Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 81,000
- 2,635
Get your own job.Again, who is paying you to repeat these disingenuous talking points? Because of the consistency of those talking points, I am becoming increasing convinced that somebody is assigning them.
Since RomneyCare is the only other implementation of such a plan, I'm amazed you find it conspiratorial that they're compared.
Says you. Folks from Massachusetts say otherwise...
Massachusetts poll finds high satisfaction under 'RomneyCare'
The same people who subsidize RomneyCare -- taxpayers.
Oh good. The taxpayers now get to subsidize Massachusetts AND the entire country. Sure glad you advised us of that comforting fact. In addition to fewer employment opportunities and much higher costs, should be a piece of cake.
And as for that "Massachusetts satisfaction" site you linked, I read the article under the headline. This is most of it:
The survey also suggested several areas that still need improvement in the state's healthcare system.
Nearly 80 percent said cost is the most important healthcare issue facing Massachusetts compared with access to care and quality of care. Another 65 percent said their healthcare costs are more expensive than last year.
The survey also found a 6 percent rise in the share of Massachusetts residents (31 percent) who reported using the emergency room last year. ER visits were more frequent among people age 40 and younger compared with the elderly.
The trend is problematic given the state's desire to constrain healthcare cost growth. The emergency room is one of the most expensive medical venues, and people without health insurance sometimes use it for basic care a factor behind the state's individual mandate to buy health coverage.
I'm not finding a lot of positives there. Do you?
And there is this from Politico:
Re Romneycare:
But some who are closely watching Massachusetts are more candid about it and they say it has some serious problems.
The reality is it performed very poorly, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Congressional Budget Office director and president of the American Action Forum. Hes one of the most vocal critics of the plan. A huge mark against it is it didnt control health care costs at all.
Health care costs per capita were 27 percent higher in Massachusetts than in the rest of the country in 2004, two years before the state plan was signed, Holtz-Eakin says. By 2009, it was 30 percent higher than the national average.
The laws failure to rein in health care costs is widely acknowledged by nonpartisan analysts, as well as conservative critics. But theres more material for critics to work with if either party wanted to use it. For example, emergency room use has gone up, not down undermining the laws effort to get that problem under control by expanding coverage.
State health policy officials issued a report last month showing a 6 percent increase in emergency room use from 2006 to 2010, the first four years when the law was in effect. That figure has confounded proponents of the law, who hoped emergency room care would plummet when residents had access to insurance and primary-care doctors.
Detractors in the Bay State also say the law has done little to dent the surging demand seen by the states largest safety-net hospitals.
Read more: Big ?Romneycare? secret: It didn?t rein in costs - Jennifer Haberkorn and Kyle Cheney - POLITICO.com
So you folks who have been designated Obama and Obamacare apologists, how truthful are you being about the success of Romneycare? How truthful are you and our fearless leader being about the prognosis for the costs and repercussions of Obamacare?
In case you're not already aware -- the American tax payer was already flipping the bill for healthcare where many people relied on overly expensive emergency-room care for their primary care.