Posted on 05/06/2014 7:30:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Romneycare, that awkward reminder that Republicans tried to expand health care first, continues to haunt the party. On the same day that Massachusetts announced it was scrapping their busted Romneycare exchange, a new Harvard study shows that the mortality rate dropped in Massachusetts after Romney's version of Obamacare took effect in 2006.
The Annals of Internal Medicine study tracked deaths in the state from 2001 to 2010 and compared the rate to counties in New England with similar demographics. It found that the mortality rate dropped by 3 percent in the four years after the health care expansion, according to The New York Times. Nationwide, if the mortality rate dropped 3 percent, that would amount to 17,000 lives. Areas with poor and previously uninsured individuals benefited the most from health insurance and saw the sharpest decline in deaths.
In other words, Romneycare has made a very strong case that Obamacare will save lives. While this study doesn't definitively prove that access to health insurance improves health — it's possible there was some factor the study didn't account for — it's the most compelling argument yet. "It seems pretty clear that expanding insurance coverage will lead to gains in saving lives," Benjamin Sommers, the Harvard University School of Public Health assistant professor who led the study told Vox's Sarah Kliff. "What I don't think you can argue anymore is that health insurance doesn't matter."
(Excerpt) Read more at thewire.com ...
It’s only haunting the moderates and their preferred candidates. It’s not haunting us.
Wishful thinking on the part of the author.
Romneycare is so not an issue. Not at all.
I'm pretty sure the mortality rate was 100% both before and after Romneycare.
its a far, far, far thing from the feds mandating the whole country....
ObaMaoCare needs to be fixed only in the same sense of the word as "fixing" a tom cat-- total castration and neutering.
I totally trust our politically independent friends at Harvard not to cook the books.
.... Doesn't the 10th Amendment clearly state that anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution is supposed to be automatically deferred to the states? So doesn't healthcare therefore become a state issue and not a Federal issue?
RomneyCare, ObamaCare, the VA, Oregon,... how’s that “free healthcare” thing working out for you?
its a far, far, far thing from the feds mandating the whole country….
Shhh….you can't say that on Free Republic. I mean, it's true, but you can't say that without being called a RINO, secret pro abort, Karl Rove conspirator.
“I’m pretty sure the mortality rate was 100% both before and after Romneycare.”
That just made me laugh this morning (in a good way).
Oh, so they have proven causality statistically? I just can’t find that in the article. Must have run out of space.
It is for the democRats against the republiCrats, not Conservatives. Rats and Crats, what`s the difference?
A liberal at the state level, or the city level, or the county or federal level, is still a liberal, and conservatives oppose liberals.
Romney was liberal, he supported liberalism at whatever level he could get to, just like all liberals and libertarians do.
I agree Romney was a liberal. And I agree that he deserves opposition. But, a conservative premise is the Tenth Amendment, and a state program is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a Federal program….and the FOUNDERS…those CONSERVATIVE WHITE GUYS were in favor of states trying things to see if they work. They referred to the states as “laboratories” in fact.
So Romney Care is bad. Romney is way too liberal, but there are some distinctions…..
A conservative principle is to oppose liberalism, at whatever level of government the liberal or libertarian is pushing it.
Romney was not for states rights, and he was for Romney/Obamacare, at the state when he had the power to impose it, and at the federal if he got the power to impose it there.
As voters and campaign workers and activists, we are not here to play games with liberal/libertarian scum.
You might notice how they talk about gay marriage as a state issue, even as they run for president, knowing full well about the federal involvement in gay marriage and that they are running for federal office, not state office, they just hope the public will fall for their game.
You keep trying to score points by making statements that we all agree on, and then strutting around like you said something significant. You have not.
And I am not going to join your little mental m-st-rbat-ion exercise to prove that I hate Romney more than you do. That’s such an infantile game played often here, still, on FR.
But we should, as conservatives, understand a few things. First, a state program by definition is NOT AS BAD as a Federal program. They can both be liberal, and they can both be bad, but one is consistent with the very important Tenth Amendment, and the other is not. And THATS a fact Jack.
Score points? I’m not playing a game.
When this was posted about romneycare, “”is a state wants to try such things, let them.””
You jumped in support for Romney and romneycare with both feet and went after freerepublic and conservatives, you didn’t post about the 10th amendment, instead you slapped at freerepublic and the conservatives, for being anti-abortion, anti-rino, and anti-Rove, in defense of Romney (the thread topic).
“”Shhh….you can’t say that on Free Republic. I mean, it’s true, but you can’t say that without being called a RINO, secret pro abort, Karl Rove conspirator.””
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.