What One Massachusetts Tax Watchdog Says About 'RomneyCare'

Former Massachusetts state governor Mitt Romney is poised to win the GOP presidential nomination if he comes out on top in Florida. He has a 12 point lead over Newt Gingrich. The primary election is Tuesday.

"I believe the Republican Party will not nominate a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase moderate from Massachusetts," Gingrich said after attending a Baptist church in Lutz, Florida.

Oh, yes they will.

Romney may not have a very powerful wind at his back, but he has something bigger than a breeze and it is sending him all the way to the Republican National Convention as the party's "chosen one" -- if there is such a thing -- to take out incumbent Barack Obama in November.

Romney's biggest nemesis is himself; namely his signing of the Massachusetts Healthcare Reform Act in April 2006. The law is largely seen as the precursor to what will later be called ObamaCare by Republicans and Fox News pundits.

RomneyCare is a scaled down version of the Affordable Care Act.  Romney was as much an obstacle to Democrats in the bill's passing, as he was the poster child of it afterwards. Under the law, everyone in Massachusetts is now required to have health insurance.  Romney was against higher taxes or mandated coverage among employers, and he got his way in the end.

RomneyCare is also not breaking the bank in Massachusetts, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, an independent research group that many call the state's version of the Congressional Budget Office.

"There's a lot of wild accusations that the law is breaking the bank in Massachusetts, and that is simply not the case," said Michael Widmer, president of the Foundation.

State healthcare reform increased the number of low income with health coverage. Prior to the law in 2006, 24% of low income adults did not have health insurance. Today that number is around 8%, according to the Blue Cross Foundation, the non-profit arm of private insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield. Those who do not have health insurance are fined around $1,200 on their tax return. RomneyCare was more of an insurance bill than a means to cut healthcare costs, still high in Massachusetts.  Despite costs not coming down, Massachusetts residents can do what most Americans can not; they can afford health insurance, even when they are earning as much as $64,000 a year for a family of four.

To pay for extra coverage, however, the state had to find an additional $350 million from its own budget. On balance, RomneyCare costs Massachusetts an extra $100 million a year from its state budget. "Not bad for a state with a $30 billion budget," Widmer said. It costs state companies a combined total of around $30 million a year in what the government calls a fair share assessment. It's essentially a fee that companies with 10 employees or more agree to pay to the state if they do not provide health insurance benefits from their employees. It amounts to around $295 per employee. It was the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, and not Mitt Romney, who helped convince companies to pay a fair share assessment if they were not going to give their workers health insurance coverage.

"We came up with the fair share assessment plan instead of a tax, which is what House Democrats wanted in Massachusetts," said Widmer. "We told those guys 'look, your employees are showing up in the state's emergency rooms and the state is paying for their coverage, so why not chip in'. It's not punitive in any way shape or form and there is no evidence that it has impacted businesses," Widmer said.

"I think the state's healthcare reform has been a huge success and is probably the best policy achievement in the last 25 years," he said.

