[...] Both health care plans rely on the individual mandate, subsidies, and exchanges intended to match buyers with health insurance plans. "If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform adopted here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years," Cahill said, launching an all-out offensive against Romneycare in Massachusetts and its cousin Obamacare nationwide.

Medicaid costs have continued to explode, rising from $7.5 billion to an estimated $9.2 billion since the Massachusetts health care law has taken effect. More people now have coverage, but of the 407,000 newly insured only 32 percent paid for their insurance entirely on their own. The remaining 68 percent were either partially or wholly subsidized by the taxpayers. Only 5 percent of newly insured Massachusetts residents who are not receiving any taxpayer benefits obtained their coverage through the state's "Connector" health care exchange.

What's more, according to figures obtained from Cahill's office, only 23 percent of those enrolled in the state-managed health insurance programs pay anything toward their coverage. About 99,000 newly insured Massachusetts residents now receive free coverage through Medicaid. Another 87,000 receive 100 percent taxpayer subsidies through the Connector's "Commonwealth Care" program. And another 26,000 are legal immigrants ineligible for federal subsidies who benefit under the Commonwealth Care Bridge program.

Not only has health care reform cost the state an additional $4.2 billion, but small businesses and consumers are getting walloped. Health care costs continue to skyrocket. Insurance premiums have jumped 12 percent over a two-year period. So much for bending the cost curve.

[...] The treasurer noted that the theory was by increasing access, it would bring down health care costs. Instead Massachusetts has seen costs increase almost across the board. Those costs, he said, "are being passed on to businesses and consumers in the form of premium increases."

[...] Medicaid costs have continued to explode, rising from $7.5 billion to an estimated $9.2 billion since the Massachusetts health care law has taken effect.

[...] Not only has health care reform cost the state an additional $4.2 billion, but small businesses and consumers are getting walloped. Health care costs continue to skyrocket. Insurance premiums have jumped 12 percent over a two-year period. So much for bending the cost curve.

Given that Massachusetts businesses and workers pay the highest premiums in the country and that Cahill's comments serve to back-up the detailed common sense analysis of Rep. Paul Ryan, one can only wonder just why the Democrats are so stuck on repeating the same mistake as Massachusetts. Could they possibly be so bold as to purposefully put ideology over the interests of our national economy and our individual health? In the case of Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership, we all know the answer to this question; but what about the rest of the Democrats in Congress, especially the Blue Dogs and the pro-life Democrats?

Update: Cesar Conda points out that there are significant differences between the Mass. plan and Obamacare, yet a quick look exposes the fact that almost all of the things that are different make Obamacare all the more worse:

The difference is that Romney's plan did not raise taxes on individuals or businesses, didn't cut Medicare, didn't include "public options" or raise spending by a trillion dollars, and it didn't impose insurance price controls. Romney's plan made no attempt to take over health care. The Massachusetts legislation was a scant 70 pages long, compared to Obamacare's gargantuan 2,000-page maze of regulation.

Perhaps most importantly, Romney's plan is a state plan, not a one-size-fits-all federal usurpation of a power constitutionally reserved to the states. States should be free to adopt reforms that work for them. They can borrow the best ideas from one another. The federal government's role is to be flexible about how their share of health-care dollars may be spent.

Some of the elements Obama copied from the Massachusetts health- care plan make sense, such as the creation of a market exchange for health insurance where consumers can shop among private plans for the lowest price. That is consumer empowerment at its best. Romney's plan also permitted individuals purchasing insurance on their own to receive the same tax advantages as those who are covered by their employers. Expanding tax deductibility for health-insurance purchases is, of course, a key free-market conservative reform.

The Massachusetts health plan partially subsidizes the purchase of private health insurance by lower-income people using money that the state was already paying for free care at hospitals. Romney simply shifted funds that were going to hospitals as reimbursement for free care and instead gave it to individuals so they could purchase insurance on their own. Obama's plan finances its subsidy with higher taxes and cuts in Medicare.