March 10, 2011

How Many Massachusetts Residents are Satisfied with MassCare? 84%

Reuters reports a poll by Market Decisions on what the residents of Massachusetts think about MassCare (aka RomneyCare).  A whopping 84% of them are satisfied with it.

84%

Even after the damage that Deval Patrick and his Democrat cohorts have done to it.

84%

The poll by Market Decisions, a research and consulting group, found that 84 percent of residents are satisfied with the Massachusetts plan, which requires most adults to have health insurance.

The state health plan, launched under former Governor Mitt Romney, was given high marks for the range of services and the quality of care offered, according to the poll.

The survey was conducted from October 19 to November 30 and had a margin of error of 3.7 percent. It was released by the Massachusetts Health Connector, which helps individuals find insurance coverage.

84%

I have stated many times that the biggest difference between ObamaCare and MassCare is in the way they were constructed. Romney brought all sides to the table where everyone worked out their differences to their satisfaction. Nobody was 100% happy with it, but nearly everyone bought off on it. As a result, it was passed overwhelmingly by the Legislature with a majority of both parties supporting it. (The fact that it is only 72 pages certainly helped.) And the Massachusetts people still support it by a wide margin even to this day.

ObamaCare’s 2700 pages on the other hand, were formulated in secret; passed via legislative tricks, bribery, and extortion; and rammed down the protesting throats of the American people. THAT is the biggest difference between the two plans. It is not so much some “State vs. Federal rights” thingy that Romney has been touting so much recently. It is the fundamental American principle at the very heart of our nation, the consent of the people to be governed.

Americans like to be consulted, to feel part of the process of the making of laws. We don’t mind mandates if we have a say in the matter, and every law is a mandate in some form or the other. To have dictates rammed down our throats by an arrogant Congress and President against the expressed will of the people really sticks in our craw.

If Romney would emphasize THAT difference more than the federalism argument, I suspect it would work better for him.

by @ 8:14 pm. Filed under Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Poll Watch
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42016.com/2011/03/10/how-many-massachussets-residents-are-satisifed-masscare-84/trackback/

72 Responses to “How Many Massachusetts Residents are Satisfied with MassCare? 84%”

  1. asparagus Says:

    Great post Mark. Romney found a way to use the same Federal dollars that were being wasted on emergency room care and transform them into near universal coverage. And people are satisfied??? Not sure what the current Republican congress approval rating is, but I’m pretty sure its nowhere near 84%. Not perfect, but just an example of the kind of wicked smarts Gov. Romney is going to employ in Washington. A bipartisan Romney will be very refreshing compared to the fraudulant bipartisanship Obama is trying.

  2. Matt "MWS" Says:

    marK,

    While I respect the fact that Romney didn’t ram his Care down the throats of his constituents, and was even able to enlist Ted Kennedy as an enthusiastic supporter, I don’t know how many conservatives are going to be won over by the process-makes-all-the-difference argument. Because when all that process is over- good or bad- you’re still left with a law that is fundamentally at odds with conservative principles.

  3. Jonathan Says:

    Mark:

    You’re probably right that this is Romney’s best argument “the people of Massachusetts wanted it, I delivered it after consulting with them”. Combining that with the federalism argument might help, although I believe that if Romney is nominated, it’ll be despite Romneycare.

  4. Matt "MWS" Says:

    asparagus,

    It took a lot more than just “federal” dollars.

  5. asparagus Says:

    Who’s counting!

  6. Thunder Says:

    # Matt “MWS” Says:
    March 10th, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    marK,

    While I respect the fact that Romney didn’t ram his Care down the throats of his constituents, and was even able to enlist Ted Kennedy as an enthusiastic supporter, I don’t know how many conservatives are going to be won over by the process-makes-all-the-difference argument. Because when all that process is over- good or bad- you’re still left with a law that is fundamentally at odds with conservative principles.
    ======================================================================================
    Actually, it is your view that is odds with Conservative principles. At how you miss the point entirely. As a guy who believes deeply in States rights and using our financial resources wisely. As one who believes that people out to pay the own way, I agree with what Romney did. Your are basically backing the idea of Health Insurance Welfare even if individuals have the ability to pay. YOur sir are really acting like a liberal. You should really open up your mind and think.

