March 1, 2012
And her answer is “no” in her column this morning at The Daily. She notes:
Liberal pundits are thrilled by a recent (non-peer-reviewed) blog post claiming that Romneycare — the universal coverage program that Mitt Romney enacted in Massachusetts in 2006 — has put a lid on skyrocketing health care costs. But they shouldn’t pop the cork yet: The evidence shows neither that the declining costs will last nor that they are the result of the program…
[They] could claim success if the premium declines actually stemmed from the logic of universal care — that is, from savings generated through more preventive and timely care and less emergency use. And there is evidence of fewer emergency visits. But is that the cause of the declining premiums? No.
Read the whole thing here.
Reason needs your support. Please donate today!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
(310) 367-6109
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
Paging|3.1.12 @ 10:53AM|#
John.
John, please come to the thread.
|3.1.12 @ 11:12AM|#
Of course its not working. It makes the fundamental problem (the lack of personal responsibility for the cost of healthcare demanded) worse, not better.
So, in classic government fashion, they JUST HIT IT HARDER with more interference in the supply/demand dynamic.
|3.1.12 @ 11:50AM|#
Sometimes you jsut really have to wonder who comes up with all this stuff.
www.Went-Anon.tk