A reader writes:
As a Massachusetts resident, let me respond to the report and the WSJ editorial. Romneycare was, first and foremost, an attempt to include people in the normal healthcare system who were excluded from it. It had no provision to increase the number of doctors. The number of potential patients rose considerably. The number of doctors did not. Simple arithmetic suggests that there will be more competition for doctors' services and hence more waiting time. The increased waiting time is thus an indicator of success, not failure.
(Note, by the way, that a previous poll published [pdf] in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 60 percent of physicians said the law had little impact on how long patients wait to get an appointment. ) Despite this putative drawback, it's important to note that most Massachusetts residents wouldn't want to go back. A summary from Factcheck.org in March of this year:
For now, public support and physician support [for Romneycare] are both high in the state. Surveys by the Urban Institute and the BCBS of Massachusetts Foundation found [pdf] that 67 percent of nonelderly adults in the state supported the health care law in the fall of 2009; in the fall of 2006, a few months after it was passed, 68.5 percent supported it. Another 2009 survey by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Boston Globe found 59 percent of state residents supported it, which was also similar to the poll’s 2006 number, 61 percent. In 2009, 28 percent opposed it and 13 percent weren’t sure. Support was much higher among Democrats and Independents than Republicans. Those are the most recent surveys we found. Among practicing physicians, 70 percent supported the law in a fall 2009 survey, also from Harvard.
Why the lack of complaint? Let me give you one reason. In October 2008 my daughter, then 10, was hit by a bone infection in her hip. Despite surgery and a lengthy round of antibiotics her hip was damaged to the point where a total hip replacement became necessary. Her hip replacement will wear out in 25-30 years even if nothing goes wrong. If she lives a normal lifespan, that is, she will have to replace it twice – two very expensive operations. Under the status quo, she would not be able to get insurance for these procedures – she has a huge preexisting condition, right?
But we live in Massachusetts. Indeed, throughout my daughter's ordeal we were repeatedly told by physicians, nurses and friends that our daughter would, as a practical matter, have to live in Massachusetts for the rest of her life, because if she moved elsewhere in the country as an adult and her hip went out she would face potentially crippling costs. "But at least she can live here," they said. "It's not like the rest of the country, where you're simply fucked."
Stories like this are why people like Romneycare, even if they complain about it. As Obamacare becomes law and situations like this become known, it is difficult for me to imagine a groundswell for throwing children like my daughter into the fire.
The Dish 