I recently asked Mike Sage of MittWiki page that Mitt said there were good things and bad in the Massachusetts heath care...what were they. This is what he said:
Drastic measures had to be taken, compromises had to be made on both sides of the political spectrum, and it was a matter of making the best of a bad situation. That being said, here are the pros and cons of the MA plan, as I see them:
* It did address the $384 million health care funding shortfall in 2005.
* It did make MA the top state in the nation for percentage of insured citizens.
* It did promote private health insurance solutions, a private sector intiative.
* It did encourage the ability to shop between insurance providers for the best deals.
* Whatever penalties and fees were attached were relatively low.
* A 2010 poll showed that 67% of MA residents were satisfied with it.
* It's never been ruled unconstitutional (versus Obamacare, which has been ruled unconstitutional by two federal appeals judges.)
* It did not involve any sort of a government "takeover" of any part of the healthcare or insurance industries.
* It was designed to be revenue neutral, requiring no taxes be raised.
* It included tax penalties for failing to obtain an insurance plan. Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan which was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax, a provision that Romney vetoed, but was overridden on.
* It gave too much authority to the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, also known as the Health Connector.
* It provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level
* The law also partially-subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the federal poverty level.
Many changes were made to the MA health care reform act after Mitt Romney left office. In October 2006, January 2007, and November 2007, bills were enacted that amended and made technical corrections to the statute (Chapters 324 and 450 of the Acts of 2006, and chapter 205 of the Acts of 2007).
Thanks Mike! I get it! Isn't it amazing how much sense the truth makes? Its too bad people just want to point and accuse instead of looking into what happened, what were the circumstances.