Mitt Romney wrote an Op-Ed piece for USA Today explaining his Massachusetts health care plan (published July 30th, 2009). The majority of Americans want health care and health insurance reform, but don’t want socialized medicine – a national insurance program or universal health care. Americans don’t want to pay for freeloaders who foist their medical care bills onto others, either. If you’re human, you aren’t going to escape this life without getting sick. So, where are the answers?
With minutes ticking away before Obamacare is on the table for a final vote, will Obama heed any call to come up for air long enough to see how much and how many loathe this particular piece of disastrous legislation?
*Editor note: Although published last summer, Romney’s article is a reminder of the mishandling by the Obama administration of the health care issue. Here is Romney’s common sense article in its entirety:
Health care cannot be handled the same way as the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. With those, the president stuck to the old style of lawmaking: He threw in every special favor imaginable, ground it up and crammed it through a partisan Democratic Congress. Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America’s families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There’s a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.
No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts. The bill that made it happen wasn’t a rush job. Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to insure all our citizens. It took almost two years to find a solution. When we did, it passed the 200-member legislature with only two dissenting votes. It had the support of the business community, the hospital sector and insurers. For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats.
Massachusetts also proved that you don’t need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no “public option.” With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn’t necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals’ dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option.
The cost issue
Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn’t have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.
When our bill passed three years ago, the legislature projected that our program would cost $725 million in 2009. At $723 million, next year’s forecast is pretty much on target. When you calculate all the savings, including that from the free hospital care we eliminated, the net cost to the state is approximately $350 million. The watchdog Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation concluded that our program’s cost is “relatively modest” and “well within initial projections.”
And if subsidies and coverages are reined in, as I’ve suggested, the Massachusetts program could actually break even. One thing is certain: The president must insist on a program that doesn’t add to our spending burden. We simply cannot afford another trillion-dollar mistake.
The Massachusetts reform aimed at getting virtually all our citizens insured. In that, it worked: 98% of our citizens are insured, 440,000 previously uninsured are covered and almost half of those purchased insurance on their own, with no subsidy. But overall, health care inflation has continued its relentless rise. Here is where the federal government can do something we could not: Take steps to stop or slow medical inflation.
At the core of our health cost problem is an incentive problem. Patients don’t care what treatments cost once they pass the deductible. And providers are paid more when they do more; they are paid for quantity, not quality. We will tame runaway costs only when we change incentives. We might do what some countries have done: Require patients to pay a portion of their bill, except for certain conditions. And providers could be paid an annual fixed fee for the primary care of an individual and a separate fixed fee for the treatment of a specific condition. These approaches have far more promise than the usual bromides of electronic medical records, transparency and pay-for-performance, helpful though they will be.
Try a business-like analysis
I spent most of my career in the private sector. When well-managed businesses considered a major change of some kind, they engaged in extensive analysis, brought in outside experts, exhaustively evaluated every alternative, built consensus among those who would be affected and then moved ahead. Health care is many times bigger than all the companies in the Dow Jones combined. And the president is rushing changes that dwarf what any business I know has faced.
Republicans are not the party of “no” when it comes to health care reform. This Republican is proud to be the first governor to insure all his state’s citizens. Other Republicans such as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sens. Bob Bennett and John McCain, among others, have proposed their own plans. Republicans will join with the Democrats if the president abandons his government insurance plan, if he endeavors to craft a plan that does not burden the nation with greater debt, if he broadens his scope to reduce health costs for all Americans, and if he is willing to devote the rigorous effort, requisite time and bipartisan process that health care reform deserves.
I like this reader’s comment on Romney’s article (USA Today):
Why is it that the people who did everything right and hit hard times are forced to share the “safety net” with an army of deadbeats, drug addicts and people who aren’t even legally in the country? If we could sift the responsible people who hit bad luck from the losers, we could help them without even missing the money.
Health care is so expensive these days, an out of work person sees a large bill. You can keep blaming greedy insurance companies, but the costs aren’t just there. Doctors practice defensive medicine to protect themselves from ambulance chasers, and charge it to the insurance company with no objection from the patient. But congress won’t even consider changes there. And congress doesn’t mind donating free insurance to people illegally in the country. How much is that? And how much will it be in 20 more years, since they have no concern for border security? And how much medicare fraud goes uninvestigated?
Rather than examine the flaws and fraud and money leaks, they want to turn the system upside down. They are long on promises, and short on previous successes.
I know things aren’t good, especially in a recession. I want changes too. Being afraid of an untried solution recommended by people with a long record of failure is not the same as not wanting change.
Romney is right. Take the time to get it right. You want us to bet our lives on this, and you haven’t got much of a track record.