Obamacare

RomneyCare: Less Popular Than Ever!

|

Is the journey of RomneyCare a preview of the road ahead for ObamaCare? Backers of the federal health care overhaul better hope not.

Romney hopes he can fudge some support for his health care plan.

Public support for former GOP Gov. Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care plan, the model for last year's federal health legislation, has experienced a significant drop in the last few years. The Boston Globe reports on the current state of affairs:

Nearly half of Massachusetts voters are saying the state's landmark health care law isn't working.

That's according to a new poll by Suffolk University and WHDH-TV which found 49 percent of respondents said they didn't feel the 2006 law was helping. Thirty-eight percent said it was working.

As John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute notes, that represents a big drop: RomneyCare passed in 2006 with majority support, and the plan remained quite popular in the years after. In 2008 and 2009, polls showed that more than 65 percent of the public supported the law. Indeed, as I've written previously, the evidence is pretty clear that the political environment in the Bay State has long been amenable to the sort of reforms implemented by RomneyCare and ObamaCare:

According to a 2008 report published in the journal Health Affairs on how public opinion shaped the Massachusetts plan, there was "a favorable political environment" in the state to begin with.

In particular, solid majorities in the state supported the mandates and expansions of government care that are now driving opposition to the national plan. In 2003, for example, majorities supported an employer mandate (76 percent), an individual mandate (56 percent), and an expansion of state-run health programs (82 percent). In 2005, the year the bill was passed in the state legislature, the report notes that 66 percent of the state reported supporting a universal coverage ballot initiative. 

So what happened? We can only speculate, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that long wait times, high insurance costs, and ongoing legal and political turmoil had something to do with the drop in support. How great can the state's health plan really be when it runs dramatically over budget, leads the individual health insurance market to temporarily shut down, and forces the state's insurers to operate with losses

Whatever the particular reason for the recent drop in support, the polling in Massachusetts can't be a good sign for the embattled federal law. The Bay State was arguably the most favorable possible political ground for this sort of reform. ObamaCare, on the other hand, has been unpopular since long before it passed. 

Mitt Romney, ever the optimist, is still proud of his tanking state-based plan

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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

155 responses to “RomneyCare: Less Popular Than Ever!

  1. Fess up, Peter. You photoshopped that Fudge sign into the background, right?

  2. That picture is…awesome. Is it real?

      1. I love it.

        You’ve been on fire with the images lately, Suder-Man. Keep it up.

      2. The article is good but that is by far the best. picture. ever. to accompany an article. Even better than Waxman’s exploding head yesterday.

      3. Alternate alt text: “Two by two, hands of blue…”

  3. Pack that fudge, Romney!

  4. Employers are fleeing the state in droves. Fidelity just announced a move that will move thousands of jobs to other states.

  5. Fisting, followed by fudgepacking so you can have more room for fudge. Mormons do love their candy.

  6. Why would you conduct a poll and not ask what the reason for approval or disapproval? Seems like a good way to have to avoid “speculation” part of the piece.

  7. No doubt people will do a Trotsky and say the reason it is not working is because the entire nation is not doing the universal medical care thing, and if the entire country is doing it, then the reason is because the entire world is not doing it, and until the entire world does it the system will not work.

  8. So what happened? We can only speculate, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that long wait times, high insurance costs, and ongoing legal and political turmoil had something to do with the drop in support.

    Since they were happy with it for 3+ years, your guess doesn’t follow. Insurance companies are the probable cause with their constant battle to put their profits ahead of health care

    1. Rather: the political chaos didn’t really take hold until last year, when the insurance market shut down, rates were rejected, insurers sued the government over the rejections, etc. etc.

      1. Peter Suderman,

        I want to read the survey. Do you have a link?

        Nothing comes up from info on the link story

    2. “Insurance companies are the probable cause with their constant battle to put their profits ahead of health care”
      Listen, ignoramus, when you find a company that *doesn’t* put profits first, you let me know.

      1. Listen, numskull, WTH do you think non-profits are?

        1. Companies that seek special tax status out of a desire to avoid taxes or because they are engaging in activities not socially useful enough to generate a significant profit?

