Congress is debating legislation that would do essentially what
Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts: impose a health
insurance mandate, create a network of subsidies, and
micro-manage health insurance policies. Before legislators
take us down the same road, they should consider the
Massachusetts experience. Citizens there are not impressed
with RomneyCare.
According to Rasmussen Reports:
In 2006, Massachusetts implemented its own statewide version of
health care reform and 32% of the state's voters consider that
reform a success. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey
of the Bay State finds that 36% consider the plan a failure and
another 32% are not sure.
Those figures have changed little over the past
two months.
Twenty percent (20%) now say that the state's reform effort has
made health care more affordable while 31% say just the
opposite. Thirty-nine percent (39%) believe it's had no impact
on prices and 11% are not sure.
Sixteen percent (16%) say the Massachusetts reform has improved
the quality of care in the state while 24% believe the quality
of health care in the state has gotten worse. Most, 51%, say
there has been no impact on the quality of care.
Should we spend trillions of dollars to do the same thing at the
national level? The answer should be obvious!
About the Author
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and the Senior Fellow in International Religious Persecution at the Institute on Religion and Public Policy. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics (Crossway).