  7. Matthew Kilburn Says:

    “you’re still left with a law that is fundamentally at odds with conservative principles.”

    When those Conservative principles choose leaching off the wallets of hard working Americans over requiring responsibility, it is the principle, not the program, that should be abolished. There are many bad things about Obamacare, and things that could be better about RomneyCare.

    But nothing justifies the way libertarians have embraced blatant irresponsibility in the name of ideological purity.

  8. asparagus Says:

    It’s not surprising that 84% of the people like the plan considering that 90% of the state is Democrat. But health care touches people on a personal basis, and you wouldn’t think that any measure of satisfaction, not whether you approve politically of the law, but actual user satisfaction should go beyond partisan responses. This is a great feather in Mitt’s cap. Whether or not you are comfortable with the idea of a mandate, the fact that so many are satisfied with the program is a good thing.

  9. asparagus Says:

    My comment was a bit confusing. I am trying to say that “satisfaction” is overall happiness with how the program works, and not merely if you agree politically with the law. So in that sense, 84% is a big number, even for a Democratic state.

  10. Thunder Says:

    # asparagus Says:
    March 10th, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    It’s not surprising that 84% of the people like the plan considering that 90% of the state is Democrat. But health care touches people on a personal basis, and you wouldn’t think that any measure of satisfaction, not whether you approve politically of the law, but actual user satisfaction should go beyond partisan responses. This is a great feather in Mitt’s cap. Whether or not you are comfortable with the idea of a mandate, the fact that so many are satisfied with the program is a good thing.
    ==================================================
    WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Over the same 28-year period, the percent of registered Democrats in the state fell from 45.3 percent to 36.5 percent.

    http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/percent_of_registered_democrat.html

  11. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Thunder and Matthew,

    Then you ought to be defending ObamaCare on conservative principles because both plans are based on the same premise, and built on the same pillars.

    The Premise is that the biggest crisis in healthcare is less-than-universal insurance.

    The three pillars are:

    1. Individual mandates.
    2. Heavy subsidies.
    3. Bureaucratic control of what and how people must buy.

  12. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Obama, Teddy, and Mitt all agree…….

    Government knows best!!!

    ….of course, only Mitt has the chutzpah to pivot and run as some heir-of-Reagan and FiCon guru.

  13. Matthew Kilburn Says:

    …and universal health coverage is a good idea.

    The manner in which Obama has done it, waging a war on insurance companies (he originally wanted a nationalized plan), taking away states rights, etc. – these are the problems.

    But if you can justify allowing people to willingly freeload off the system, I’m waiting.

  14. Matthew Kilburn Says:

    I would rather mandate bums be responsible than stand idly by while financially-capable individuals rob the rest of America.

    My ideological purity does not extend that far.

  15. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Matthew,

    I love how you basically characterize people without insurance as driving up to the ER in their BMW, racking up a huge bill, and then dancing out, whistling Zippidy Doo Da as they tear up the bill, heading back to the country club.

    The fact that the VAST majority of newly covered people under RomneyCare only did so with huge taxpayer subsidies is evidence that Mitt knew the number of well-heeled freeloaders was extremely small.

  16. Lauren Says:

    Romney, the choice of educated conservatives. Because they know how to interpret facts and discern the truth, not just have information spoon-fed to them by whoever is the loudest.

  17. nowandlater Says:

    While I hate Romneycare, I have to acknowledge the political reality…this is why the NH primary will be an anomoly for Romney, because the Romneycare argument won’t work on the NH residents because they are many resisdents who work in Massachusetts and get healthcare there and familiar with the notion that many residents like it.

  18. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Lauren,

    Howzabout you interpret a few of those facts, and discern a couple of those truths for us?

    That might help your case more than simply asserting, “We’re smarter than you,” without presenting any facts for us to interpret.

  19. Matthew Kilburn Says:

    “I love how you basically characterize people without insurance as driving up to the ER in their BMW, racking up a huge bill, and then dancing out, whistling Zippidy Doo Da as they tear up the bill, heading back to the country club.”

