Everything Wrong With RomneyCare In One Quote
Via Politico, a quote that sums up so much about what's wrong with RomneyCare:
Timothy Murphy, who was Massachusetts Health and Human Services secretary while Romney was governor, said he doubted the governor would have supported any cost regulations for philosophical reasons.
"People say we didn't do cost controls," said Murphy, who is now president and CEO of Beacon Health Strategies, a managed behavioral health care company. "I would never do that in a million years. … We didn't think it was the proper role of government."
Apparently, it's the state government's role to fund a massive, predictably over-budget new health entitlement and to lobby the federal government for special funding to do the same. But it's not the proper role of government to make any attempt to control the costs that drive that spending. It's the get-your-government-hands-off-my-subsidies approach to entitlements. Here's an idea: How about controlling costs by not setting up the program or spending the money in the first place?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yep, nailed.
...and the Libertarian Charity Fairy Solution? ? ? took care of all the sick people , and we all lived happily ever after
What smells like ass in this thread? It's coming from the northern sector...
Before the introduction of government charity, private charity did do a good job.
Many people voluntarily gave to help people, and many doctors voluntarily gave of their time.
The problem was the shame factor.
Taking charity was shameful. It made people feel bad about themselves.
But government charity fixed that. Now there is no shame. These people deserve all their free shit, dammit!
Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!
And the central planning committee took care of all the sick people, just as they provided food for everybody in North Korea, the Ukraine, etc...
...and the Universal Government Ointment soothed all their boo-boo's and even brought the dead back to life.
a managed behavioral health care company
"Behavioral health care." Yeah, that's the ticket!
Hey, we needed to pass the bill to find out how much money we wasted.
We're DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED.
DOOMED I SAY!
Republicans are poised to nominate a guy who didn't give a shit about the cost of the programs he enacted. They're going to nominate him in this environment. With the mood of the country where it is. Most unfortunate.
Exactly -
They're doing an outstanding job showing me why I hate both wasteful, phony parties with equal bile.
With these front running GOP jag-offs, I wonder if it's more disappointing to be an educated, informed voter or to be someone like Paul or Johnson (who say what they mean and do what they say)?
Is there any hope that this is a planned strategy from the GOP to waste democrat ammo on these buffoons and have the real candidates surface for the primary? Oh, wait they actually ran Palin - nevermind.
Errr.....
*Flip*
Uhhh.....
*Flop*
How about controlling costs by not setting up the program or spending the money in the first place?
That's just crazy talk!
ANARCHYCHAOSBLOODINTHESTREETSVIOLENCECHILDRENEATINGTHEELDERLYCATSANDDOGSLIEDOWNTOGETHERMADNESMADNESSISAYZOMGHUH!!!11!!oneandonemakes!!!!
Most unfortunate.
Unfortunate, but not surprising.
Did I mention we're doomed?
Yep - I did. Thanks
Until there is a mechanism to repeal bad legislation, and a political incentive to do so, the solution to the consequences of bad legislation will always be more bad legislation.
Yes, we're doomed.
Cost controls might negatively affect Bain Capital's bottom line.
Mitt Romney's entire existence is a conflict of interest. Basically, he's pure poison and anyone who supports him is asking to be ass-fucked to death.
This is why the two sides of the argument will never reach a compromise.
Rombamacare isn't bad because of the benefits, its bad because of the open-ended costs, which nobody can put a limit on. Rombamacare is a fucking blank check on society to deal with issues that need real limits.
If Rombamacare modeled itself after the French healthcare system, it would be a sustainable, limited system which dealt with minor emergencies, common diseases and generic drugs. It would be straightforward, simple and LIMITED.
As it stands, I'm as likely to fund simple treatments as someone's long term cancer care, which can run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses, meaning despite the mandate, everyone's premiums are going to skyrocket and the government cost is gonna fly to never before seen heights. There's nothing to stop it and the incentive is right in front of us.
More than anything, this is what kills Rombamacare. Lack of realism and pragmatism in healthcare limits destroys its ability to function.
Its funny to think that back in the day, healthcare was kept in check by "what we could do". Now, what we can do is impressive, but we can't devote every one of our resources to funding a single part of our economy.
If only voters and politicians would realize this.
thanks