Has Mitt Romney Found The Secret To Universal Health Care?
He thinks so, and he takes to the editorial pages of the WSJ to tout his plan:
Only weeks after I was elected governor, Tom Stemberg, the founder and former CEO of Staples, stopped by my office. He told me, “If you really want to help people, find a way to get everyone health insurance.” I replied that would mean raising taxes and a Clinton-style government takeover of health care. He insisted: “You can find a way.”
I believe that we have. Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced. And we will need no new taxes, no employer mandate and no government takeover to make this happen.
It’s often said that a candidate for president needs a story, some convincing reason that the job should be his. Has Romney found his story? Time will tell…
Comrades,
My only major complaint with Mitt’s new health care plan is that it makes health insurance mandatory for everyone. You have no choice. You MUST purchase health insurance.
The legislation is crafted so that, if you have the means to purchase health insurance, and you choose not to, then you may be fined a rather hefty chunk of change. I disagree with that concept.
My point is that, right now, a simple BlueCross/BlueSheild type of plan for my family runs about 1400.00 a month. If my family is healthy, why shouldn’t I simply put that money into a dedicated health savings plan and let it grow? By the end of the 1st year I’d have (assuming no major outlays) some $16,800.00 plus whatever interest I needed. If the family stays healthy for just a few years, that can grow to a significant chunk of change, enough to cover most health problems.
Like I said, I disagree with the mandatory part. If I choose not to buy in, then I assume the responsibility for my health care costs. It’s no diferent than playing the stocks. The risks are mine, and if I can afford them, then why should I be required to help some insurance company’s shareholders?
Respects,
Gwedd
Gwedd-
Aren’t there other types of insurance that are mandatory (e.g. auto insurance)? The plan must make having insurance mandatory or, like Gov. Romney says, the government will continue to foot the bill for those who simply don’t get insurance because they know they will get free healthcare when they need it.
It seems to me that if Massachusetts allows for the health insurance companies to compete like car insurance companies do nationwide (since they are guaranteed a large market) the costs will naturally drop as demand increases since more people will be able to afford private coverage. I’m not an economist, so maybe it’s not that simple, but on the surface, it appears that Romney’s plan makes health insurance required in the same way car insurance is required.
Let’s face it – Romney’s plan is just a back-handed tax hike, and a particularly insidious one at that. Not only does it contain income redistribution features under its sliding-scale provision, but it forces the healthy to subsidize the sick.
Any comparison to mandatory car insurance is flawed for two reasons. First, driving is a privilege, and should you wish to opt out of the insurance pool, you can always stop. Opting out of the Mass health insurance law would entail either moving out of state or dying. Second, liability insurance for cars and other risks protects persons other than the insured, while the Mass law would require citizens to protect themselves, which is a serious violation of our rights. And Romney has the gall to call himself a Republican! His plan is like the bastard product of the miscegeneration of neocons interbreed with socialists.
Everyone seems to turn a blind eye to the real issue with health care, and that is its cost which has gone up at the rate of over 1000 times inflation over the past 60 years. Insurance only contributes to the rising costs, because people who do not have to directly pay for care will always use more than they need and will be much less price-sensitive. Back-end results of such overspending in the form of premium hikes and reductions in coverage simply do not have the power of writing checks in bringing home the price of hypochondria. Meanwhile, physicians are buying private jets and pharma companies book record profits.
Here is a modest proposal.
First, take away the power of the AMA to regulate medicine. The AMA is nothing but a guild of physicians designed only to protect the interests of its membership.
Second, greatly increase the the number of primary-care physicians: ease education and licensing requirements for doctors to the level now required of nurse-practitioners (who do most of the work anyway), and begin accepting foreign licenses (within reason, naturally). We would know that this policy is a success when we see doctors making house calls again.
Third, make it nearly impossible to obtain large malpractice and medical product liability awards – fully half the cost of health care now goes to the malpractice and product liability insurance carriers.
Fourth, eliminate the tax deduction for employers in covering medical insurance. This will effectively kill the present broken system.
Fifth, offer MSAs to be used for end of life care, at least as long as our income tax system endures. Make them optional.
Sixth, streamline the FDA approval process for new treatments, and accept foreign regulatory bodies approvals (again, within reason).
Finally, institute a national, federally insured catastrophic insurance system, perhaps on the model of Fannie May or Freddie Mac. This system can even be tax-funded. Rates would be low because of the very large insurance pool without the problem of adverse selection. Sure, I know, single-payer and all that, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Offer no coverage for geriatric illness in the catastrophic system and use the optional MSAs to pay for them instead, if patients so choose.
Because this makes just so much sense, I bet that I will not see this in my lifetime.
Oh, I forgot – also drop Medicare, as all it does is subsidize the most expensive past of health care – end of life. I am not holding my breath.
Good points, djg – epscially in that driving is a privilege, which is the major flaw of the comparison as you stated.
Honestly, I think if you took were successful implementing the third step of your proposal, many of the other steps would, for the most part, take care of themselves.
In your dreams, djg. And mine too. The virtues of the Mittsachusetts plan are wholly political, although that is not to be sneezed at. It may well “work” in the sense that coverage will be near universal and the costs contained… for now. Long enough to get Romney a ticket to the head of the class and thereby spare us a Canadian/UK style disaster and that is not nothing. The simple fact is the healthcare demagogues have succeeded. The Vioxx verdict today is a good example. A 77 year old man with diabetes and decades of coronary problems has a heart attack: WHO CAN WE BLAME? The spirit that settled the Frontier and fought the Redcoats is so long gone and buried we wouldn’t even know where to dig. In my view the only thing we can hope for in the long term is to preserve the system of private research that makes Americans the holders of damn near 90% of all new medical patents. Let the socialist specters of yesteryear fight over the obsolete pills and knives medicine for now. Biotech must survive for our future and it won’t if we have single-payer.
