Costs Soar for Massachusetts Health Care Law

You wanted, free, you got expensive ... And if that isn't good enough, the lament is it isn't single payer, the ultimate cost pit. Canada has single payer, and all the attendant disaster that brings with it.

But, but but -- I thought it was free health care for all. What happened? Simple really, try this experiment, offer free tickets to the next rock concert and see how many responders you get. When the stadium fills up, plan to build anew stadium, at taxpayer expense no doubt. When the new stadium fills up ... the end of the story?

It has no end. If you subsidize heath care, you will get all the health care you can support, and then some. It quickly becomes a bottomless pit of demand. Every hang-nail is now requiring a doctors visit and on it goes. The only answer will be rationing, as they found out in England, Canada and soon Taxachuesetts, The health care system breaks quickly as the endless demand builds. Since there are no longer incentives for doctors, i.e. profit, the lines just get longer as the doctors slow down as well -- Why work hard, you will have the same lines tomorrow. In France the health care system takes August off, it's too hot to work. Sick people ... ??

It's the major flaw in all 'free stuff' arguments, nothing moderates the demand.

So let's review what is happening in Taxachuesetts, other than for the moment, more taxes needed.

"It's the very first question I get when I'm with other governors," said Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. "I don't think anybody is prepared to say that what we have done here in Massachusetts is necessarily the formula for the rest of the country or for a national reform, but at least we are trying."

Classic liberalism, it's all going to hell in a tax storm, but at least we are trying. Who asked them to try?

One of the most radical fixtures of the law is the so-called "individual mandate" _ the requirement that virtually everyone have health insurance or face tax penalties.

Anyone deemed able to afford health insurance but who refused to buy it during 2007 already faces the loss of a $219 personal tax exemption. New monthly fines that kicked in this year could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by December.

Yes sire ree bob, mandates, otherwise known by free people as taxes. It's a tax, the ones that can are FORCED to pay the tax, the ones that can't are handed state money -- It's all a tax on working productive people, so liberals can feel good about themselves for trying. Note that they managed to scam a Republican Governor, Mitt Romney, into taking the credit, or blame as you will see.

It's not clear how many uninsured residents remain in Massachusetts. At the time the law was signed, estimates started at 500,000.

One of the first things every thinking person realizes about liberalism, the estimates are always low. Especially when it comes to costs for program or taxes needed for a program. Write that on your for head.

Businesses are also on the hook. Those with 11 or more full time employees who refuse to offer insurance face $295 annual penalties per employee. Already, 748 employers have failed to meet that threshold and have paid $6.6 million to the state.

Rick Lord, president of the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said the state must be "very mindful of placing burdens on businesses that don't exist in other states."

"It's a delicate balance," he said.

This is where the illegals show up, off the books payroll.

John McDonough, executive director of Health Care For All, a health care advocacy group that pushed for the law, concedes it's become a political punching bag.

Yep, if the US were to institute the Canadian single payer system, I wonder how many Canadians would die. The Canadians are so smart, aren't they? Their economy barely crawls along, and what crawling it does is likely just splash from America.

"They said it would get us universal coverage and reduce costs and it's done neither," Tanner said.

The biggest challenge is rising costs.

Ah yes, the discovery is made.

In 2006, a legislative committee estimated the law would cost about $725 million in the fiscal year starting in July. In his budget, Patrick set aside $869 million, but those overseeing the law have already acknowledged costs will rise even higher.

And now the money quote, everything liberal is solved with more taxes. Climate change, more taxes, health care disaster, more taxes, education system failing, more taxes ... This time it's back to the ever reliable smokers, for another dollar a pack tax. How long before ...

Lawmakers are hoping to close the gap in part with a new cigarette tax expected to generate about $154 million a year.

Laugh laugh laugh ... cue the endless laugh track.

Clean? Effecient? Safe?

Cheap, nope, not a chance. There is a reason things sell for what they sell for. Either the market demand is so high and the supply is low, that drives up selling prices. Or the cost of a good or service is so high, the price must be set high to compensate. When things cost a lot, look under the hood and see why. In the case of regulated electricity, it's controlled by the government and is cost based, not demand driven. So when the electricity, the product, costs $1 a kWH then the profit has been set by the government regulatory agencies and the cost of supplying those kWHs is amortized across the time of delivery and the amount used.

So electricity rates, theoretically at least because it has to be a monopoly for the utilities to function, are controlled. A company builds a generating unit, the costs are analyzed by government auditors to make sure the rate charged is fair -- ie covers costs and allows for a profit.

Now comes this Tom-Foolery ...

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said Tuesday he still wants to submerge giant turbines below the waters of the Golden Gate Bridge as a way to generate energy for the city, despite a study that recently concluded the idea would cost tens of millions of dollars and is not financially feasible.

A study paid for by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission found that the turbines would cost as much as $15 million each and $750,000 a year to maintain. Though the technology would make it possible create power by harnessing tides in the bay, the small amount of power the turbines would generate does not make paying the hefty price tag worthwhile, the report concluded.

Newsom, however, said the findings won't deter him from pushing ahead with the idea. On Tuesday, he said, "I am going to find a way to make it happen.

"I'm committed to it and am going to fight for it," Newsom said. "I don't care about the arguments against it. I care about the arguments for it."

The current rate comparison is the underwater winds mills could possibly generate a small amount of power for about $1 a kWH. Conventional high cost California power sells for $0.14-$0.17 a kWH. Yes, the liberal states of CA and NY top the high electricity cost list. Immediately the problem jumps right out at people with a brain, umm I think that is 5 times the already high cost. The costs for electricity across the US is from 0.08 kWH to as high as $0.20. Nuclear power generation yields a current cost in the US of under $0.03 a kWH.



Real windmills are almost as bad, but government subsidies takes care of the problem.

Liberals don't have brains, they run on 100% pure idiots emotion. It never occurs to people like this that the cost is in time, energy and materials to produce and maintain -- These costs are as much real as the costs associated with turning on a light bulb, someone pays.

What something costs, compared to like items doing the same functions can be boiled down to what the "energy costs" to make those products. This is a simple truth that the global warming nut-cases can't seem to figure out. For instance -- If Ethanol was such a low cost alternative to $100 a barrel oil, don't you think someone would have figured that out already, and we would be swimming in Ethanol? Or if tide powered generators could make power at a rate lower than conventional generation, don't you think someone would be doing that as well?

There is a power generation technology, it has been figured out, it is clean, generates no greenhouse gases, it is cheaper than conventional fossil fuel generation, and what might that be --- why it's nuclear power generation. Now why aren't we swimming in that? You need to ask the nut-cases, who currently are swimming out under the Golden Gate Bridge looking for what?

Seek help nutcases, your insanity is showing. We are not going back to the stone age to satisfy your yearning for the utopian socialist paradise of Gaia, get over it.

It's called SF-Freakshow for a reason.