        2. Rather|4.8.11 @ 12:34PM|#
          “Listen, numskull, WTH do you think non-profits are?”

          Listen, asshole, *YOU* were referring to insurance companies, ‘for-profit’ entities, and griping they put profit first.
          So don’t bother changing the subject and then griping, asshole.

          1. The lady does protest too much-wait, I don’t know any girls who whine when they lose an argument. Are you a little boy Sevo?

        3. Places for for-profit companies to dump their losses…

        4. In my state, Minnesota, by law, all insurance companies are non-profits.

          Rather, you are one stupid chumk of cunt-vomit.

          1. Pip, I can’t even begin to tell you how stupid that comment is:
            UnitedHealth Group Inc. UNH 1 87,138.0 1 81,186.0 0 7.3 4.4

            http://ww3.startribune.com/projects/st100/

        5. Listen, numskull, WTH do you think non-profits are?

          Wow, you really have no idea how non-profits work, do you.

          A non-profit company does not mean it operates unprofitably.

          I work for a non-profit. Guess what we’re obsessed with? Making money.

          A non-profit corporation must operate profitably, otherwise it fails spectactularly. The only difference between a non-proft and a for-profit corporation is what the organization does with its profits. In a non-profit, all profits must be put back directly into the organization, whereas for-profits distribute their windfalls to shareholders. Get it?

          1. I know the difference between a NPO, and a for profit. Profit restrictions are greater than you imply, and the money is not ‘put back’ in the company but is used for goals. The designation of non-profit has tax implications and they must be met on pain of penalty or they lose their income and tax exemption

            1. I know the difference between a NPO, and a for profit. Profit restrictions are greater than you imply, and the money is not ‘put back’ in the company but is used for goals

              Oh my god, dude. You just read the Wiki page, didn’t you. You do know what “pursuing its goals” means, don’t you?

              Plus you avoided the entire point. Nice bait-and-switch. Non-profits must operate profitably. Period. Last year my organization broke even. The board of directors are now moving to make cuts because breaking even is unacceptable in a non-profit. Because you must have growth to put back money into the organization. Those SEIU nurses get their cost of living raises, you know. Can’t give those if you break even.

              1. breaking even is unacceptable in a non-profit

                You obviously are not the accountant at your NPO.

                Plus you avoided the entire point. Nice bait-and-switch. Non-profits must operate profitably. Period. Last year my organization broke even. The board of directors are now moving to make cuts because breaking even is unacceptable in a non-profit

                Now who is playing B&S? Ask your accountant what happens when you make too much profit.

                1. Now who is playing B&S? Ask your accountant what happens when you make too much profit.

                  Wow your ignorance is breathtaking. That’s what the board of a non-profit does. They make sure their goals ‘consume’ whatever profit is made so that the books ‘break even’ at the end of the fiscal year.

                  That’s what the financial analysts for an NPO do, they continually advise and adjust the needed organizational expenditures and ‘costs’ so the profit that’s being made eventually ‘breaks even’ at year-end. To wit:

                  Financial planning becomes a major aspect of what a nonprofit does. Cost-volume-revenue (CVR) analysis, together with cost behavior information, helps nonprofit managers prepare useful planning analyses. CVR analysis deals with how revenue and costs vary with a change in service level. It looks at the effects on revenues of changes in certain factors, such as variable costs, fixed costs, prices, service level, and mix of services. By studying the relationships of costs, service volume, and revenue, management is better able to cope with many planning decisions.

                  Break-even analysis, an integral part of CVR analysis, determines the break-even service level. Break-even point–the financial crossover point when revenues exactly match costs–does not show up in financial reports. Nonprofit financial managers, however, find break-even point a useful measurement. It reveals which programs are self-supporting and which are subsidized.

                  If, for instance, a large non-profit makes so much money that it can’t spend it all, risking its ‘break-even’ status, it can give away those funds as to other organizations which share its goals in the form of grants.

                  Break-even strategies can become difficult if your organization has no growth plans, but a major hospital? Growth regularly outstrips income. So breaking even is a battle to grow revenue, not shrink it, Rather.

                  But hey, Rather, the organization I linked above laid off 85 workers because it was losing money. What happened to ‘healthcare first’?