    Not exactly. But they are capable of purchasing insurance, refuse to do so, all on the bet that if they ever really get sick or injured, the rest of the population that is insured will be able to pick up their bill.

    How is that acceptable to you?

    And how is it that anyone can believe providing less medicine to few people is somehow progress in our healthcare system?

    I don’t favor a government takeover, and I don’t favor Obamacare – but increasing our capacity to provide medical care and the number of people we can provide it to is AT LEAST as important as lowering the cost for people who can already afford it. We may disagree on many things, but it does not matter how wealthy you are, or how cheap something is, if you are dead.

  20. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Matthew,

    “Not exactly. But they are capable of purchasing insurance”

    Really? How many? Apparently not a lot, because Romney was handing out the taxpayer subsides to the vast majority.

    Private insurance is crazy expensive. I know. I pay it.

  21. Matthew Kilburn Says:

    “Really? How many?”

    Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter. Because it is the principle – the idea that people who are voluntarily irresponsible should be the low hanging fruit. The poor don’t need to be required to buy insurance, they already want it.

    IF you have an alternative to the mandate system which ensures everyone is able to go to the hospital when they need it without imposing serious financial difficulty on themselves or skipping out on the bill, I’m all ears. But curiously, nobody has put anything of that nature forward.

  22. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Matthew,

    “ncreasing our capacity to provide medical care and the number of people we can provide it to is AT LEAST as important as lowering the cost for people who can already afford it.”

    The “we” you are talking about is basically all of us, collectively, since the government already pays a huge portion of our health care, through Medicare and Medicaid. Most of the rest of it is paid by employer-sponsored health plans.

    And you know what? “We” are rapidly running out of our ability to pay. Have you seen a chart on Medicare spending per year? It looks sort of like Microsoft’s stock chart in the 80s and 90s, except it never goes down. As I’ve said a thousand times before, we don’t have the infinity dollars it will take to fund all the health care that everyone would like to. We can either let government ration those dollars, the free market, or some hybrid system.

  23. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Matthew,

    “Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter.”

    Yes, it does matter, because you constantly hold those freeloaders out to be a MASSIVE drain on the system, driving up the cost of care for everyone else, and that’s simply not the case. Freeloaders account for about 2% of health care costs.

    The bigger culprit is third party payer, which RomneyObamaCare puts on steroids. Did you ever read that Atlantic article I sent you?

  24. Matt Coulter Says:

    MWS,

    How about some numbers to end this silly debate.

    Prior to MassCare being implemented, roughly 500,000 residents were uninsured. That was about 8% of the total population.

    Of those, 100,000 qualified for Medicaid but were not enrolled on it. MassCare required them to enroll for Medicaid services.

    Another 200,000 were classified as not being able to afford insurance. For them, MassCare set up a sliding scale to help cover the cost of insurance. The state budgeted around $1 billion to cover emergency room costs for the uninsured before MassCare, under the program around $750 million was budgeted to help pay for insurance for these 200,000 people.

    The final 200,000 people could afford insurance and just chose not to purchase it. MassCare required these people to buy insurance.

    Whether you agree with the idea of the mandate or not philosophically, from a practical standpoint once you see the numbers broken out it makes sense why they chose to do it this way.

  25. Watchinitall Says:

    Insurance is the free market principle in practice in the health care industry. The fewer of us who are insured, the greater the strain on the principle. It was a conservative think tank’s idea to use mandates to close the gap and bring in the uninsured to protect the sole free market lever in the health care system: insurance.

    W/o Romney’s innovation in MA, I wonder what Obama & Congress would have come up with. Single Payer? Then where would we be?

  26. Watchinitall Says:

    I have to admit that I have no idea how we will ever close the gap between no limit treatments and available dollars, insurance and tax. Technology and the screaming imperative to get the best treatment even uf someone else has to pay for it is swamping us. I had hoped that the MA reforms might begin to show a reduction in emergency care and that long range trends would show a big benefit to maintenance care for everyone. Nobody seems to want to be patient long enough to find out. Not the Dems, who passed Obamacare, and not Republicans, who want to beat Obama with a stick, starting with Mitt. Innovators need not apply? I hate to see it play out like that.

