Romneycare Costing Employers Millions

If perhaps if we can all stop swooning over Mitt Romney’s big religion speech and focus on an issue that actually matters in the coming race, it turns out the socialized health care boondoggle Romney dropped on Massachusetts is having a rather negative outcome for citizens of that state. The program is way over budget, premiums are skyrocketing, businesses are seeing expenses rise and already state officials are talking about limiting the benefits available under the system.

State officials yesterday announced that 300,000 people had obtained insurance under the new law – the bulk of those under heavily taxpayer-subsidized programs – and said they would extend deadlines for residents to sign up for insurance or face tax penalties.
Residents who qualify for Commonwealth Care premium-free plans – individuals who earn less than $15,315 annually and families of four that earn less than $30,975 – have until Dec. 28 to enroll. Residents who qualify for partially subsidized Commonwealth Care plans – individuals who earn less than $30,631 or a family of four that earns less than $61,951 – have until Dec. 20.
Even as employers cope with rising costs, insurers themselves are struggling to keep a lid on exploding premiums.
The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, which oversees the implementation of health care reform, approved plans Tuesday aimed at limiting premium increases to 5 percent next year in unsubsidized plans, demanding detailed explanations from any insurer unable to meet that agreement. In addition, insurers are expected to maintain their levels of offered benefits.
“We’re of course trying to balance affordability with the range of benefits provided and understand that there are always trade-offs involved,” said Secretary of Administration and Finance Leslie Kirwan, who chairs the Connector board.
Last month Connector officials estimated that Commonwealth Choice premiums could rise by between 4 percent and 14 percent in 2008, setting another wave of anxiety over affordability and again reminding the authority of the problems posed by rising health costs.
State documents, citing “very strong” enrollment in the subsidized Commonwealth Care program, cite potential costs of $618 million for the program, while citing $472 million in budgeted revenue for it.

This was Mitt Romney’s baby. He created it. He pushed it through the legislature. He’s had to distance himself from it since. And it’s a much more important topic than his religion.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    He promises not to tax my income; is he lying?
    So far, he has my vote. I can buy all the health care I ever need if my income isn’t taxed.

  • pparets

    Osama Obama: Mea Culpa! I’m pretty sure that what I said was, “I hate to admit…”, not, “I’d hate to support.” Anyway, my apologies, especially because I can’t – for the life of me – remember why I said it at all! Here’s the problem we live with out east. Wishing that MA had not passed health care is just that – wishful thinking. There was going to be a health care plan from the MA dems, with or without Romney’s imput. Through pragmatic negotiation, Gov. Romney was able to eliminate many of the worst socialist aspects of the plan. I consider that a small victory. I realize you may see it as a sell-out. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one. But yes!, we agree on most other things.

  • pparets

    I hate to admit it, but Osama Obama has a point here. Republican and conservative office-holders along the eastern seaboard – Guiliani and Romney come to mind – are faced with a difficult problem. In order to get any of their views inacted, conservatives often have to play ball with liberal legislators and bureaucrats who can make their jobs impossible! In such situations, principles must compromise with pragmatism. Otherwise the numerous People’s Republics on the east coast would be even worse than they are!

  • 2Hotel9

    So, you will vote for a socialist simply because he says HE won’t tax your income?

  • robert108

    The free enterprise system exists to supply all possible demand. Anything else results in shortages. It’s really pretty simple. The solution to the problems of socialism is not more socialism.

  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    Hillary promises to TAKE my income, control my access to health care and tax my death!
    Who else should I vote for?

  • robert108

    Sparkie: Representative govt only works effectively with an informed electorate. With the lies, half-truths and outright fabrications done by the leftie media, people think they are being taken care of, when the reality is that they are simply being taken. That’s socialism, dude.

  • Bat One

    pparets,

    By all means use it! Liturgical references have a deliciously frustrating effect on members of the secular-humanist cult and those who worship at the altar of government largesse.

  • Hoss

    pparets,
    Look, I don’t think Mitt’s a conservative (and did anyone ever believe Arnie was a real conservative?), so I don’t really think that he was compromising his principles so much. And I don’t think he was being pragmatic, I think he was constructing a platform that he thought would give him national attention. And as I inferred, if “your” principles are so watered-down, do they still resemble your principles. If I’m a Republican governor in a blue state, do I feel I’ve accomplished something when I’ve compromised to get 30% of what I want, while giving away 70%? Maybe that’s what you have to do in such a case just because it’s easier, but don’t try to sell me that you’d stand strong on conservative principles in the face of a dem congress. It just doesn’t show me much leadership. And, I just don’t think east coast republicans sell well in middle-America. As for the slide of the east coast, what are we going to do with you guys then? You guys are running off the rails and maybe a good, swift kick-in-the-ass (reality break) from the collectivist mindest is the only thing that will work before it’s gone absolutely too far. I know there’s only so much you can do as an individual, but I don’t want your 2/5 of the population screwing it up for the rest of us.

    And sure, I understand compromise. Absolutely Bush compromised on the tax issue, but he came out the big winner: he got his tax cuts on the basis of a sunset provision. It now falls on the republicans to drive for the permanency of the tax cuts, and put the screws to the dems for refusing to do so when it comes time.