                2. And because I love to beat your dead horses, Rather:

                  Can a nonprofit organization have too much profit?

                  Being financially successful is the dream of just about every nonprofit. An operational surplus allows you to do even more with less stress and equips your organization to undertake new activities to accomplish your mission.

                  But you need to understand what is generating your surplus. If your organization engages in activities outside of its mission, you may be generating unrelated business income. Excessive unrelated business income may create UBIT (unrelated business income tax) or endanger the tax-exempt status of your organization.

                  A second important issue related to revenue is what you do with it. All surplus has to be invested back in the organization; it cannot go in the pockets of staff or board members. This rule applies whether your nonprofit has revenues of $4,000 or $40,000,000.

                  If your organization creates unexpected surplus, which cannot be used in operating expenses, you may wish to create an endowment, increase your rainy day reserves, or provide services at a lower cost to customers.

                  Game, set and match, Rather.

                  1. fuck off. quit pretending you know what your talking about. i’m righting a blog post about your ignorence as we speak, bitch.

                    1. fuck off. quit pretending you know what your talking about. i’m righting a blog post about your ignorence as we speak, bitch.

                      It’s too bad she won’t live!

                  2. …. An operational surplus allows you to do even more… undertake new activities to accomplish your mission.= Profit restrictions are greater than you imply, and the money is not ‘put back’ in the company but is used for goals.

                    But you need to understand what is generating your surplus. If your organization engages in activities outside of its mission, you may be generating unrelated business income. Excessive unrelated business income may create UBIT (unrelated business income tax) or endanger the tax-exempt status of your organization. = The designation of non-profit has tax implications and they must be met on pain of penalty or they lose their income and tax exemption

                    A second important issue related to revenue is what you do with it. All surplus has to be invested back in the organization; it cannot go in the pockets of staff or board members. This rule applies whether your nonprofit has revenues of $4,000 or $40,000,000. Semantics. Google Red Cross CEO salary

                    If your organization creates unexpected surplus, which cannot be used in operating expenses, you may wish to create an endowment, increase your rainy day reserves, or provide services at a lower cost to customers. Shell game. Insurance companies have a PhD in this game; you would be damned surprise what ‘operating expenses’ defines

                    Your understanding is flawed. This game hasn’t started. Out of wind old man?

                    BTW, name the hospital non-profit you referred to earlier

                    1. Named, Rather. Named. Learn to read. You got bitch-slapped on this debate. Just go away quietly. There’s more dignity in it.

                      It’s your turn to name an organization which willfully operates at a loss in the name of healthcare.

                    2. i dont need to name anything because i’m right, bitch. its up to you to proof me wrong.

                    3. i dont need to name anything because i’m right, bitch. its up to you to proof me wrong.

                      If only the real rctl were this smart…

                    4. Paul you are just lucky I like delusional men. OK, we’ll pretend you won 😉

                    5. fuck off helle- quit using my handle

                    6. Asshole, if I wrote this I would have said: fuck off helle -go play with your dick and quit using my handle

                      But since it is you pretending: Fuck off Epi. I was just throwing out some pain pills; go suck sewer water for your next hit

                    7. As it’s been pointed out, it’s not yours. And you are qualified to diagnose addicts how?

                    8. Never mind rather. I have a small dick

                    9. It’s ok baby, so do I 😉

                    10. Lol, you have a clit honey. We can have a sleepover and I’ll show you how to use it

                    11. FIRE IN THE HOLE!

                      Bawhoom!

                      List of non-profits and their profit dollars:

                      – Partners HealthCare reported that for yearend 9/30/07 that not-for-profit The General Hospital (located in Boston) reported making a profit of $354,657,000
                      – In FY07, Ascension Health reported making a profit of $1,215,835,000.
                      – IN FY07, Catholic Health Initiatives reported making a profit of $1,020,272,000.
                      – In FY07, Trinity Health reported making a profit of $997,836,000.
                      – And in FY07, Catholic Healthcare West reported making a profit of $891,836,000.

                      […]

                      That seems to capture the confused look I get when I tell people I work for a non-profit that has grown net profit by 80% from last year. Isn’t a profitable non-profit an oxymoron? It’s a legitimate question.

