« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Massachusetts Universal Healthcare System Breaking Down Already

An example of failure we can use to warns us from Obamacare.

When Governor Mitt Romney instituted a universal healthcare plan for Massachusetts in 2006 he proclaimed it a conservative idea. “It’s a conservative idea insisting that individuals have responsibility for their own health care,” he said. “I think it appeals to people on both sides of the aisle: insurance for everyone without a tax increase.” The plan passed and was put into practice. But has it worked? Has it been successful?

For a time, many thought it might but cracks in the system are already being seen. These cracks are instructive as a lesson on how Obamacare will crash and burn just like Romneycare is now in the process of doing.

One of the early claims that helped push Romneycare through to law was the insistence by its supporters that Emergency Room visits would fall as more and more citizens became covered under healthcare insurance. Since ER care is far more expensive than a doctor’s care, it was thought that more people with insurance would ease the overcrowding of ERs as well as lower the overall costs of healthcare.

However, a flaw in this logic has been seen throughout the state. As more people became insured, more people demanded the care of doctors. These doctors became overloaded with patients and waiting lists for doctors got longer and longer. As a result, ERs in Massachusetts have not seen a downturn in visits. On the contrary, it seems that ER visits are actually on the upswing in the Bay State. In fact, in 2007 they were higher than the national average by 20 percent.

Then there is another problem unaccounted for by the politicians. You see these citizens newly covered were given no reason to worry that the costs at an Emergency Room are higher than just waiting for their doctors to have room on their schedules to see them. So, off to the ER they went. After all, it’s covered!

Additionally, after initial gains in “reducing care barriers and boosting affordability,” the system is showing signs of reverses in areas that were thought to have been “fixed” by Romneycare.

The percentage of non-elderly adults that claimed they were not getting the care they want initially dipped but as of June of 2009 that success has been reversed back to 2007 levels. The reason? Not enough doctors for the increased demand.

The recent uptick in access issues may be due to increased demand for follow-up care from the newly insured that is not being matched by available doctors, according to the article’s authors. Most of those surveyed who reported problems said they were told by physicians they were not accepting new patients or patients with their type of coverage.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are only so many doctors and they are beginning to be so overloaded that they cannot or will not see new patients.

The same report also shows that some gains in affordability have eroded.

And then the recession hit the state’s tax receipts causing the state to reduce its expenditures to its healthcare plan by $100 million. And guess who was hardest hit? The poorest residents, exactly the sort of people that universal healthcare is supposed to help.

And what has the state started doing to “fix” this latest problem? Price controls, a strategy that has never worked every time it has been tried. And they are considering price controls because costs are skyrocketing.

They’re trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget. The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic. The state’s overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

Simply put the politicians never came clean with the people of Massachusetts about the costs of the plan. All sorts of rosy scenarios were drawn and everyone smiled and backslapped to get these unfunded mandates passed. But now reality is setting in and the system is crashing down around them.

This is the fate of Obamacare on the national level.

but what do the people of Massachusetts think of Romneycare? Do they like it? After all, it is they that are forced to foot the bill and they who will elect more politicians to either kill or continue the plan.

According to the Rasmussen polling service, only 26 percent of Bay Staters think Romneycare is a success. Worse, only 10 percent think that their care has improved while a hefty 53 percent say they’ve seen no change in their own healthcare.

Even on a partisan divide, the plan is not very popular. 49 percent of Democrats in Massachusetts aren’t sure if the program is a success. If even partisan party members can’t go for it in a big way that says an awful lot about how bad about this plan.

The universal plan in Massachusetts is an obvious budget busting failure. Obamacare will be worse.

COMMENTS

  • djemi

    That along with The VA, Medicare, Medicade and just about anything else that the government has a hand in running.

  • mbecker908

    any sitting governor who sits out a reelection bid so he or she can run for higher office. It’s called pass a bunch of stuff and run before being held accountable.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    Even some private systems, is the lack of an adequet co-pay for each and every visit.

    If you are in any system, medicare or Romney care or anything else you ought to have to pay $40-50 dollars for each and every doctor visit, and 100-200$ for each and every hospital visit, no matter what.

    That would cut down on unnecessary visits. People will go when they need care.

    Now, of course that flies in the face of the do-gooders who worry that people will ignore care because of the cost. But there is no other way to ration care except waiting lists. If the Do gooders are worried about the very poor, they can offer to pay their co-pay for them.

    Another thing the State could do is attract more doctors and other medical professionals. They could give money for expansion of medical schools with the stipulation that they really add a substantial number of students. and they could offer all medical professionals pay zero income taxes, as long as they work full time.

    • Jack_Savage

      “Another thing the State could do is attract more doctors and other medical professionals…”

      Increasing the number of patients they are required to see and lowering their pay is a GREAT way to attract doctors to a public health system. And zero income taxes will help the state’s budget how?

