Learning From Massachusetts

Massachusetts has a government health "reform" system very similar to the Baucus bill.  How's that working out for them?


  1. Colin:

    Don't stop at Massachusetts. Why should we think that any effort involving increased government intervention should work when such approaches have failed in Tennessee:




    and Maine:


    The expansion of government power in health care fails every single time.

  2. morganovich:

    i fear the federal government has already learned from Massachusetts.

    promise future savings in exchange for additional expense and compulsion now.

    by the time the electorate cottons on to the fact that the savings are a sham, it's too late as you already have the system of compulsion in place.

    now swap more compulsion in the form of rationing and benefit limitation in for the promised savings and voila, the government owns the system.

  3. Flyfish:

    Maine's Dirigo health is probably closer and is based on the same fallacies that the Dems are pushing. ie: It'll save money. It has been a fiscal disaster.

  4. John Moore:

    Most who use the Mass. system to attack the mandatory insurance approach fail to mention that a huge failure in the program is that their fines are too low to have a significant effect on adverse selection.

    The feds are trying to duplicate that failure by likewise setting their fines *way* too low.

    That's why the insurance companies are crying foul - they had a deal (hah, as if you can expect an honest deal from Washington) that they would give up medical underwriting if the government would reduce the adverse selection problem. Now they are looking at losing the medical underwriting (which, btw, is a necessary practice that leads to truly evil results) in return for... nothing.