                      There has been a lot of non-profit hospital-bashing going on these days. Part of the increasing scrutiny around hospital pricing and billing practices is rooted in a misunderstanding of the world of non-profits. People aren’t comfortable with that tension between mission and money. And honestly, I can’t blame them. As a person in non-profit strategic planning, I’ve been living with that tension for almost two years, and yet I still can’t always shake that feeling of uneasiness.

                    12. blah blah blah. anyone can pull bs stats out of there ass. i’m threw with you.

                    13. First, that other ‘rather’ is Epi, not me.

                      They are not “making profits” in the sense that private corporations are making a profit, since they are limited in the way that those profits can be spent. The choice is not between investing in the capital of the business and taking more profits, since profits must equal more services, i.e. more investment in the business and the mission.

                      The guy is a EE, and a fan of Cato but he hits on how they hide profit: investment in the business. The money is taken out of their books by investing in other HC businesses

                    14. Planned Parenthood, the conservative’s favorite bogeywoman: $85,000,000 in “revenue over expenses”… aka “profit”. Tax-exempt status: Golden.

                      FIRE FOR EFFECT!

                      http://www.plannedparenthood.o…..e_Copy.PDF

                      Another definition of “Excess of Revenue over Expenses”- the non-profit phrase which means “profit”:

                      EXCESS OF REVENUE OVER EXPENSES in the not-for-profit sector. There is a common misconception that not-for-profit organizations are not allowed to have a financial cushion as they are ‘not-for-profit’. In this context it is useful to remember that not-for-profit organizations are also ‘not-for-loss’ organizations. An organization cannot sustain losses over the long term without ceasing to operate or going bankrupt. [so much for ‘healthcare first’ – p] Excess of revenue over expenses is the planned financial position that there will always be a sufficient amount of funds on hand to continue to run the not-for-profit entity for some period without additional funding; usually 3-4 months.

                    15. Excess profit can be set against the maintenance of a building. For example the company can say it will cost 100k to fix the roof in 2 years, and therefore it is not considered punitive income.

                      It doesn’t make it mandatory to replace the roof, it is just a shuffling game.

                      Net Operating losses are most often just on paper.

                    16. If only the real rctl were this smart…

                      I’m tired of babies who can’t debate without acting like they are twelve

                    17. Or paying that big bonus to the CEO of the Red Cross.

                      So now you’re helping me make my point. You put excess revenue back into the organization. And yes, often it’s done with book shuffling. That’s the point. That’s how PP can make $85,000,000 in “revenue over expenses” and keep their tax-exempt status. At some point, that money is pushed back into the organization. But when a non-profit suffers real losses, ie, they’re not profitable, they lay off employees or go out of business just like everyone else does.

                    18. My point was that insurance companies are lying about their profitability-thanks for making my point.

                    19. Paul was talking about NPO’s, not insurance companies. Nice B & S. And it’s not your money.

                    20. He’s a big boy and doesn’t need his daddy to reply

                      Go play who’s your daddy with helle and epi

                    21. I miss daddy’s cock 🙁

        6. Non-profits are corporations that keep their profits, as opposed to distributing them to shareholders.

    3. Insurance companies are the probable cause with their constant battle to put their profits ahead of health care

      Hmm… I wonder what happens when a company puts profit ahead of their customers…

      1. Hmm… I wonder what happens when a company puts profit ahead of their customers…

        An argument for vitiating insurance companies

        1. Rather|4.8.11 @ 12:26PM|#
          “Hmm… I wonder what happens when a company puts profit ahead of their customers…

          An argument for vitiating insurance companies”

          Followed by an obvious demonstration of rather’s abysmal ignorance.

        2. Actually, it’s an argument for vitiating protectionist regulation.

      2. PPACA?

      3. Companies only put profits ahead of customers when customers are not supplying the profits, i.e. there is a third party paying.

        When customers make the decisions, ignoring customers hurts profits.

