"ObamaCare: A National Version of RomneyCare; Before the country adopts a similar plan, Americans should know three things about the failing Massachusetts system."
November 2, 2009 - by Paul Hsieh
"The details of Congress’ health care “reform” legislation are finally coming into focus, and it’s not a pretty picture. Congress is essentially proposing a national version of the failing Massachusetts system.
"In 2006, Massachusetts adopted a health care plan which included an individual mandate requiring residents to purchase state-approved health insurance, new regulations on insurance companies specifying who they must cover and what benefits they must provide, and a government-subsidized “public option” for low-income residents. Supporters promised a utopia of “universal coverage” which would save money while improving quality of care. However, the exact opposite has occurred — health costs in Massachusetts have skyrocketed, while patient care has suffered.
"Before we adopt a similar plan at the national level, Americans should know three things about the Massachusetts plan.
"1) Massachusetts’ system of mandatory insurance drives up costs and violates individual rights.
"Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily specify what constitutes an “acceptable” insurance plan. Hence, this creates a giant magnet for special interest groups seeking to have their pet benefits included in the required package...."
"2) “Coverage” is not the same as actual medical care.
"Supporters of the Massachusetts plan frequently claim that it is a success because 98% of the state’s residents are now “covered.” But this is misleading, because it conflates theoretical “coverage” with actual medical care. In fact, access to medical care has worsened for many Massachusetts residents...."
"3) The Massachusetts plan will end in rationing.
"Although supporters of the Massachusetts plan had hoped it would save money, the opposite has occurred. The state expects to spend $595 million more in 2009 on its health insurance program than it did in 2006 — a 42% increase.
"In response, a special state commission has proposed controlling costs by radically restructuring how doctors and hospitals will be paid. Instead of paying providers based on the services they render, the state would pay a fixed annual fee to cover all of a patient’s medical needs. In theory, this would give providers an incentive to improve efficiency and eliminate unnecessary tests and treatments.
"But in practice, this would also create a dangerous incentive for physicians and hospitals to render as little care as possible...."
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamacare-a-national-version-of-romneycare/2/
The whole article is worth reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment