Massachusetts Healthcare Update: Model for Obamacare

thats why a bill without a public option is bs

And Mitt Romney is a financial genius?

What did some of these statistics look like before 7/1/07? How much has much higher than projected unemployment impacted these statistics?

Wouldn't you want all income levels to at least pay some co-pay? (even a nominal amount of $5)? Otherwise there's no consequence for the frequent use of service.

No one is discussing the use of service, only the cost of service.

letsgirlygirl wrote:

thats why a bill without a public option is bs

Commonwealth Care is public option insurance.

900 bucks for insurance, sign me up!

Not sure what you're getting at with the Romney comment.

There are some 2004 stats in the Cato article.

I have no problem with everyone paying copays, though there is anecdotal evidence that poor people have sought less care since the copays were imposed. It is possible that this is injurious to their health.

I didn't see any stats on usage, though the increase in most wait times might indicate greater use.

The $912 is fine. You don't get any insurance for that.

no hussein black people wrote:

900 bucks for insurance, sign me up!

that's the fine for the first time offender.

second offense = 912 fine + 30 days in the Health are re-education camp.

As it stands now, the public option is NOT taxpayer subsidized. It's paid for by end Medicare payments to private insurers. Previously, the law required Medicare to pay massive (hundreds of billions of dollars) to private companies, as sort of reparations for taking away customers.

Also, the increase in wait times for specialties is NOT related to government intervention. This statistic does not reflect government rationing whatsoever. Rather, the additional load of insured patients seeking care has simply increased demand.

Normally, uninsured patients will NOT seek any specialty care, since their care is only provided in ERs. Thus, decreasing wait times for insured patients.

Obviously, if you're already insured, you might be a bit perturbed by this information. But remember two important points:

1) Specialists still will make appointments based on emergency need. If someone needs a coronary bypass, they won't have to wait 3 weeks...this is already how the system works. When I call into the doctor for a routine physical, I have to wait more than a month usually...but if I call in with chest pain, they'll see me that day.

2) Even if the wait times are an inconvenience, remember: universal health care is essentially also a MORAL issue. No one claims that insuring everyone won't have its costs, but the question is:

Are you more troubled by getting a liposuction consultation within 2 weeks or 46 million Americans remaining uninsured?

Think about it.

The MA bill was incredibly poorly conceived from day one (esp their pseudo public option). This was Romneys pet project and the MA dems fell for it hook line and sinker

The long term best option for us as a country is single payer yet the political will and education required for it to pass is decades away

most likely a state (CA?) will go with single payer and provide a strong example for the rest of the country

Seriously? wrote:

As it stands now, the public option is NOT taxpayer subsidized. It's paid for by end Medicare payments to private insurers. Previously, the law required Medicare to pay massive (hundreds of billions of dollars) to private companies, as sort of reparations for taking away customers.

Think about it.

total BS.

the Kaiser Family Foundation has a great pdf on the MA plan and it's effects (both good and bad)

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7976.pdf

The consumer surveys show that since the implementation of health system reform, Massachusetts adults experienced great improvements in health insurance coverage. Rates of uninsurance fell from 7 to 8 percent of non-elderly adults in 2007 to 3.7 percent of non-elderly adults in 2008. In 2008, among non-elderly adults, 8 percent of those with incomes under 150 percent of FPL were uninsured, as were 7.8 percent of those with incomes between 150 and 299 percent of FPL. Rates of underinsurance also fell in Massachusetts between 2006 and 2007.

According to the Connector, the cost of non-group insurance for a 37 year old prior to health system reform was approximately $335 for a plan with a $5,000 deductible and no prescription drug coverage. After reform, the cost for the same individual was reduced to $184 for a plan with a $2,000 deductible and prescription drug coverage.

One of the major pitfalls in insurance affordability in Massachusetts is that:

...people with access to employer-sponsored coverage are ineligible for Commonwealth Care, regardless of whether the premiums are affordable according to the state’s affordability standards. While workers with unaffordable employer-sponsored insurance are exempt from the tax penalties imposed on state residents who do not have health insurance, they face a difficult choice – enroll in a health plan that is unaffordable or go without insurance coverage.

Rather than quoting your post, I'll just address the issues you raised.

