RomneyCare and the Return of Taxachusetts


On the campaign trail last year, Mitt Romney would sometimes attempt to combat the argument that RomneyCare, the health care plan he passed in Massachusetts, was essentially the same as the one President Obama passed nationally. Romney had a couple of points that he would make to distinguish the two plans, one of which was that his health care overhaul didn't raise taxes.

That's true as far as it goes:Romney's Massachusetts health plan didn't raise taxes when he signed it into law. But Bay State officials have warned on numerous occasions that health spending is on a course to overshadow everything else in the budget. And now Governor Deval Patrick is proposing a budget that includes a $1.9 billion tax hike, including new taxes on sweets, sugar, and cigarettes.

Patrick calls it a "growth budget," which is a fun way to characterize a nearly $2 billion tax hike. But it's accurate, in a way. As The Wall Street Journal's editorial page notes, it seems to be designed in part as a step toward paying for the already significant growth of health spending as a portion of the state's budget post-RomneyCare.

Mr. Patrick says the money will fund the usual array of liberal programs. But this is salesmanship to disguise that the state's real spending driver is the exploding cost of RomneyCare. That law was supposed to save the state money. But last August Beacon Hill was forced to impose new price controls and a cap on overall state health spending because "health-care spending has crowded out key public investments," as Mr. Patrick puts it in his budget.

He's right about that: Health care was 23% of the state fisc in 2000, and 25% in 2006, but it has climbed to 41% for 2013. On current trend it will roll past 50% around 2020—and that best case scenario assumes Mr. Patrick's price controls work as planned. (They won't.) In real terms the state's annual health-care budget is 15% larger than it was in 2007, while transportation has plunged by 22%, public safety by 17% and education by 7%. Today Massachusetts spends less on roads, police and schools after adjusting for inflation than it did in 2007.

This is, well, not promising. Post-RomneyCare, Massachusetts has seen premium hikes and price controls, tax increases and projections of unsustainable health spending to come. This is not so much a preview of things to come under ObamaCare as a mature version of what we're already seeing: fights over rate regulations, big premium hikes, new taxes, and increasing warnings about rising federal health spending.

When President Obama said that ObamaCare was based on the Massachusetts plan and noted that Romney's advisers said that it's the same plan, he was right. That's exactly what should worry us.

NEXT: NM Exempts Legislators From Speed Limits and Other Laws

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Patrick calls it a “growth budget,””
    Every CA state budget is a “growth budget”, but the spending growth always seems to out-run them.

  2. When President Obama said that ObamaCare was based on the Massachusetts plan and noted that Romney’s advisers said that it’s the same plan, he was right.

    Actually they shared a common ancestor, the Heritage Foundation plan of 1993, as has been discussed before on this blog. ObamaCare isn’t based on MassCare any more than humans descended from chimpanzees.

    Nice to see Suderman is still taking BO at face value when he had every reason to overstate the relationship between MassCare and ObamaCare.

    1. All together now:



      And it should be noted that Devil Patrick has taken RomneyCare and cranked it up to an 11.

      ObamaCare isn’t based on MassCare any more than humans descended from chimpanzees.

      You have been so thoroughly debunked on this it’s not even worth my time anymore. You might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy and homeopathic medicine at this point, Tulpa.

      1. Even if the Heritage foundation suggested the skeleton of the Romney plan years ago, it was the Romney administration that implemented it, proudly and loudly.

        If Dr Maximus says “I have this great idea for healthcare!” and writes a book about it… then Governor Paul reads Dr. Maximus’s book and implements the plan… I’m the one with the dumb idea.

  3. Is this 2008 Romney, or 2012?

  4. It’s a growth alright – a malignant growth.

  5. Today Massachusetts spends less on roads, police and schools after adjusting for inflation than it did in 2007.

    This frightening fact is why we must pay more income tax.

  6. Better alt-text: These are his “packing” gloves (NTTAWWT)

  7. It’s not fair to say the tax hike (which is partially balanced by a drop in the sales tax) will fund ‘the usual array of liberal programs.’ That makes it sounds like we’re paying for new social workers and diversity commissions. What this is really about is transportation, and that’s where the money is earmarked to go.

    if you lived in Boston you’d understand that our transit system is an absolute wreck. Yesterday we had two fires on the same subway line, stranding customers in frigid weather. Our “antique” trains, some running on World War I-era tracks, can’t handle cold, heat, snow, rain, or leaves. The MBTA is perpetually broke and the money to fix the subway and commuter rail has to come from somewhere.

    You can criticize the way the state budgets its current revenue, and you can certainly accuse the MBTA of mismanagement, but making this all about ‘liberal programs’ and healthcare comes off as really out of touch.

    1. Since Massachusetts already has high taxes, where is all the money going? I assume the union goons and their Mafia overlords are getting their cut of all the infrastructure money.

      I do understand that many eastern cities are burdened with 19th Century infrastructure that is crumbling and more expensive to maintain, compared to western cities.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.