  27. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Watch,

    There is virtually nothing in the way that health care is delivered in this country that is based on free market principles- certainly not insurance. That is in part because most health “insurance” doesn’t work like insurance at all. It would be akin to your employer paying $700 a month- with you chipping in $100 a month- for “grocery insurance.” With this grocery “insurance” you can take all the groceries you want for “free,” though the insurance company might randomly deny some head of cabbage or jug of canola oil.

    Since for most people, health care is effectively a pre-paid all you can eat buffet, people don’t care what it costs. Since they don’t, a massive administrative bureaucracy exists to try to (ineffectively) control costs and approve claims. This enormous overhead only adds to the cost.

  28. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Watch,

    “I have to admit that I have no idea how we will ever close the gap between no limit treatments and available dollars, insurance and tax.”

    THAT’S the rub. I don’t pretend to have all the answers either. But I do know our current method of paying for health care is unsustainable. If it continues unabated, it will HAVE to end with government rationing, as it does it Canada, Britain, and Europe. We simply don’t have infinity dollars for everyone, and since most of our health care is paid collectively, we’re going to have to weight the good of health care with other competing goods, including freedom.

  29. Jerald Says:

    Let the rabid “It’s a lie” attacks begin…

  30. Jerald Says:

    Hummm…..Usually Craig for Huck would be squealing all over this tread.

    Maybe he’s working today?
    Or sick……hope not

    Vacation?

  31. goper Says:

    I have been to south korea. They have a universal heath care. but health care cost was very low.

  32. afk Says:

    Regarding Matt’s “3 pillars”

    Bureaucratic control of what and how people must buy – Romney’s plan reduced the mandates on what was required in an insurance plan. It also allowed for more choice between insurance plans for consumers.
    Individual mandates – Personal responsibility is what this really is. The opposite is communal health care. Romney’s plan also allowed ways to opt out, so Romney’s plan had no mandate except that you had to be responsible for your own expenses if you’re capable.
    Heavy subsidies – Romney shifted funds from a political process that dolled out funds in an non-transparent way in order to pay for reimbursed costs to helping lower income people buy insurance. Thus putting the funds in the hands of the consumers. It’s much like allowing people to have education vouchers rather than funding schools directly. Consumers gain control of funding vs politicians.

  33. Matt "MWS" Says:

    afk,

    Romney’s Connector has continued to ratchet up what plans must cover, including in vitro and chiropractors. Dentists have also been trying to use the increased power Mitt gave the government, by lobbying these few bureaucrats to require dental coverage. It was narrowly defeated, but they’ll eventually win, I think.

    We still have “communal health care.” Do you pay all your own medical bills?

    Finally, don’t pretend that redirected healthcare dollars paid for all of RomneyCare. It didn’t. Not by a mile.

  34. Thunder Says:

    # Matt “MWS” Says:
    March 10th, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    Thunder and Matthew,

    Then you ought to be defending ObamaCare on conservative principles because both plans are based on the same premise, and built on the same pillars.

    The Premise is that the biggest crisis in healthcare is less-than-universal insurance.

    The three pillars are:

    1. Individual mandates.
    2. Heavy subsidies.
    3. Bureaucratic control of what and how people must buy.
    ===========================================================================================
    You might want to try reading the federalist Papers, and education is a good thing.

    Answer to 1: We have individual Mandates all the time. Speed Limits, require drivers licence, Car Insurance etc, but it is done on the State and Local Level. The constitution gives this right to the states not the federal Government.

    Answer 2. If I had my way, the federal government would not collect tax from its citizen then use it (force) the State governments to act on their behalf. Such as Medicare and Medicaid. But as long as the STates are forced to deal with these issues, they should be allowed to use the most creative and cost effective way of doing it.

    Answer 3. As long as the Federal Government requires the State to pick up the tab for uninsured individuals, the STates have a right and a duty to spend the money as wisely as possible. Keep in mind, Romney Care allowed individuals to opt out if they could show financial ability to take care of their medical needs.

