romneycare = aetnacare

A good article by Michael S. Rozeff about so-called "Romneycare".

Romneycare is actually Aetnacare. According to Dinah Brin, "Aetna Inc. (AET) has supported the concept of mandated insurance for individuals on a national level." Why would they not, when it broadens their market and brings them relatively secure access to tax-based cash flows? A spokesman for Aetna said: "Aetna believes that Massachusetts is taking an important step by developing a comprehensive statewide plan to make affordable health coverage available to 500,000 uninsured residents." This does not read like a howl of protest. The spokesman adds: "The company aims to work with Massachusetts officials in developing products focused on the large percentage of adults ages [sic] 19 to 26 who are currently uninsured."

From investment bankers and security analysts we confirm that insurance companies are beneficiaries of mandated insurance. JP Morgan in subdued terms sees it as a positive for enrollment in health care plans and something that "could meaningfully change the health insurance landscape," meaning that if other states go the route of "universal care legislation," then business for health-care insurers will be noticeably affected. A CIBC analyst says: "The measure appears to allow insurers flexibility in pricing, allows insurers to earn a profit margin and increases the pool of potential purchasers, although publicly traded companies won't see much effect."

I've long questioned the whole nature of medical insurance. Why should every little trip to the doctor need to be covered by insurance? In every other industry, insurance is designed to cover catastrophic circumstances. You don't use automobile insurace to pay for an oil change, but you use medical insurance to cover an office visit. The government and its willing accomplices have screwed the medical system up royally, causing prices for routine medical care to spiral out of control.