In my dreams is right. Sure, I would love to see tort reform. It would be a great help – but the benefits would accrue mostly to the the health care industry unless we take away its pricing power. Health care has an elastic demand curve when it is not being distorted by constrained supplies and once-removed payment schemes. It needs to regain its elasticity so that the market can set the appropriate value on health services. Down with the AMA! Down with the ATLA! They are nothing but dinosaur medieval guilds anyway.
But seriously, folks, biotech may have to be sacrificed to bring down overall health care costs. We have long ago passed the point of diminishing returns on medical research investment, and now vast sums are being spent to develop cures for some pretty rare conditions. If wealth sufferers want to pay for their relief, then they can do so. Basic health care for all is not a right, but it is in the broad national interest. Advanced treatments do not benefit a large enough segment of the population for to justify direct or hidden subsidies such as that exist today.
Comrades,
Therein lies the great ethical debate: We can cure it, but should we?
The promise of biomedical research and stem cell research is a disease-free and defect-free society. But what happens when we reach that point? What happens when we lose the giudeposts that define our humanity? We become just another species on the planet, watching someone die, taking a minute, and then moving on.
Tragic as any birth defect or crippling or fatal disease may be, that same affliction causes us to reconsider our own selves and , for the most of us, causes us to react with compassion and support for the afflicted. Look at all our laws supporting disability and terminal disease patients. How we react to those less fortunate than ourselves is the measure by which we judge our own societies. How we judge ourselves. It’s the Golden Rule in action.
When we become that Aryan Race, that Uberman without blemish, how then will we trat ourselves, by what benchmarks will we gauge our society and our social progress? Will compassion and pity have any meaning? Will we even know those words? And how, when the great disaster strikes and we lose our medical defenses, how will we react to save the species when we will have lost our ability to gauge compassion, pity, and respect?
Perhaps I wax maudlin on the iisue, but I am passionately against stem cell research and cloning. I feel there is a point that we will reach that, were we to cross it, we will become something other than human, and in our quest for the perfect life, we will lose our souls, and the last key to heaven.
Fot those who think I am unrealisitc, I will say that i was born with Spina Bifida. My mother had the chance to abort me. She chose life for me, with all the accompanying risks. I won the lottery, but I still can relate to those who didn’t. I see myself in them, but for the grace of God and a skilled surgeon who worked a miracle.
I look at what the Nazis tried to accomplish in Germany, in Europe. I see so much of their work reflected in our modern scientists, who disregard humanity at their peril and work only for science’ sake.
Like I said, we are close to crossing that fine line that seperates us from the rest of the animal world. We currently take care of our own, each in his or her own way. We judge ourselves (most of us, anyway) by how we respond to our fellow human’s needs. If we turn that rsponsibility for compassion over to the scientists, we will become less than human, and in that, will make us far less than the angels we are trying to become.
Sorry for the rant,
respects,
Gwedd
Gwedd,
Maybe you don’t know but Romney plan does just what you ask for . . .
If you want to put money in a savings account and have no insurance you can do that. $10K
Governor Mitt Romney’s plan would allow uninsured people earning less than the national shortage level to obtain subsidized plan that have no premiums. The healthcare reform will extend health coverage to more people by creating affordable insurance products. They would make small co-payments for emergency room visits and other services. People earning between the poverty threshold and twice that amount would be able to buy subsidized plan with premiums based on their ability to pay. He stated “Our plan would cost the poorest eligible families only about $2 per week in premiums”.*
I am therefore, against this policy, like the 28 year old software designer believed; why should I buy health care if I’m healthy and don’t need it, and why should it be mandatory for every employee? I don’t believe that uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be lower; even with the help of new taxes plans, employer mandate and government takeover. This is a reality full of vivid imagination. Governor Mitt Romney’s plan only would provide emergency health care for at least 500,000 uninsured citizens. I have not seen the whole plan, but it seem unfair to compromise between the free market and government run universal system. I don’t blame the governor trying to push Massachusetts into Japan’s society of universal health care. I am against governor messing with health care reform, because as the article implied, the Massachusetts residents are end up paying the medical bills for the free rider who decides they doesn’t need coverage and then ended up in hospital rooms. And likewise, when I enter the employment world, I would have to do the same. But that’s when I have a full time job, a mortgage, utility and basic rental need. I strongly oppose with the mandatory part. If I choose not to buy coverage, that’s because I presume the responsibility for my health care in the future. It’s no different than then driving without a seat belt. The risks are mainly mine, and if I don’t want to wear it, then I am the one who will projectile 40 feet from the vehicle and/or ended up six feet underground if I get into a crash. I know there are other types of insurance that are mandatory, but health insurance should not be one of them. The idea that having health insurance mandatory is farfetched. The governor will continue to push the bill. It emerge that if Massachusetts allows for the health insurance be mandatory, the costs will not drop, and the demand will skyrocket since more people will be able to afford coverage. I am training to be an economist; it’s not that straightforward, it seems that Governor Romney’s plan makes health insurance mandatory is way of making him benevolence with Democrats.
Everyone needs to look at the real issues with health care. First of all, the cost has gone up over the 60 past years. New technologies and health insurance have gone up 570%. And in the meantime, pharmacy companies are making fortune with medical prices. Secondly, because of the increasing number of physicians.