    Here is the question you have to ask yourself. If you had to pay $1,000,000 to insure people or pay hospitals to cover medical cost ($10,000,000) which is better for the STate and the people in general

    You really need to rethink your position, your talking points are invalid.

  35. Nate G. Says:

    @MWS

    I see you arguing against Romneycare and castigating Romney for his ties to it, yet for someone who speaks so much about it you haven’t done all of your homework.

    You’ve already told me haven’t read Romney’s book, which would shed a whole lot of light on it for you, but there is much more than what Romney wrote about it to get a good clear image of the “whole forest” so to speak.

    If you are willing I have a series of Heritage Foundation articles ranging from 2006-2010 that could possibly change your whole view on it. They are long and indepth. Is that too much homework to ask of you? Do you want them?

  36. wateredseeds Says:

    The role of any executive, is to keep the promises…and deliver on how they said they would govern. Romney did NOT veto masscare. But why should he? It contains automatic funding for abortions. This was not contested by Mitt. He FAILS. I know a lot of people say, “well he would have been overridden anyways.” So let them override it. If he had made it clear why he was vetoing it, and that it was because of the abortion funding, then he could have held his head high. Why didn’t he? Because he was pro-choice, and he has spread a lie about coming down on the side of life EVERY TIME. He fails, he will not get my vote. Anything that gets 84% approval in Massachussetts, should be scrutinized heavily by conservatives.

  37. John Mark Says:

    Wow, Rombots sure can be a condescending bunch. That said, if they are describing Mass Care accurately (sad to say, I have been too busy to research it myself – that and its much more fun to follow the debate on the blog then go and wade through policy descriptions. ?) it might be something I could get really excited about. I have thought for some time that the basic approach to health care should be for the government to require everyone to buy insurance and to cover the gap for those who cannot afford it with subsidies. This way everyone has access to health care without going bankrupt, and without the government taking control of health care in an even greater matter. I believe everyone having access to health care is a necessity that society should ensure. However, like with all values I believe that the government should only step in when the free market is not providing those values. The above plan involve the government stepping in to cover the gap where the free market has failed to provide affordable insurance, but it stops it from going any further and actually nationalizing health care. This fits perfectly with my philosophy.
    As I said in another thread middle class families facing financial hardship from health-care want to hear more than abstract ideas about free market solutions they want to hear about results. If Romney’s program truly has had good results then this will be a strong selling point. However, I am not a Rombot so I will admit this likely may not help in the primary. If he wins the primary though, a results oriented platform will do well in the general.

  38. Dave Says:

    MassCare isn’t the reason I support Mitt for President…..I see it as a mixed bag, but I HAVE gone over the details of it, and it’s not surprising that it’s popular in the state. The biggest plus is that Massachusetts now has the lowest rate of medical uninsured people in the country.

    Another plus is that Federal aid to the state that existed prior to the initiative’s passage is now being used far wiser than it was. An incidental benefit of the measure is that there are people who are alive right now that would have been dead without it.

    What’s trickier to figure is the electoral ramifications. On the plus side, it’s a reason why Mitt is a lock in neighboring New Hampshire. Also a plus is that it will help us take down Obama, but only if Mitt is the nominee.

    The negative side is that outside of New England, it will make it more difficult for Mitt to win nomination. The fact that that is due SOLELY to the plan being mischaracterized by charlatans doesn’t lessen it as a negative.

  39. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Thunder,

    “Here is the question you have to ask yourself. If you had to pay $1,000,000 to insure people or pay hospitals to cover medical cost ($10,000,000) which is better for the STate and the people in general”

    That’s an example of that crazy notion people have that $1000 in premiums is somehow *magically* transformed into $10,000 in medical care. If someone has paid $1000 in premiums, and uses $9,000 in services, then someone(s) else paid the other $9000. That’s how insurance works. That means *other people* had to pay $9000 more in premiums than they consumed in services.

    But somehow, people have it in there head that the average person pays much less in premiums than they consume in health care. That MIGHT be true if you ignore the employers’ contribution. But EVERY DOLLAR of health care is paid by someone, by definition. It’s amazing to me how many people don’t understand that, and is another reason health care costs so much.

  40. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Nate,

    “Do you want them?”

