We've maintained all along that health insurance "solutions" do nothing to resolve the underlying problem of constantly increasing health care costs. And we've spent the past several years chronicling Massachusetts' (failing) efforts at forcing a government-backed plan on an unsuspecting populace.
But what do we know?
A good bit, as it turns out:
"Massachusetts took a stab at universal care by requiring every resident to buy health insurance, with the state subsidizing the premiums. The annual cost of Commonwealth Care, originally pegged at $245 million, will be $1.3 billion this year. Consequently, the state's health-care costs have spiked 42 percent in three years, and today, health- care spending is 33 percent above the national average." [ed: emphasis added]
And that's just the intro.
It's not just about increasing costs, either: even though The Bay State has more docs (per capita) than any of the other 56, average wait times have burgeoned, and it's become more and more difficult to even see certain specialists (like OB-GYN's, for example). This is apparently due in large part to so many "newly insured" (on the public's dime, of course) suddenly seeking health care. It's a major "be careful what you wish for" moment, of course: when something's free (or nearly so), demand skyrockets (cf: breakfast at Denny's).
And that's the dilemna, really: when the "solution" merely addresses the symptom (cost and availability of health insurance) without regard for the underlying problem (cost and availability of health care), then there is no real solution at all.
UPDATE: On the other hand, perhaps this idea has merit.