Subsidized care plan's cost to double
The Boston Globe
February 3, 2008

Enrollment is outstripping state's estimate

The subsidized insurance program at the heart of the state's healthcare initiative is expected to roughly double in size and expense over the next three years - an unexpected level of growth that could cost state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars or force the state to scale back its ambitions.

The state has asked the federal government to shoulder roughly half of the program's cost from 2009 through 2011, but there is no guarantee of that funding.

Full Story

Subsidized care plan's cost to double
The Boston Globe
February 3, 2008

Enrollment is outstripping state's estimate

The subsidized insurance program at the heart of the state's healthcare initiative is expected to roughly double in size and expense over the next three years - an unexpected level of growth that could cost state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars or force the state to scale back its ambitions.

The state has asked the federal government to shoulder roughly half of the program's cost from 2009 through 2011, but there is no guarantee of that funding.

Full Story


Most states that are thinking about a Universal Health Care system are using Romney's plan as what not to do.  The problem is sustaining a system that makes sense without raising personal tax.  It's a nice ideal but very hard to achieve.  States go broke if not done correctly.

Healthcare: If you can't pay for it, you don't deserve it.
This is a fine mentality if you don't want our workforce to be competitive in the world, which the GOP doesn't. 

Romney should have stayed in the private sector where things are less complicated.
::)

Healthcare: If you can't pay for it, you don't deserve it.
This is a fine mentality if you don't want our workforce to be competitive in the world, which the GOP doesn't. 

Romney should have stayed in the private sector where things are less complicated.
::)


Far be it from me to defend the previous poster -- but you may have just fallen into a rhetorical trap.  On GOP sites, this morning's talking point was (and it was more or less accurate) the fact that one of the two Democratic candidates is espousing precisely the same sort of plan as Romney did.  If you have a job but decide not to sign up for the plan, your paycheck is garnished. 

Seems to play fairly well to McCain's strong points.  On the other hand, most of the Republican base hates McCain more than they hate Hillary.  Confusing campaign on all sides.

Healthcare: If you can't pay for it, you don't deserve it.
This is a fine mentality if you don't want our workforce to be competitive in the world, which the GOP doesn't. 

Romney should have stayed in the private sector where things are less complicated.
::)


Healthy workers, healthy economy.  Most people who are on Medicare or Medicaid are afraid to find a job because they will lose great health insurance coverage for a measly job at McDonald's, where there is no health insurance till you hit a management position.  There really is no safety net for these people if they do find a job.  The worst thing Clinton ever did was the Welfare Reform package.  It made it 10 times worse.  >:(

Far be it from me to defend the previous poster -- but you may have just fallen into a rhetorical trap.  On GOP sites, this morning's talking point was (and it was more or less accurate) the fact that one of the two Democratic candidates is espousing precisely the same sort of plan as Romney did.  If you have a job but decide not to sign up for the plan, your paycheck is garnished. 
I know, I know, it's a dumb idea and it won't pass.  Here's your choice: Give me five dollars or I'll make you give me five dollars.  That's lame.  I suppose you could opt out, then when you call the ambulance, they'll ask: "You got $4000 in cash, bub?" If you don't, you get to bleed to death on the sidewalk!
:o

I prefer to change our consciousness about healthcare from private commodity to public good.  Sort of like the fire department.  In the old days, they had private fire companies.  You paid to belong to the fire company.  If you didn't belong, you could send for help if your place was on fire, but the fire company didn't have to help you because you weren't a member.  Isn't it better the way it is now?  You don't have to worry about having enough money to join or what happens if you can't pay your premium for the fire company.  It's all around better for public safety and property values if we don't just let people's homes and businesses burn down.

Seems to play fairly well to McCain's strong points.  On the other hand, most of the Republican base hates McCain more than they hate Hillary.  Confusing campaign on all sides.

I'm just not hearing a substantial reason for this animosity against McCain.  What's the problem?  He once met a tax cut he didn't like?  He doesn't have a personal relationship with Jesus?
???

The only way a state-based socialized system would work is if it was a full-fledged system similar to that of the U.K.

Of course, the taxation such a system would require would be so high that no one would vote in support of it.

I'm just not hearing a substantial reason for this animosity against McCain.  What's the problem?  He once met a tax cut he didn't like?  He doesn't have a personal relationship with Jesus? ???


McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" bill - the anger is inexplicable to me, but there are a few policy wonks who are still bitter.  Sure, it's an attack on the First Amendment, but the 527 loophole more than makes up for it.  You can still buy all the politicians you want, you just have to launder the money through a 527 first.  At the time, the Democrats were in power, and maybe some of the bitterness stems from the probability that Democratic lobbyists were better-connected and (at the time) stood to benefit more from this than Republican lobbyists.

McCain, having himself been tortured as a Vietnam POW, is "soft on torture".  Now, once upon a time, "soft on torture" was a good thing, but that's pre-9/11 thinking.  Post-9/11 doublethink dictates that it's not torture when we do it, but on the off chance that it is torture, you can't have your candidate going around and opposing it!  That'd make your party's incumbents look bad!

Finally, and this is a biggie -- the McCain-sponsored bipartisan amnesty campaign from last year. The Republican rank and file is livid about this one.  The guy just doesn't hate Mexicans enough.  There are a lot of border towns in the Southwest, and they took it personally; them guys up in Warshintun not knowin' whut-all wuz goin' on down by th'border, y'all.  He ain't no Gawd-fearin', English-speakin' Amurrican, he's one o' them pansy-waisted country-club types who hires Messicuns AN' DEY TUK AR JOBZ!  Add to this volatile mix, the series of large Latino demonstrations in support of the bill (and where in opposition to the bill, oppositing it because it didn't go far enough towards amnesty), and the hardcore nativist faction of the Party went absolutely berserk.

Personally, I've got no beef with McCain.  It'd be a nice do-over for the Elephant wing of the Party; he's the candidate that even his biggest enemies still, deep down, probably wish they'd nominated in 2000.  But the deeper down that regret goes, the more vociferous their opposition.  He's a moderate candidate who'd be electable in the general election, but he's gotta win the nomination first. 

Got no real beef with Romney either.  He's a good clone of Giuliani, but without the (base-alienating) factors of having had a few affairs and taking part in a chorus line with the Rockettes.  In NYC, that's simply your mayor having some fun on Hallowe'en night, but in South Jesustate, it plays like "OMG, not only does Rudy not love Jesus and fetuses, and not only does he not like guns enough, and not only does he have affairs, but he's also a cross-dresser!"

The fundamental problem with the Republican Party is that the sort of candidates the party faithful want aren't electable in the general, and conversely, the sort of candidate who's electable in the general, if he gets the nomination, isn't going to have the grassroots support of his party's base. 

If Romney was our President (And thank God he won't be), expect the deficit to be -$500 Billion.