The National Journal reports on a study of the impact of the Massachusetts state precursor to the "ObamaCare" law, noting, "Massachusetts residents who were once neutral about the law now say they oppose it, the study found."
It seems that no matter what people think they want prior to the passage of new laws, once they have the opportunity to actuallyexperience both possibilities, they inevitably prefer the way things were prior to socialization. This study confirms this.
The study also shows that 22.8% of people in Massachusetts did not get the care they needed. I checked the 1999 US population figures and a report from the New York Times circa-1999. There were 44.8 million uninsured in the USA in 1999, and a population of 276 million, working out to about 16.2% uninsured.
So there is a greater number of unserved Massachusetts residents under the health care law than there were across the country in 1999 (in percentage terms).
Once again, hard empirical evidence demonstrates that these laws do more harm than good. The "status quo" is better than the Massachusetts state law, and better than "ObamaCare."
I hate having to beat a dead horse to a bloody pulp, but those of us who have experienced a wider variety of health care systems inevitably prefer more market-based solutions and fewer government-based solutions. Faithful Stationary Waves readers should not be surprised by the superiority of the market.
To improve the US health care system over and above the pre-ObamaCare environment, the US should seek out more market-based solutions and fewer government subsidies and mandates.