MA already has Romneycare, so do they think the HCR is shaping up to look worse?

than what they already have? Is that why they are against it? They already have mandates which is what most people against HCR cite first - mandates but no public option to lower costs. Does Mass have a public option?

From what I have read on the polling about their own healthcare in Mass - they don't like it but they want to keep it. Do they want to keep it because they think it is superior to what looks like the Senate Bill? Would their plan alter under the Fed plan - for better or worse?

Give us some insight Massachusettans, please.

It was praised only because it was "first step that could be revisited and made better".




Where have I heard that before ........ ?

health insurance does to increase access to affordable access to medical treatment.

I read earlier that mandating coverage hasn't brought down costs. The public option is the one thing they are missing. Joe the ass really screwed us. He is going to bring down the democratic party. That was probably the goal all along.

... so it's not so bad for them.

If you're too poor to pay for insurance, and have too much money to qualify for free or subsidized insurance, it's usually cheaper to game the system.

They refuse to comply with the mandate unless (and until) they get sick. Then they pay a fine, which then retroactively gives them coverage for treatment, which costs them less than paying for care out of pocket, and usually less than having paid for insurance in the first place.

There was a thing on NPR about that a few weeks ago.

When I first read about Romney Care, I thought there was a typo-- I thought they'd reversed the fines for the Employer and Individual Mandates.

If they REVERSED those numbers, Romney Care would work.

-the RW message.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4226403