    Honestly? No. I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m closed minded enough about 3rd party payer and more reliance on the wisdom of bureaucrats that I’m not inclined to spend the time.

  41. Dave Says:

    Seeds,

    LOL!! Why, in the name of all that’s sacred, would Mitt veto a bill he was the chief architect of??

    BTW, The abortion inclusion was totally outside Mitt’s control, and was a matter of state law in any event…..so it’s TOTALLY irrelevant to the topic.

  42. Watchinitall Says:

    Insurance does indeed operate as the only market mechanism in health care. We pool our monies through insurance. You get sick, I don’t. The insurance company has negotiated fees and procedures for us with healthcare providers. The doctors, the hospitals, they have limits on what they can do and charge based on contracts with insurance. This is why I have to see a doctor in the network. while it is true I can be as sick as I want as often as I want, actuarially, I get factored into a huge pool, and the risk of my behavior is mitigated by the size of the pool, and the more normal behavior of the group.

    If this isn’t the market at work in the health care sector, I don’t know what else is. Really, after that, there’s only self pay and government, and self pay is miniscule.

  43. Nate G. Says:

    @MWS – That’s very disappointing. You don’t know what you don’t know and you refuse to learn.

    You are misguided in that I think the info will change your view on “3rd party payer”, that’s not what links are about.

    If you’d be willing to read it you’d find out that Romney was against the mandate and virtually every part of RomneyCare that both you and I don’t like. You’d learn what Romney’s original plan was, which parts were compromised, which parts over-turned, which parts were not implemented or where implementation was altered, and where it was just completely changed. In any case you’d know the true Romney plan.

    As it stands now, you argue much, and do so ignorantly.

  44. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Watch,

    Self-pay, whether we are talking about purchasing cars, legal advice, or health care, is a “purer” market than insurance, because the end-user and the direct payer is the same person. Therefore, they have an incentive to find value, and care about what the provider is charging.

    Now, I’m not saying that health care should be purely self-paid, but we need to get closer to that model, particularly for routine and foreseeable expenses. We can pay for this with all the premiums we save by not treating health care insurance like “grocery insurance.”

  45. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Nate,

    “That’s very disappointing. You don’t know what you don’t know and you refuse to learn.”

    Oh please. Maybe you would accept a big ol’ reading list from me? Surely then we would agree on everything……

  46. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Nate,

    “If you’d be willing to read it you’d find out that Romney was against the mandate”

    Really? ‘Cause in an ’08 debate he told Fred Thompson “I like mandates.”

    Chalk it up as another flip-flop, I guess…….

  47. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Nate,

    Before you called me ignorant and claimed Romney was against mandates in the same comment, you should have watched this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0&NR=1

  48. Matt "MWS" Says:

    …..and if MassCare had all that crap in it that Mitt didn’t like, why did he sign it?

    Was he, like Obama, SOOOO desperate to say he reformed health care that he would sign damn near anything?

    Perhaps. Mitt has also been a climber, and always thinking about the next step. So naturally, he wanted a signature issue he could brag about running for President, and health care is a pretty sexy issue.

  49. Jerald Says:

    MWS…..So I guess for you it comes down to your belief that the only reason Romney may run for POTUS is that he just wants another browny point for his den and really has no interest in the good of the country and wouldn’t be able or intested in improving things. He’d just show up for photo ops, hob knob with the rich and famous, collect momentos, and play golf in his office when the press corp wasn’t looking.

    (Since I don’t think he’s a golfer, except maybe to go after varmits, maybe he would spend his timing writing his next book about how great he is.)

    Maybe he will even take the pay this time, since he will obviously drain all his savings into this single-minded ego trip he is on.

    I guess since you are so secure in this belief or something similar, you have no need of any information regarding Romney except that which you wnat to use to attack him.

    I guess that really means there really is nothing to discuss.

    Have fun in your sea of negativity…

  50. Nate Gunderson Says:

    Matt – It’s hard to argue with you when you are unwilling to dig deeper. There is more there than those video clips. Don’t you think I’ve seen them already a million times?