        1. True, I agree. I bet you get your insurance via your work though. Am I right Devil Inchoate?

    4. The death spiral with such a scheme does not become obvious right away. It takes a while for people to figure out that they can game the system and acquire/drop insurance as their health waxes and wanes. It also takes a while for insurers to quantify the costs of that and adjust rates accordingly. Then it takes a while for the resultant losses to show up on their balance sheets and cause them to quit issuing policies. Im not surprised it has taken a few years.

      1. It also takes a while for insurers to quantify the costs of that and adjust rates accordingly.

        Pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase, tell me you are trying to be funny!

        1. “Pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase, tell me you are trying to be funny!”

          Please tell me that someone capable of typing can’t be as ignorant as you.

        2. Pleaaaaaaaaaaase, tell me you can respond coherently to what I said.

          1. Not only do they know how much everything will cost before they issue a policy; they also have people to get rid of any losers on their plans.

            They ensure or increase their pre-conceived profits, and play a shell game to hide under the ‘we don’t make any money’ meme.

            Yes Bravo, you can count your chickens before they hatch.

            1. rather, you seem to think it’s somehow immoral to make money. Aren’t we all making money to make a living?

              1. No, I put healthcare first! My salary and clinic profit be damned!

              2. I have no issue with making money.

                HC is mess, and the whores doctors who sold out their patients interest are in turn getting screwed.

            2. Must be why health insurance rates keep adjusting. If insurance company actuaries could account for every conceivable variable, they’d be able to leave their jobs and go into the much more profitable field of prophecy. There is no model that can predict with absolute certainty all variables, which is why you continually update your model and assumptions based on observational data.

              1. You have got to be fucking kidding me

            3. Of course they will raise prices if their only other alternative is to lost money. But they can’t raise prices right away–they can only do so when the policy is up for renewal which in most cases is once a year. My point is that a death spiral will take a couple of years to become evident. Your point seems to be that insurance companies are evil because they want to make money.

              1. make that “lose money.”

              2. they can only do so when the policy is up for renewal which in most cases is once a year.

                WRONG

    5. Ever notice how most feminists are ugly chicks?

        1. Ever notice how most guys who call people ugly hide behind a handle with no name, or picture link?

          1. Ugly people are also capable of recognizing other ugly people. What’s your point.

          2. Their education also tends to extend as far as the N.O.W. pamphlet they found in the trash last week.

    6. Re: rather,

      Since they were happy with it for 3+ years, your guess doesn’t follow.

      Were they “happy” with it, rather?

      1. yes

        Google the survey; the spam filter won’t let me post it

        1. It takes a while for the negative effects of a law to emerge into the public consciousness. I used to live in Tennessee, which had Tenncare, a universal coverage program. When it first passed, people generally felt positively toward it. As a few years passed and just how bad it really was became apparent as it sucked up more and more of the budget, people began to turn against it. These things take time.

        2. Re: rather,

          Since they were happy with it for 3+ years, your guess doesn’t follow.

          I saw the report, and the current survey, and what I see is that even if people were happy with the idea at first, they are not happy now. This is a FACT – Suderman is simply pointing out possible reasons for the current lack of support, not making up the fact that people do not support RomneyCare TODAY. I don’t understand why you argue that he is wrong.

          1. and the current survey

            Link please

            1. Everyone else is providing links-a-plenty. Your responses amount to “Wrong” and “nuh-uh” or just plain non-sequitirs.

              1. Where do you want a link? The spam filter blocks most of them

    7. put their profits ahead of health care

      Just like Doctors do.

      I’ve been working in healthcare for over 20 years. Never once has a single hospital, organization, clinic, small, medium or large operated at a loss so they could put “healthcare ahead of profits”.

        1. All of them that are still in business. Oh wait, you think all the medical clinics out there are willfully operating at a loss because they’re putting “healthcare first”?

          Here’s a nonprofit that just laid off a boatload of employees because they’re operating at a loss, and really want to start operating at a profit: http://www.highlinemedicalcenter.org/

          1. The vast majority of positions that were eliminated were not involved in direct patient care.
            So they were clerks etc

            Highline Medical Center first opened in 1958 as Burien General Hospital.
            So they were clerks who had a long work history, and cost more to keep

            It now includes two healthcare campuses and more than 20 clinics across Southwest King County. As the tenth-busiest emergency department
            Sounds like they have the business…..

