I’d like to see some reliable figures on that — not the stuff posted by anti-Romney people. The higher costs may be because of the higher benefits mandated, again, by the legislature.
Is it possible that it could be tweaked, and be effective?
Again, there is a serious problem with free-riders. Forcing them into the risk pool, so that they pay their own bills, seems like a good idea to me, if the hospitals are forced to treat them, and we pay for it anyway.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v30n1/cpr30n1-1.html
http://www.newsmax.com/us/Obama_healthcare_Romney/2009/10/16/273384.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/07/12/wsj-romneycares-failures-ma-not-widely-known-i-wonder-why http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10381
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10381
..”That means that Romneycare achieves near-universal coverage mostly by taxing middle-class earners. Massachusetts forces employers to offer workers a minimum level of health benefits or pay an annual $295-per-worker penalty, while individuals who do not obtain coverage face annual penalties as high as $1,068. Since employers pay for employment taxes and employee benefits by reducing wages, Massachusetts residents can face a tax of nearly $1,400. Depending on their income, married couples pay up to twice that.A report by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation titled “Massachusetts Health Reform: The Myth of Uncontrolled Costs” tried to put a happy face on the reform’s expense. It explained that in 2009 Romneycare is covering 432,000 previously uninsured residents while increasing state outlays by just $409 million — which seems like a bargain. Of course, the full cost of Romneycare includes not only increased state spending but increased federal spending (in the form of matching Medicaid funds) and mandated private spending by individuals and employers. In total, the foundation conservatively estimates that the full cost will exceed $2.1 billion this year. That is, Romneycare is covering the uninsured at a cost of about $6,700 each. For comparison, in 2007 the average cost nationally of an individual policy was just $2,600. That’s a bad deal, even by government standards..
Note also that only about 40 percent of the cost of Romneycare actually appears in any government budget. The lion’s share is borne by the private sector. Massachusetts politicians are nonetheless struggling to scrape together the 20 percent they must raise themselves. Of necessity, they have begun rationing access to care.”