    Regarding “I like mandates”: there was a de facto mandate on the government and taxpayers to pick up the tab for uncompensated health care. In 2005 it was to the tune of $1.3B in MA. The mandate that Romney liked was the one that got people to take responsibility for themselves instead of leaving the government with the mandate to cover for their care. SELF SUFFICIENCY. But if you’d ever bother to read more (like the links I have), or even listen to what Romney says in that very same clip, he say let people show they can cover their own care. The plan that Romney introduced to the state DID NOT include an individual mandate but allowed people to opt to pay into a bond or escrow account.

    From Heritage.org

    Furthermore, to allow people to go without health insurance, and then when they do fall ill expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney proposes to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: Either buy insurance or pay for your own care. Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.

    But beyond that, the Romney administration got downright Libertarian in figuring how to make it work. Under Romney’s plan anyone opting to not buy insurance would be required to deposit $10,000 in an (interest-bearing) escrow account with the state. If they didn’t pay their medical bills, the providers stuck with their bad debts could apply for that money. But what if they won’t buy insurance and refuse to put $10,000 in escrow with the state? The answer is that they aren’t allowed to claim the personal exemption tax-break on their state income tax, and any tax refunds due them are deposited into the escrow account until the $10,000 limit is reached.

    Having first proposed the creation of more and better health-insurance choices and more rational and efficient subsidies, Romney essentially says, “You will be free to choose, but your choices will have consequences.”

  51. Nate Gunderson Says:

    “..and if MassCare had all that crap in it that Mitt didn’t like, why did he sign it?”

    The plan he signed had compromises he didn’t like but, he took what he know he could get. The vast majority of alterations came with the overturned vetoes, alteration in the plan, and unimplemented price-control mechanisms.

    As I have already said numerous times…… read more into it.

  52. Nate Gunderson Says:

    @MWS – Oh I missed this one: “Oh please. Maybe you would accept a big ol’ reading list from me? Surely then we would agree on everything……”

    I will accept to read ANYTHING you have to give me on this subject. I’ve read everything I can find on it. I’ve read CATO’s bashing of it, I’ve read Huckabee’s book on it. I don’t shun away from opposition’s research. Why? Because I want to know the truth.

    If you wanted to give me big lists on info on Sarah of whoever that would be different. Why? Because I’m not here in this forum attacking her on anything, nor am I attacking any other 2012′ers. If I did that, and a supporter told me I was wrong and they had proof, and I refused to even look into but continue with my attacks… then yes I would be choosing to remain ignorant, not having looked at all sides of the story.

    So please, give me all the links you want on RomneyCare, then maybe we can have a fair argument?

  53. Nate Gunderson Says:

    BTW – I find it ironic that in trying to prove our points you bring in a video produced by the DNC and I have quotes from Heritage.org.

    HAhaha.

  54. CraigS Says:

    Hi All
    Let us not forget the gift that continued to give to everybody, the GOP passed EMTALA bill of 1986 ( Reagan ) that MANDATED free emergency room care for everybody regardless of ability to pay , national origin , etc. This UNFUNDED liability was ( and is ) one of the reasons why states like Massachusetts were $ 700 Million in the hole when Romney became Governor in 2003. It’s also a continuing reason why states like Illinois and California are still in bankruptcy. It still is in place.
    Romney effectively funded this Reagan liability so the state would cover its Federal health care costs and turned a profit besides. There are a few other Governors who should get off their backsides, stop pointing fingers and FIX the program, like Mitt did….at the state level

    CraigS

  55. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Nate,

    While I’m impressed that you’re willing to read anything I tell you too, for my part, I have 5 kids, so much of my time not at work is devoted to them. But perhaps I’ll start compiling some homework for you. You can start with this:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

    Secondly, you explain why Romney likes mandates, but the fact remains that he likes mandates, contrary to your earlier assertion. Unless, perhaps, you have something for me to read that proves Mitt is a liar?

    Finally, it matters not who put the video up on Youtube, unless, I suppose you want to claim that wasn’t really Romney in the video, or he only did it under duress, or he was on drugs (and is clean now), or something like that?

  56. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Second finally, I think the American people are going to get weary of Mitt’s laundry list of things in RomneyCare that “aren’t my fault.”