            …in the Puget Sound region, Highline serves as the base station for the Burien area emergency medical unit. In 2008, Highline broke ground on a new ER & Patient Care unit, which is slated to open in early 2010
            …and they expected more business but laid off people to get rid of their expensive but loyal asses.
            A classic dead weight move

        2. Ok, I cited, now you cite a medical clinic or hospital that willfully operates at a loss so they can put “healthcare first”.

          1. name it or take your dare.

            1. Rather, if you can’t come up with the front money, you’re not for real…

    8. Umm, are you just stupid and willfully ignorant?
      http://moneycentral.msn.com/in…..bol=US:AET
      Sorry, I shouldn’t be so sarky about it, since healthcare is complicated in general. It just gets irritating after a while (healthcare analyst in DC is my profession).

      Health Insurers post about a 4-5% profit margin on average, which is not to say that is not respectable depending on the overall size of their pools. That is not however by definition usurious, rapacious, or thieving however. And do not get me started on the medical loss ratio (which is effectively driving all the small insurers out of business).

      Considering the govt. programs like Medicare basically sit around on their asses and just write checks, they end up looking really efficient administratively. But then you remember that they piss away 50 BILLION dollars a YEAR to fraud and abuse. So if a private for-profit insurer has the right incentives to attack fraud and abuse, develop innovative systems and networks, and enough clout to stick it to the providers, I don’t really give a flying f*ck if annually a couple hundred dollars of my premiums goes to their profits.

      Even if you converted all insurers to a non-profit model, THEY COULD NOT COVER EVERYONE AND NOT GO INSOLVENT BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SELECTION. The employer based system is the problem. In our transient modern society where you don’t work for the same company your whole life, this is retarded. It would be like having to leave your 401k for the next employee to fill the position every time you changed jobs. If insurers could write cradle-to-grave policies where you were required to keep them (with the ability for the consumer to look somewhere else if premiums or cost sharing rose beyond a pre-approved margin in the contract) and interstate transportability, I swear to god half of these problems would go away overnight from the consumer side (costs will require putting the screws to the providers). It is the system insurers have to operate within that is the problem more than their practices most places.

      I am not an apologist for the criminal actions of certain past disgraced CEOs like United’s who back dated stock trades and other distasteful practices (rescissions, etc), but that is what the justice system rumored to be for at the end of the day.

      1. healthcare analyst in DC is my profession

        Is that the new code words for lobbyist and which vulture do you work for?

        Your statement of making little teeny tiny profits is so temerarious prevaricate that I can’t be bothered to spar with you here-I’ll reply in my next blog

      2. Even if you converted all insurers to a non-profit model, THEY COULD NOT COVER EVERYONE AND NOT GO INSOLVENT BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SELECTION.

        It wouldn’t matter. They’d still have to operate profitably. A conversion to NPO for a major insurance company would probably result only marginal cost structure differences- and I’d bet they’d be largely short-term.

    9. “Insurance companies are the probable cause with their constant battle to put their profits ahead of health care”

      No, the cause was overuse of the system because of insurance paying for routine care and thus causing too much demand for a limited supply of doctors and medical services and thus caused premiums to rise and waiting times to lengthen.

      1. No, you are wrong too.

        1. Show me in what way I’m wrong. If car insurance was to pay for oil changes and flat tires, wouldn’t car insurance premiums go up?

          1. People use X amount of healthcare and changing plans does not alter their disposition. When everyone has a plan, as required by the new law, patients won’t suddenly generate

    10. “Since they were happy with it for 3+ years”

      They were happy with it for 3+ years because it took awhile for all the problems to develop.

      1. years? really, I thought everyone was overusing insurance as soon as they received it?

        1. Jesus Christ, you are extra stupid today.

        2. They were overusing the system, but the ill effects don’t become apparent overnight.

    11. You can’t provide health care when your company is out of business.

      1. But you can provide access. Remember, to the Obamapigs, it’s all about access. Actual healthcare is a secondary concern.

    12. Re: rather,

      Insurance companies are the probable cause with their constant battle to put their profits ahead of health care.

