- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
AmSpecBlog
The Perils of RomneyCare
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!
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Breaking Fast With Bill Safire
- No Freedom Left Behind
- An American Tragedy
ADVERTISEMENT