    It’s sort of like saying Dr. Frankenstein isn’t responsible for anything his monster does.

  57. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Craig,

    I have lived in Illinois my whole life, and I can tell you freeloaders in the ER have nothing to do with why my state is bankrupt.

    As for Cali, you can ask them, but I know a boatload of their state employees retire for 30 and 40 years with six figure pensions and free health care.

  58. wateredseeds Says:

    If the abortion madade was a matter of state law…WHY DIDN’T HE TRY TO CHANGE IT? It is relevant. It was in the bill…and Romney had a responsibility to try and take it out. He did not. He fails.

  59. Matt "MWS" Says:

    watered,

    They will argue it’s all the MA Supreme Court’s fault. Trouble is, Mitt selected pro-abortion judges himself.

  60. Nate Gunderson Says:

    59, Waterseeds, abortion was no where to be found in the bill. Find the bill and look it up yourself.

  61. Nate Gunderson Says:

    59 – Mitt didn’t select pro-abortion judges to the supreme court

  62. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Nate,

    But he did to other courts, so clearly he didn’t have a problem with it.

  63. Nate Gunderson Says:

    MWS – That article is very in-depth but still has nothing to do with MA, or RomneyCare. I’m an extremely busy person too and am not looking for homework. I’m seeking to advocate for Romney for president. That means being knowledgeable about his stance on issues, including RomneyCare. That was the issue we were discussing.

    I’m not going to answer your question again about the mandates as I already answered it clearly in #50.

    Your refusal to read any more about RomneyCare just boggles me. You don’t have time because you have 5 kids, yet here you are day after day, reading and making literally hundreds of comments. No, you CHOOSE not to read more. RomneyCare is a complex issue and you choose to sit back and prejudge it as a complete failure without even considering all viewpoints.

    Nothing else can be said except that you choose to be ignorant. There are many things I’m ignorant about, but I’m not constantly on the offensive against them.

  64. Nate Gunderson Says:

    @MWS, Criminal court judges… He specifically picked judges that were tough on crime for those. Does it matter what they think about abortion?

  65. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Nate,

    “That article is very in-depth but still has nothing to do with MA, or RomneyCare”

    Not directly, but it is the single best article I’ve read on the subject.

  66. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Nate,

    Sometimes criminal court judges grow up to be appelite court judges. Some of those will grow up to be supreme court judges.

  67. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Nate,

    And I don’t see how you can keep calling me ignorant abour RomneyCare, when you were the one who didn’t even know he likes mandates.

  68. Nate Gunderson Says:

    MWS – word games, that’s a losers argument. You know exactly what I mean, yet you skip around the subject.

    You know I’ve seen the video a million times, and act like I should suddenly be surprised when I hear Mitt say he likes mandates. He doesn’t like mandates as a first choice. He likes the better system that was put in place MA. If you’d go back to what he said in 2006 when the plan was being implemented you would know that he does not favor mandates and that an ideal plan would not have it.

    The original mandate came from the Reagan administration when they forced ER’s not to refuse service to someone in need. That was the compassionate thing to do, but it also created an environment of freeloaders that forced states (and their citizens to pay).

    If ERs could just refuse to not treat someone who couldn’t pay then there would be no problem. People would be responsible for their in own action (or inaction), and there would be no burden on the state. You and I both know that wouldn’t never happen. Thus there was a need to do something different, a need for reform.

  69. Nate Gunderson Says:

    I’ve wasted more time than I ought to on a self-admitted “closed-mind”. Moving on…

  70. An old friend Says:

    Matt, You’ve been schooled, cut your losses. All you have is snark. Your vitriol is without merit, as clearly shown here. I do like the idea of Romney tattooed on your backside, though.

  71. Dr J Says:

    Wow! Great post Mark. If Mitt is smart he’ll take your advice, so you had better get it to him.

  72. James B. Says:

    Good luck with trying to tell Repub primary voters how Romney Care differs from Obama Care. Couple that with the fact Mittens Romney will connect with almost nobody in the general, please let him get the nomination.

Join The Community


Sponsored Ad

Meta

Recent Posts

Sponsored Ad

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main