The WSJ has a solid editorial explaining the fiscal nightmare created by Mitt Romney's health-care plan in Massachusetts, which looks worse and worse with each passing day. But there's one part that I found extremely rich.
While I was writing my health-care story for our July/August issue, I looked at how state mandates requiring that insurance policies cover specific treatments (as opposed to allowing people to choose a plan that's right for them) drive up the cost of health care by anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent, according to a study by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance.
Now, says the editorial:
The Bay State has long served up coverage-specific insurance mandates, such as for fertility treatments, which raise costs. Yet in a just-deserts twist, Massachusetts health planners are now reviewing ways to trim mandates because the state is footing more of the bill, even if they didn't care when imposing them on individuals and small business. A state-sponsored study shows that total spending on mandates was $1.32 billion in 2005, or 12% of premiums. The study is devastating despite its pro-mandate slant.
If there's one thing Romney deserves credit for, it's creating a government-managed health-care system in Massachusetts that's so bad, and so over budget, that it provides free market advocates with the perfect case study to warn against the dangers of nationalized universal health care. Way to go, Mitt!