      This comment indicates to me that you have one-dimensional thinking – worse than Khan’s. A company has to provide value to their customers in order to OBTAIN those profits. There is NO way to obtain profits at the expense of value, as customers would simply take their business elsewhere. This is as true for businesses as it is for hair stylists, plumbers, TV shows, supermarkets, carpenters, you name it.

      It has been “Economics Ignorance Week” in H&R.

      1. sorry, to “its customers”, not “their”. Edit fail.

      2. OM had never bought private insurance, right?

  9. The Bay State was arguably the most favorable possible political ground for this sort of reform.

    Not California? Because it doesn’t take much of an imagination to see this as a (completely unfunded) voter initiative in the “Almost Underwater and Sinking Fast” State.

    1. Who are you calling “almost underwater”?

      We’re way underwater in California, and loving it!

  10. How can this motherfucker still have supporters for his Presidential campaign? I guess no politician is ever held responsible no matter how badly they fuck up. He has never even admitted it was a mistake and he has learned from it.

    1. Because Republicans think he looks “presidential” and think he has the best chances of winning. It turns out that hair and the perception of victory are the only qualifications necessary for executive office.

      You know a political movement is philosophically bankrupt when people like Romney and Trump are the two leading candidates for office.

      1. I swear to God if it comes to that I will vote for the fucking Donald. At least he would bring comediac value to the position.

        1. Seriously, I was just thinking that Trump actually looks like the least-worst choice if the other candidates are Huckabee and Romney. Plus it would be a lot more entertaining to have a bloviating idiot as president instead of another dignified faux-intellectual blueblood.

          1. We’d get comedy instead of tragedy?
            And who knows? He might just ‘fire’ everybody who works for the government!

            1. Could you imagine the Left’s reaction if Obama were defeated by Trump?

              HAHAHAHAHAHA

        2. Trump is a fucking crook. He used the bankruptcy laws to screw a lot of S. Jersey contractors out of their money. He also fucked all of the USFL owners. I’m going to compile a list of the contractors that went out business because of him. There’s more than a few.

          1. He used the bankruptcy laws to screw a lot of S. Jersey contractors out of their money.

            Wow. Apparently, he knows exactly who’s got mob connections and who doesn’t…

            1. I’m talking about NON-union contractors, duh.

        3. John, we already have a big joke in the White House.

        4. “”I swear to God if it comes to that I will vote for the fucking Donald. At least he would bring comediac value to the position.””

          It really is boiling down to this.

      2. Trump looks like he has hair until a big wind comes.

    2. How can this motherfucker still have supporters for his Presidential campaign?

      ’cause he vaguely resembles Phil Mickelson and America loves a winner.

    3. “”How can this motherfucker still have supporters for his Presidential campaign? “”

      Yep, and I was asking the same about Bush in 2004

      1. I even kind of like the other guy outside of his political affiliation and I understand why he lost.

        That was the election I stayed out of, didn’t vote, and tuned out of politics for a year for the sake of my sanity.

        I only vote now to do my part to keep the Libertarian Party alive in my state. It’s kind of important to me because I was not allowed to register as one in ’91, and my challenge was denied.

  11. I still can’t believe this guy is in public life. It is as if a former governor of a SW border state invaded Mexico with the National Guard and then ran for President on an anti-war ticket. You can’t make this shit up anymore.

    1. I confess my ignorance…who’s the reference to ?

      1. No one. it is just an analogy

        1. Yeah, but it almost fits for Woodrow Wilson. He just was governor of the wrong state.

  12. He has never even admitted it was a mistake and he has learned from it.

    What are you talking about? It wasn’t a mistake.

    You’re just not hitting it hard enough!

  13. “Let’s see what we can see inside… Open up those cheeks!”

  14. “Two by two, hands of blue”

  15. “Cough. Bad eyes. NEXT!”

  16. Huh. I’m intrigued. 65% of the public favored the law in 2008 and 2009? Maybe I’m hanging with the wrong crowd, then, because apparently 80% of everyone I know in real life is in that other 35%.

