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.
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!
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.