ripped off by people who could well afford to buy health insurance to provide for their medical needs. In Massachusetts as in many states all you have to do is show up at the emergency room and you will receive medical care. There were so many doing this in Massachusetts that it required a solution. Agree with it or not it was Romney's solution. If you could afford health insurance to provide for your medical needs you should do so. Otherwise you should pay a fine and order to help support the government that is picking up the tab for your health care.

Do you find something wrong with?

Now we come to what the Massachusetts legislature did to this plan after it was implemented. It mandated all kinds of things to be covered as it does with regular health insurance. Such as the highly publicized case of a Massachusetts prisoner who wanted to have a sex change while in jail. Viagra. Just about anything you can imagine. Those of you who have ever lived in Massachusetts will find that your Medicare supplement in Florida cost less. The reason is the same. Massachusetts legislature dictated things that had to be mandatorily covered up insurance programs.

When you consider what the motivation was dealing out a better way of handling that then Romney did? Are you just an ideologue?

The fact that the results of 96% medical coverage in Massachusetts was just an incidental. It was a bonus. The real thing was to keep people from ripping off the rest of the taxpayers in the Commonwealth.

There are some would love to see Romney come out with a mea culpa and say he should never have done it. Then you'd hear all of the people yakking about flip flop.

Just some thoughts

Originally Posted by RichieLion

He keeps saying his plan wasn't against the Massachusetts State Constitution, but that ObamaCare is against Federal Constitutional mandates, I believe.

It ain't gonna fly.

I heard him say a couple of years ago that individual states "experimenting" with new ways of getting more people insured is what is supposed to be done, instead of forcing an experiement onto the whole country.

I don't think it's all bad that they tried this. Lessons can be learned by the rest of the country BEFORE forcing all states into another fast track to bankruptcy.

You make some good points, CMANN. Just for the record, I did vote for him in the 2008 primary. I would be happy to vote for him again.

Originally Posted by CMANN

it is possible to ask the governments mandate certain things. They mandate licensing such as drivers licenses, Plummer's licenses, real estate licenses. State governments can do this it is their right.

But everybody fails to realize or perhaps they realize they just don't mention it is the motivation behind the Massachusetts plan. Massachusetts was being ripped off by people who could well afford to buy health insurance to provide for their medical needs. In Massachusetts as in many states all you have to do is show up at the emergency room and you will receive medical care. There were so many doing this in Massachusetts that it required a solution. Agree with it or not it was Romney's solution. If you could afford health insurance to provide for your medical needs you should do so. Otherwise you should pay a fine and order to help support the government that is picking up the tab for your health care.

Do you find something wrong with?

Now we come to what the Massachusetts legislature did to this plan after it was implemented. It mandated all kinds of things to be covered as it does with regular health insurance. Such as the highly publicized case of a Massachusetts prisoner who wanted to have a sex change while in jail. Viagra. Just about anything you can imagine. Those of you who have ever lived in Massachusetts will find that your Medicare supplement in Florida cost less. The reason is the same. Massachusetts legislature dictated things that had to be mandatorily covered up insurance programs.

When you consider what the motivation was dealing out a better way of handling that then Romney did? Are you just an ideologue?

The fact that the results of 96% medical coverage in Massachusetts was just an incidental. It was a bonus. The real thing was to keep people from ripping off the rest of the taxpayers in the Commonwealth.

There are some would love to see Romney come out with a mea culpa and say he should never have done it. Then you'd hear all of the people yakking about flip flop.

Just some thoughts

That is precisely why health insurance, and for that matter other types of insurance should be left in the hands of private insurers. Some people simply don't understand that some things are uninsurable and in fact insuring them would create a moral dilemmna.

I believe it is a waste of time to demonize insurance companies. It would be productive to understand why they enact various policies and then work with them to create better intrastate competition

Originally Posted by CMANN

But everybody fails to realize ,or perhaps they realize they just don't mention it, is the motivation behind the Massachusetts plan. Massachusetts was being ripped off by people who could well afford to buy health insurance to provide for their medical needs. In Massachusetts as in many states all you have to do is show up at the emergency room and you will receive medical care. There were so many doing this in Massachusetts that it required a solution. Agree with it or not it was Romney's solution.

When you consider what the motivation was dealing out a better way of handling that then Romney did? Are you just an ideologue?

So in order to reduce or remove the inequities of who was being treated in the states emergency rooms, a huge bureaucratic monstrosity was inaugurated that is costing the state billions of dollars in increased costs and reduction of investment.

I'd say that maybe another look should be taken to determine if the solution is worse than the problem. How about it?