1. If Medicare money is shifted from Medicare (for whatever reason) to paying for the public option, it's still a taxpayer subsidy. The government has no money of its own, it only has what it takes from current and future taxpayers. Just because it decides to shift how that money is spent, doesn't mean the taxpayers aren't footing the bill.

2. I'm sure you reason for longer wait times is at least partially correct, but I never said this was because of rationing. I think there are probably other factors at work here too. Regardless, wait times have increased, that can't be denied.

3. Massachusett's system (and the proposed system in Congress) is NOT universal care, it's compulsary insurance. The US already has universal care. Public hospitals cannot deny you life and death treatment regardless of your insurance status.

4. There aren't 46 million uninsured Americans, even the Obama administration has admitted this. Of that 46 million number 10-12 million are illegal immigrants, 8-10 million qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but haven't applied, another 10 million make over $75,000 but have elected not to buy insurance. That leaves 15-20 million people who would like insurance but can't afford it. It would be cheaper if the government just paid for 100% of their medical care, than do what they've proposed. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Massachusetts system has not provided universal insurance, especially to the low income residents. But it has proven to be unsustainably expensive.

B L Z. wrote:

According to the Connector, the cost of non-group insurance for a 37 year old prior to health system reform was approximately $335 for a plan with a $5,000 deductible and no prescription drug coverage. After reform, the cost for the same individual was reduced to $184 for a plan with a $2,000 deductible and prescription drug coverage.

This is true of someone who bought Commonwealth Choice insurance through The Connector. This would indicate he was making about $35,000 a year. The rest of his premium is being paid by the taxpayer. While it has made insurance more affordable to him, it says nothing about what it actually costs to insure him. Since the cost of the program has doubled in 3 years, how long can the state continue to charge such a low premium?

Cato is not a reliable source of info on this issue. It clearly is against any sort of government involvement and therefore its numbers are very suspect. The Boston Globe probably prints whatever the Administration tells them with little or no digging for the real facts. Thats what passes for "journalism" today.

The "public option" has been compromised so much in Congress that only about 5% of the population will be affected by it. So now it looks like just another scam to enrich the health insurance companies by mandating coverage whether you can afford the high premiums or not. And if you dont buy the mandatory insurance, you are fined heavily. So, where does the "option" part come in?

Single payer is supported by a substantial majority of physicians and nurses. These are the people on the front lines. However, very early Single Payer was ruled "off the table" no doubt because it would essentially eliminate the parasitic health insurance industry which rules Congress through campaign "contributions". Its a sick system in more ways than one.

Caveman wrote:

Cato is not a reliable source of info on this issue. It clearly is against any sort of government involvement and therefore its numbers are very suspect. The Boston Globe probably prints whatever the Administration tells them with little or no digging for the real facts. Thats what passes for "journalism" today.

Feel free to direct me to a reliable source, since you feel Cato isn't. I doubt the administration told The Boston Globe what to write in the article since it doesn't paint a very pretty picture.

Even I would prefer single payer to what's in Congress, but that's not on the table.

If someone needs a coronary bypass, they won't have to wait 3 weeks...this is already how the system works.

Unless you get your care from the gov't run VA.

letsgirlygirl wrote:

thats why a bill without a public option is bs

the State of Maine had a state run public option almost identical to the current proposal, and it failed horribly. please educate yourself:

in short all the individuals with the poorest health fled to the public option, those in good health stuck with their insurance, and the program became untenable

Maybe one of the reasons the wait time for a specialist appt in Mass is so high is due the hospitals we have here. Some of the best hospitals in the world are in Boston and have people coming into them from literally all over the world. If you want to have the best doctors working with you, you might need to wait for it. I don't have a source to prove this, it is merely a thought on why the average wait time could be skewed so much.

Also, for the anti-health care folks in the room... I just want to know what you think is going to help bring down the cost of health care by NOT changing anything the way it is now? It's already broken, it wont be fixed on its own.

Wait just a minute. Why should health care be affordable? Some of the things we are able to do these days are incredible. Medicine is expensive and it will continue to be expensive because there is a lot of hard work that goes into it. I would like health care to be available but I've never seen health care as affordable. Thus, I do things in order to stay healthy. (i.e. run) Then I stay away from activities that can be unhealthy. (i.e. play with guns in the desert)