    Of course, a lot of the people I know are self-employed, which may skew the sample a bit. In my world it’s been a disaster, but an entirely predictable one, from day one. My husband is a self-employed sub-contractor who was doing fine without health insurance. On the very rare occasions he required medical care, he simply paid cash for it. The first year of the individual mandate he just ignored it, but the penalty for that on his state income tax is kind of harsh, and when your income is reported on a 1099 rather than a W2 you’re already getting hosed on your taxes.

    The insurance I have through my employer is affordable as an individual, but the family plan premiums I’d have to pay to put him on it are high enough to eat up 40% or more of my after-tax paycheck. So he ended up buying an “affordable” policy for himself, an entirely fucking pointless one, since the one thing that would fit his needs, catastrophic care coverage, is prohibited. In the last 7 months his monthly premium has gone from $220 to $256 to $302. In the last 3 years he has used exactly no medical care and is shelling out about 400% more annually than in his most expensive year as a self-pay patient.

    Whenever I explain all of the above on facebook, where (in stark contrast to my real life) 80% of my “friends” think the daily kos is an unbiased news source, the reaction I get is that clearly it’s some kind of anomaly, probably caused by greedy insurance companies, and that once it goes federal those kinks will be ironed out. They truly don’t believe me when I tell them not to worry, it’s not like I’ve been surprised by events playing out exactly as I assumed they would.

    1. I’ll tell you what, I live in NJ, and I’m self employed. I priced out similar plans in NJ and Mass, just to see what it would look like. With all of the deductibles figured in, NJ was about half the price. And NJ is probably just as screwed up as Mass, overall.

      What NJ did, basically, to their credit, was similar to what they did for auto insurance. They allowed more companies to write policies in the state. The lowest price I could find, in NJ, was about $170/month with no deductibles, state minimum coverage, for a 44 year old smoker. A medium plan is about $250. However, traditional 80/20 coverage is well over $1,000.

      1. What are the deductibles on these plans? I’m currently non-insured and was checking up on Texas major medical plans. For a non-smoking, 23-year-old female, premiums are $80 – $120 and deductibles start at $5,000.

        Anyone have experience with regular insurance vs. major medical?

    2. I have similar lefty friends on Facebook. They will be the ones singing happily while marching to the gas chambers.

    3. Your friends sure have a lot of faith in big government. Are we to believe Obama is so smart that he has the magic formula for making a government takeover of the medical industry work when it hasn’t worked in any country it’s ever been tried?

      1. Hey!

        The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) says Canada’s health care system is failing to meet the needs of Canadians and is in urgent need of reform.
        According to a report titled “Health Care Transformation in Canada: Change that Works, Care that Lasts” that was just released by the CMA, Canada’s health care is in serious trouble.

        1. Apparently lying tea baggers have made their way to Canada. That report is a total sham.

          1. Apparently lying tea baggers

            Hit a nerve, Tony? Are you the bagger or baggee?

    4. the one thing that would fit his needs, catastrophic care coverage, is prohibited.

      If you had to pick one thing that has caused the most destruction to our healthcare and, we are learning, financial systems, this would be my nomination right here.

      1. my vote goes to first dollar coverage … but i guess that’s essentially the same argument.

  17. That which was foreseen cannot be called unexpected…

  18. Today I visited a nice dentist in a nice office. The wait was quick, and the bridge I’m gonna have to get will cost $1,250 (my PRIVATE insurance pays 50%).

    Compare that to England, where only the rich go to nice private offices while the poor get stuck with the NHS hellhole. Nice offices? Maybe for rats and roaches. Short waits? Better bring your lunch. Good service? Well, ask a Britishman to show you his smile.

    No sir, I don’t want government healthcare even if it comes from a Republican who had a socialist moment like Romney.

    The Chinese come to Breed: The folly Birthright Citizenship.
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl…..right.html

    1. Not just the poor get screwed by the NHS but also NHS officials.

  19. If Romney is the nominee, a big issue will be taken away from the Republicans. How can they run against ObamaCare, when it’s based on RomneyCare?

    1. I wouldn’t worry about Romney. The Tea Party will take care of him. He’s an establishment Big Gov Republican, the kind they delight in taking down.

  20. I like what you have said,it is really helpful to me,thanks!

  21. Yeah, but it almost fits for Woodrow Wilson

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.