"A recent study analyzing the effects of the 2006 Mass. health care insurance reform law revealed that while insurance coverage has increased overall and cost has become less of a barrier for obtaining coverage, the reform’s effects have not been felt equally among certain groups of people.http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/9/24/health-coverage-haas-insurance/
"Romneycare" and "Obamacare" have quite a few similarities.
" Both Obamacare and Romneycare involve the private health insurance industry. Neither creates a single-payer system or a government-run public option.
Increased regulation of insurance rates is used in an attempt to decrease the number of uninsured.
Subsidies and tax credits are provided to low- and middle-income individuals, as well as small businesses, to help cover the cost of insurance.
Both strategies rest on an individual mandate that requires people to either buy health coverage or pay a fine.
Each has been criticized for doing too little to control costs.
Residents can purchase a health insurance plan through an exchange, which allows them to band together for lower rates.
On the other hand, there are several differences between the two versions of affordable health insurance legislation, which Romney has recently pointed out:
Unlike Obamacare, Romneycare only applies to a single state. That gives it slightly more appeal for conservatives worried about states' rights and the federal government overreaching with its power. Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown has reconciled his previous support for his state's reforms with his opposition to the national law on similar grounds.
Romney initially supported a provision, later deleted by the Massachusetts legislature, that would have allowed people to opt out of the health insurance mandate if they signed a bond that demonstrated their ability to cover their health care expenses. The federal legislation includes no such exit valve.
Massachusetts did not partially fund their plan with a tax increase, as the federal legislation does. However, they did redirect some Medicaid dollars to the program.
National health insurance reform incorporates some cuts to private Medicare Advantage programs, although individual states have no opportunity to do so to begin with.
The federal government is given the power to review rate increases, which Romney considers as a step towards price controls.
Romney intended healthcare reform to expand access to catastrophic coverage for major conditions, as opposed to more generous coverage. The federal plan sets minimum standards for what must be covered." http://allinsuranceinfo.org/find16?aid=12817
I now pay, the following insurance premiums monthly:
Health Insurance $1,500.00
Disability Insurance $ 200.00
Malpractice Insurance $ 300.00
Auto Insurance $ 200.00
That's $26,000.00 per year. This doesn't include unemployment insurance, office insurance, homeowners insurance. That's a lot of money for something that ideally, one hopes not to use.
I'm working for the insurance companies!
Except for the fact that if I'm not working, I lose my health insurance, and I don't know enough about "Obamacare" to know how I'd be covered under that, it would be cost effective for me to go on disability.
Now how is that right? We live in a society where there is a greater incentive not to work.
The General Accounting Office says that national health care will reduce the deficit. It has in Massachusetts.
Without supplying any evidence the opposition denies this bipartisan organizations findings. Pharmacologicals is the number one lobbying industry. Insurance is the number two lobbying industry.
It doesn't take too much to tell whose interests are being served by those who oppose National Health Care.