  • mikefisk

    …in any attempt at coordinated medical policy in the US.

    One, we have a significant doctor shortage in this country, with nearly insurmountable barriers to entry. This not only makes health care more expensive, but also more sensitive to market distortions.

    Two, relying on insurance, whether it comes from your employer or the government, is a bad idea. Either way, the actual costs of medical care are completely taken out of the hands of the consumer, and either way the system makes the consumer an effective slave to one entity or another for their health care (either to their employer or to the whims of an increasingly capricious government).

    And people still think this is the answer?

    • 6eorge Jetson

      If they get paid less–how else do we achieve “savings”– then they’ll adjust at the margin by cutting the quality of their care. The Dems are in favor of more hurried office visits. Just what everyone wants.

    • Jim

      Prices are the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources like medical services. When you remove the price signal, resources get mis-allocated and everyone gets thrown out of whack.

      • Rod_Patrick

        Doctors belong to a specific service industry and to BECOME EFFICIENT, it must also follow the Law of Supply and Demand and other principles of competitive market/industry. Price (e.g. doctor’s pay) always dictates efficient allocation of resources, no matter what the socialists in the WH say.

        Nationalization of health care system and the idea of “pro-poor/middleclass health program” (both ObamaCare and the RomneyCare in MA) create undue disincentives to the medical service professionals. They are therefore inconsistent with increasing the number of the qualified doctors and other medical professionals (the sure and rational way of reducing cost of health and medical service). This is especially true at this time when there are serious supply constraints in the said industry.

        A great man once said “a pro-poor program is always a POOR program”.

        In that sense, ObamaCare will only hurt the middle class and the poor in this country.

  • izoneguy

    Hmmmm, I wonder if anyone has ever done a study showing the political leanings of people who are getting laid off?

    I am self-employed so I don’t work an 8-5…

    If national health care gets passed i will show up to my ER EVERYDAY with a new aliment. I will bring my laptop and the ER will be my new office.

    So if you get laid off head over to the ER and swamp it.

    Let’s overload Obamacare so it breaks.

  • The_Rebel

    In the mail today, Blue Cross has announced that beginning October 1, 2009 for new plans, and for renewals thereafter, ER visits are going up to $100, $150, or $200, depending on the plan. Thank you very much Romneycare. To be fair, however, the bill that Romney pushed through the legislature was the lesser of two evils, since the legislators had a more onerous bill in mind.

    But the hidden fact of this Commonwealth Care is the free dental care provided, without so much as a co-pay. My dental plan pays up to only $1,000 per year, and only covers crowns, etc. at 50%. They get unlimited care at 100%. This is costing the state tens of millions per year. There are working people who cannot afford to see a dentist, but yet we must subsidize these freeloaders.

    Pay attention Obamacare lovers. This failed program will be coming to you soon enough. With any kind of luck, it will bring your boy down, just as its helping to do to Patrick.

  • Jim

    What!?!? Another attempt at trying to centrally plan the distribution of goods and services by the state has failed?

    What a shock!

    Well, maybe they’ll get it right next time.

  • JHancock

    is that if you control prices too much Doctors will start limiting the number of patients with social plans they see. One Doc I know decided not to see Medicare/Medicaid patients at all–this is 1/2of his practice!! He crunched the numbers and found that these people accounted for 2/3 of lawsuits to him and his partners but only 1/4 of profits-so he cutback to being open only 30h a week and saved on staff overhead taking a loss in pay of 60k a year BUT with the extra time he had by cutting back is enjoying a free schedule to see more of his family and vacation. Plus with using the time he saved by not seeing government patients he estimates he can moonlight at ER’s 20h a week and make 120k extra a year–plus, he eventually plans to fill his schedule back up at his main practice with private insured and self pay patients and will then add 20h back to office hours–this will make 200k a year if this happens—-so it’s a bad thing for social patients when it becomes financially better not to see them at all…which is what I think is probably happening in Mass,

  • mrgoldman

    Izoneguy – Why are you so immature and weird? What is your problem? It is the likes of you that I no longer want to be associated with. I am a former long time supporter of the Republican party but I can no longer in good conscience and for the sake of my country support a party that represents such severely right wing views as yours.

    Just look at the quality of comments from rabid people such as you on this site and other “conservative” sites such as WSJ and Fox News. Sometimes I wonder where you people come from, what your education level is and whether you are really adults or just petulant regressive adult-teenagers that never grew up to think maturely. It is unfortunate that the ill-educated such as you and the well educated and critical thinking like me have the same weight of vote.

    Rationally, a public plan option is the only way to control healthcare cost as numerous other developed countries have done. Moreover, where is a sense of solidarity in the Republican Party for those who are far more unfortunate than us and too sick and recently uninsured (but too young to be insured by Medicare) to fight? Someday you will get sick and be uninsurable. That’s when you will regret this attitude of yours – you selfish person.