Posted on 05/18/2010 6:24:11 AM PDT by C19fan
When MassCare passed, it was supposed to lower the average cost of health care by getting relatively cheap young people into the system, and ending the inefficiencies of caring for the uninsured. Unfortunately, it hasn't quite worked out that way. The bill for the uninsured only dropped by about 40%; the young, cheap people turned out to almost all need subsidies, and worse, some of them figured out how to game the system by buying insurance, getting a bunch of expensive procedures, and then dropping the insurance again. There was a brief improvement in insurance prices for the individual market, because Massachusetts, with its community rating and guaranteed issue, had had a pretty sizable problem with adverse selection. But after a few years, insurance costs were still marching briskly upward, rates were among the highest in the country, and the system was putting heavy pressure on a budget that was already strained to the limit by the recession.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
"But after a few years, insurance costs were still marching briskly upward, rates were among the highest in the country, and the system was putting heavy pressure on a budget that was already strained to the limit by the recession."
Why does this remind me of back to the future already?
With the Party of Hell No as backup.
Probably because boobs are the only ones that can get on the ballots.
Exclusive prep schools, Stanford, Harvard law and MBA.Whoa! You obviously haven't worked in academia.
So, stupid is ruled out.
Actually with parts manufacturing being automated and quality control in supplied materials, good, fast, cheap is the norm, or else you are out of business.
The design, feedback loop, human factors are what sets you apart. Basically you can have your choice between all three and no service, or with service.
The trend line that gives us now super computers of yesteryear at Wal-Mart prices today is always better, cheaper, faster.
Nobel economist James M.( as in Money ) Buchanan won a Nobel in what is called ‘Public Choice Theory’. It is the study of bureaucracy, as in government. In that environment the incentives are to go slower, raise costs, reduce quality.
This is something we all know gut wise, but it’s nice to know that some real thought work has been done on ti.
Formally Mitt, like many, has had a good education. But it has been isolating, and a bit of a grind type success in staid, formal, climb the ladder type environments. This makes him, absent anything else, at best mediocre to be President. We could do worse, but he actually suffers from what I call dis-education.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.