Yes...well, at least 7%. (I heard Romney direct...in a 2007-2008 primary debate...say 7%)
It did not effect the 92% who already had coverage. (Trapped Behind Enemy Lines)
Yes and no. And the "no" part of that caused me to think, "You're funny."
Per MassResistance -- see RomneyCare Now Funding FREE Abortions: A Disqualifier for Mitt Romney’s Candidacy [Enabler Mitt]...the 92-93% of those in MA already covered were effected in that they then became taxpayers for others' paid abortions...albeit some of our fed $ already has gone toward that!
Per MassResistance at the above link: When the law was first implemented, there was a $50 copay for a RomneyCare elective surgical abortion. Now RomneyCare abortions are "free" for a $0 copay (or $50-$100 in some plans). In fact, the $0 copay shows up as early as 2008 at the Massachusetts Health Care Connector site. (The "Commonwealth Care" plans cover low-income residents, many of whom pay no monthly premiums.) Of course, the abortions are not exactly free. We, the taxpayers cover the cost, whether we want to or not.
So...tell it to the direct funders of MA abortions that they are "not effected."
Yes, Romneycare did require the 8% to go out and purchase PRIVATE health insurance policies——the reason——many of those folks were gaming the system——walking into hospitals, clinics, and doctors offices, receiving care and treatment, then leaving the bill to the TAXPAYERS. Romneycare required them to take responsibility. (Trapped Behind Enemy Lines)
In January of this year, a favorable piece on RomneyCare from Forbes.com (see http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/20/romney-care-massachusetts-healthcare-reform/) said:
At least 24% of low income residents did not have health insurance prior to the 2006 law, according to the Urban Institute, a Washington DC non-partisan think tank. Today, just 8% of low income adults do not have healthcare coverage.
Now...if, as you say, this was aimed at the "gamers"...those skipping out...and if RomneyCare improved it so that instead of only 24% of these low-income people not having healthcare, that only 8% are now without it...that's an "improvement" of only 16% of low-income people.
That's hardly revolutionary...doing something that effected only about one in eight of those with low-income!!!
Yes there are some bad features to Romneycare——nearly all passed over Romney’s objections and vetoes.
The gist of Romneycare however was quite brilliant: Redirect Medicaid funds already directed to the state to help low income people purchase private health insurance. NO NEW TAXES, NO EXPANSION OF STATE GOVERNMENT. Brilliant if you ask me. Precisely the opposite of Obamacare.