It’s sad that Massachusetts is in deep financial trouble, in large part because of its government-run health care system. We don’t wish difficulties on the people of that or any state.
But we might want to save a bit of sympathy for the rest of the country as well. That’s because ObamaCare, the federal health “reform” law, was based heavily on the Massachusetts law – which predated ObamaCare by about four years. That gives us a four-year window to see what we can expect nationwide from ObamaCare. It’s not pretty.
Massachusetts’ reforms were supposed to provide nearly universal coverage for the state’s residents. And to be sure, the percentage of residents who are now officially covered has grown. But at a high price!
“[I]f you think [medical] access was hard, wait until you take on cost control,” Gov. Deval Patrick said in proposing measures to cut spending.
Here are a couple of unpleasant facts, courtesy of the news organization Stateline.org:
n Forty percent of Massachusetts’ budget is now devoted to health care.
n Within five years, a family earning the median household income in Massachusetts will spend about a third of its earnings on health care.
Additionally, Massachusetts has had to raise taxes, impose assessments on insurers and hospitals and boost premiums and copayments.
And so, as the Stateline.org article noted, “Now, after five years, Massachusetts is getting very serious about the cost problem.”
Isn’t it wiser to “get serious” about costs before imposing a big new program – whether in Massachusetts or in Washington?