Excerpt
Summary
It has been nearly five years since Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney signed the state’s landmark health care law amid the political flourish of a fife and drum corps and 300 guests in Boston’s Faneuil Hall. The overhaul is largely seen as a blueprint for the sweeping federal legislation that followed, making the state a political target for critics of President Obama’s efforts.
Brian Rosman, research director for the advocacy group Health Care for All, still has his ticket from Romney’s signing displayed in his downtown office. Obviously, Rosman’s group is pleased that the state has tried to cover as many of the uninsured as possible. But the law passed with support from a wide range of stakeholders.
Massachusetts’ game plan shares several characteristics of the national legislation, but there are differences, including one major distinction: The level of vitriol directed at the federal law doesn’t exist here. Sure, there are criticisms and compromises, disagreements and disappointments — but they come with a distinct lack of the death-panel-type furor that rose up against the law Obama pushed.
Even the fiscally conservative, but nonpartisan, Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation is on board. President Michael J. Widmer calls the law “a well thought-out piece of legislation” that his group supported because, “we believe in public investments.” Widmer says: "There have been critics from the left and the right … that have not wanted the Massachusetts experiment … to succeed from the outset for different reasons. Most of those critics are either out of state," or academics or single-payer advocates. "And then, of course, you get the politicians on top of that."
Yes, the politicians. The Massachusetts plan has been attacked by opponents of the national law, liberal advocates of Canadian-style single-payer insurance for all, and conservative Republicans hoping to derail Romney’s presidential aspirations. For example, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, in a February interview with the Associated Press, said Romney should essentially apologize for the law and acknowledge that it “cost more, waiting times were higher, quality of care went down, people were greatly dissatisfied and it ended up having almost the polar opposite effect of what was intended.” We found that there’s not much truth in any of that.
As the 2012 presidential campaign gets under way in just a few months (believe it or not), we expect to see an increasing number of attacks on so-called "RomneyCare." So as part primer and part preemptive fact-checking, this article is our attempt to set the record straight. We found:
- The major components of the state and federal law are similar, but details vary. The federal law put a greater emphasis on cost-control measures, for instance. Massachusetts is just now tackling that.
- The state law was successful on one big goal: A little more than 98 percent of state residents now have insurance.
- Claims that the law is "bankrupting" the state are greatly exaggerated. Costs rose more quickly than expected in the first few years, but are now in line with what the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation had estimated.
- Small-business owners are perhaps the least happy stakeholders. Cheaper health plans for them through the state exchange haven’t materialized, as they hoped.
- Despite claims to the contrary, there’s no clear evidence that the law had an adverse effect on waiting times. In fact, 62 percent of physicians say it didn’t.
- Public support has been high. One poll found that 68.5 percent of nonelderly adults supported the law in 2006; 67 percent still do.
A detailed Analysis and source list follow in the full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment