According to this recent article about RomneyCare, "Bob Semro is a health care policy analyst with the Bell Policy Center, a non-partisan policy research center that advocates public policies that reflect progressive values" (underline added). That means he is not non-partisan so why the press even allows that claim to be made for such people and for organizations like the Kaiser and Massachusetts Blue Cross insurance company foundations is beyond me.
Mr. Semro is making the strained claim that because RomneyCare is successful and because Obamacare is like RomneyCare, then Obamacare will be successful. Beside the Freshman Logic flaw in his IF... THEN... thinking, Semro has loaded his article with lies and bad research. In the worst example he claims:
"There is no evidence that subsidized insurance coverage has "crowded out" the purchase of employer-sponsored insurance (ESI)... The take-up of employer-offered coverage has remained high and the number and percentage of people with employer-based coverage has increased."
If not outright lying, he must be reading this document incorrectly:
- The take up rate is way down (see page 18 of his own source, the state's most recent -- but now very dated -- Health Insurer survey) and
- The number of people on ESI is down over 100,000 (per the state's Premium Trends report of June 2011--of course also now very out of date because of Deval Patrick's decision to no longer publish the statistics that prove RomneyCare a huge failure)
It is just completely frustrating to see the press supporting the reams out outright lies told about healthcare insurance by the left-wing.
-- Dennis Byron
Other problems with the article include:
The article says:
".. an important distinction: The Massachusetts reform plan is less dependent upon taxes and fees than the ACA."
AND YET THERE HAS BEEN MASSIVE TAX INCREASES IN MASSACHUSETTS UNDER ROMNEYCARE, NOT COUNTING THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE PENALTY ITSELF. IN ADDITION, WHEREAS THE STATE BUDGET USED TO SPEND ABOUT 25% OF ITS BUDGET ON HEALTHCARE, IT NOW SPENDS OVER 50%
The article says:
"This is largely because federal funding has paid for about 64 percent of the cost of the plan, with the state absorbing 18 percent and hospitals and providers picking up the remainder."
THE AUTHOR FOR SOME REASON LEAVING OUT THE EFFECT ON THE CONSUMER. PRICES FOR INSURANCE AND HEALTHCARE ITSELF HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ROOF. THE LEGISLATURE JUST PASSED WHAT WILL SURELY BE TOTALLY USELESS PRICE CONTROL LEGISLATION BECAUSE ROMNEYCARE FAILED, AS OBAMACARE WILL ALSO, TO CONTROL COSTS
The article says:
*the minimum penalty for not purchasing insurance coverage under the individual mandate (50 percent of the lowest-cost premium offered through the state's exchange) is higher in Massachusetts on average than the ACA ($1,200 vs. $695 for an individual)."
HIS SOURCES APPEAR TO BE ALL LEFT-WING JOURNALISTS OR FOUNDATIONS (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A FEW STATE-PROVIDED DATA POINTS). THERE IS NO “MINIMUM PENALTY” FOR NOT PURCHASING INSURANCE. THERE IS A PENALTY, PERIOD, TIED TO THE COST OF INSURANCE IN A GIVEN YEAR.
The article says:
"Both plans (Romneycare and Obamacare) impose a penalty on businesses that do not offer affordable coverage to employees who, in turn, receive a subsidy under the individual mandate.
NOT SURE WHAT THIS MEANS. EMPLOYERS DO NOT GET SUBSIDIES. EMPLOYEES OF COMPANIES THAT OFFER INSURANCE CANNOT GET SUBSIDIZED INSURANCE. SO WHAT IS HE THINKING OF BY USING THE WORDS “IN TURN”?
The article says:
"Massachusetts has the highest rate of insurance coverage in the country, with 98.1 percent of its residents and 99.8 percent of its children insured (2012)."
AND ALWAYS HAS HAD THE HIGHEST. IT WENT UP A COUPLE OF PERCENT BECAUSE THE STATE GAVE AWAY FREE OR PRACTICALLY FREE INSURANCE. WHAT’S THAT PROVE?
