Another look at government healthcare.

[CCTAU 3,336]

Then again, they are all affordable in the beginning.

NYTIMES ON GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE

The New York Times ran an editorial yesterday (LINK) praising Massachusetts for its government mandated healthcare program ... this is the program implemented by Mitt Romney and will cost the tax payers 85% more than originally intended by 2009. Remember that figure ... 85% more in 2009 than they told you it would cost when the program was implemented. And so it is with virtually every government health care program ever devised.

The New York Times says, "Massachusetts's pioneering plan to provide universal health coverage is off to a good start and is heartening evidence that national health care reform may be possible if sufficient skill and determination are applied to forge a political consensus."

The sad part is ... the program is nothing but an excuse for bigger government. And, of course, it comes with a huge price tag for tax payers. Do you know that you have to pay a penalty in Massachusetts if you do not sign up for healthcare coverage? The government will penalize you for not making a decision that should be yours to make. Just why is it the government's job to ensure that you don't do stupid things? And why is it the government's responsibility to seize money from someone else and spend it on you when you do?

Costs for this entitlement program have risen faster than original prediction ... gee, no kidding. The state has had to raise its spending estimates on the healthcare program from $472 million to $625 million and from $725 million to $869 million for next year. That is almost double, folks! Not to mention the fact that newly government-insured people are having a hard time finding a primary care physician. And the number of low-income residents using the emergency room for non-emergency care has actually risen since this program went into place. That should be no surprise to most of you.

The New York Times, though, thinks it's great ... this failing newspaper thinks that this is a model for a national healthcare policy. Oh, they do admit that the challenge would be to "keep costs under control and find new sources of revenue." Well first of all, we are talking about government so the prices will never be under control. And "finding a new source of revenue" is just a fancy way of saying that we will have the evil rich people pay for it. Another government redistribution scheme. I shouldn't expect anything less from the New York Times.

Commentary