  • Osama Obama

    pparets:

    I’m not sure why you’d ‘hate’ to support a point of mine. I actually would prefer that MA had passed no universal health care package what so ever. I more than less think of Rob Port as being a bright guy and because of that, his lack of pragmatism as it applies to politics and in particular the 2008 Republican Presidential candidates frustrates me. Acting as if we are all above the fray and tearing down good proponents of our preferred policies will only benefit the Democrats. Building up one’s favorite candidate would be a vastly more prudent course of action as would holding our candidates to their chosen rhetoric. Romney says his MA health care plan isn’t right for the USA as a whole and he proposes one that he thinks is, we should be thrilled. Hold him to it. If he starts saying things that don’t mesh then nail him for it, but as you recognize, there is no sense in constantly deriding Romney for his MA health care dealings. I’m sure we agree on more than that.

  • Osama Obama

    Rob,

    This was Mitt Romney’s baby. He created it. He pushed it through the legislature.

    We went rounds about this before, you and I. I citing facts, you repeating the same thing again and again regardless of the facts cited. So let’s try something new, eh?

    What about his NATIONAL health care proposal? Worthy of discussion or is it just more of your tired “Romneycare!” crap? The Democrats had enough votes to over ride Romney’s vetos in MA and did so on at least one occasion during the course of this legislation becoming law. If I recall correctly, one such veto dealt with increasing the burden on businesses supplying health care to their employees. Sounds like it might even be related to what you were posting about above. Maybe look into it? Or is it just “ROMNEYCARE”!!!!?

  • pparets

    Bat One: AMEN!! [I assume that its still legal to use that religious phrase, isn't it?]

  • 2Hotel9

    Romney proudly claimed it as his. Therefore it is his. Spin some more, it is funny to watch.

  • Osama Obama

    Google is your friend:

    Their biggest battle was over what role employers should play in the health-care plan. Dimasi wanted a payroll tax on employers that didn’t provide health insurance. Romney believed that was unnecessary.

    ……..

    The letter may not have been the breakthrough, but eventually the Massachusetts House and Senate agreed to a plan that generally followed Romney’s proposal. The payroll tax on employers that didn’t provide health insurance was whittled down to a token fee of $295 per worker.

    ……………….

    The bipartisan goodwill was only skin deep: Romney had quietly vetoed the $295 fee on Massachusetts employers.

    It was a purely symbolic gesture — his veto was easily overridden. But it was the beginning of Romney’s effort to distance himself from the very health-care plan he’d pioneered.

    I have a pretty decent memory, it seems. So what do you think of his National Health Care Proposal, Rob?

  • pparets

    HOSS: “You guys” Ouch! That stings! Look, you and I have no disagreement here. And yes, I think its better to get 30% of your policies in place then 0%.
    You said it best right at the end of your response. President Bush was able to get his tax-cut legislation passed, albeit not as much as he wanted, and he had to reluctantly agree to a sunset provision. Thats how compromise works. And that was with his party in control of congress! If the new Democratic majority in congress grows next year, the remaining republicans will not be able to stop the loss of the tax-break and the erosion of other conservative gains – especially if the Dems also capture the White House. Thats what conservatives live with24/7/365 in our state legislatures all along the east coast. We don’t have a collectivist-minset. You know that. We just have to play the hand we have been dealt.

  • Bat One

    A more reasoned and thorough discussion of Romney’s current healthcare proposals, the men advising him, and those portions of Massachusetts’ “Romney-care” that he has since jettisoned, can be found at this NRO Symposium. Pay particular attention to the bio-blurbs on each of the commenters.

  • Hoss

    In such situations, principles must compromise with pragmatism.

    So you feed the alligator your arm in the hopes he’ll leave the rest of you alone? Are they really “your views” if you’ve compromised to such a degree that they are unrecognizable. Don’t confuse political expediency with anything other than what it is. If the good folks on the east coast want to deepen their slide into full-blown socialism, why stop them. It’ll be a good model for the rest of the country as what NOT to do.

  • 2Hotel9

    This, not his religion, is why people will not vote for him.

  • Bat One

    Hoss,

    Great analogy! However, let me suggest that all politics involves compromise of one sort or another. The Bush tax rate cuts, for example, both rounds, were not nearly as steep as they should have been, nor as much so as Bush himself might have wanted (a 35% top rate is still too high) and all those cuts are going to expire in a few years, rather than being made permanent. Still, the compromises have brought about a strong recovery from the dot-com bust and recession and the economic shock of the events of 9-11-01.

    Similarly, I am not inclined to support either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination, but I would work for and vote for either man rather than see Hillary, Barack Obama, or John Edwards elected.

  • Osama Obama

    I realize you may see it as a sell-out.

    I don’t see it like that. We are on the exact same page. Just because I wish MA didn’t pass UHC doesn’t mean I think Romney’s influence on the process was the equivalent of selling out. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the response.

  • pparets

    Hoss: “Deepen their slide” Not a good idea, since 2/5th of our population, 1/3rd of our economic wealth and the national government are located along the eastern seaboard. Expediency is doing whatever it takes to get whatever you want. Pragmatism is doing what is necessary to accomplish some of your aims, rather than none of them. [Gov. Schwarzenegger's dilemma in the People's Republic of California comes to mind.] Remember, conservatism is alive and well on the east coast, but we are a minority.

  • NDMNTX

    This is the kind of basura that people in the socialist republic of Massachusetts demand…. stupidity upon stupidity. Let’s elect him president. He’s a liberal in conservative clothing.

    sc/

  • 2Hotel9

    Kevin, that is exactly what Romney has already done. And you are going to vote for him?

  • robert108

    In such situations, principles must compromise with pragmatism.

    In other words, winning the election is more important than anything else. Sounds like a Dem to me; certainly not a Conservative.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I hope all of the nations slackers move to Massachusetts and places like that.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    more like democracy. the guy was elected by mass. they are left. he did what his voters wanted. democracy, right?

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development