Massachusetts Healthcare Update: Model for Obamacare

Of course the public option is taxpayer subsidized. Where do you think medicare gets its treasure trove to begin with (and medicare is the worst example of all when it comes to cost containment)? It's an accounting nuance. And government intervention did, in fact, increase demand for access, thereby increasing wait time.

This bullshit 46 million figure that curiously never seems to grow despite a growing population needs to be kicked to the curb. Almost a full 40% make more than the median wage and ELECT not to have insurance, some fraction is only temporarily uninsured, and a full 12-20 million (depending on how you source it) are not legal citizens.

Now, unlike some of my libertarian brethren, I do see providing some level of access FOR THE REMAINING uninsured as a moral imperative, at least for those legal citizens who simply CANNOT help themselves. I'm far more ambivalent on those who WILL NOT help themselves.

We are all arguing over access. We should be fighting over ways to reduce cost. If you do that successfully, you increase access. The tort lawyers need to get out of bed with the left so we can reduce cover your ass medicine, the insurance lobby needs to get out of bed with the right so we can reduce insurance "oligopolies" within states, people need to be held to a higher standard (copays were closer to 50% of the total bill some 50 years ago) through a system of incentives and disincentives, price transparency must be increased, and we simply cannot afford to give people second and third stent operations and bypasses, or a lifetime of insulin shots for type 2 diabetes, statins starting around age 30, and the soon-to-be covered happy pills and "diet drugs." The thought of all of this just so disgusts me. We don't have a healthcare reform crisis nearly as much as a HEALTH CRISIS. And we are simply paying lip service and looking to subsidize moral hazard.

The biggest moral imperative of all should be to not destroy the dollar, and leave a legacy of debt, high taxes, and sub-potential growth for our children. Fat-ass, gluttinous, disgusting Americans. It's a miracle we've been able to keep the quiltwork together this long.

By the way, the uninsured also have access via the taxpayer subsidized university hospital, but that's hardly the most efficient way to do it.

Jaycee Are wrote:

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)

Don't use common sense around here. People don't understand common sense anymore. They only understand feelings.

So since Mitt initiated a poorly conceived program, Republicans should support Obamacare because it's a virtual carbon copy? I assume that's the point you're trying to make.

I'm sure there are Republicans who won't support anything Obama wants simply because Obama wants it. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Massachusetts model has created the most expensive healthcare system in the country. There's also anecdotal evidence that care has degraded somewhat since the system was instituted. This is what is in store for all of us if Obamacare goes through.

If your goal is to provide affordable care to all Americans there has got to be a better way than this.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

So since Mitt initiated a poorly conceived program, Republicans should support Obamacare because it's a virtual carbon copy? I assume that's the point you're trying to make.

.

Sort of, but not exactly. I was saying: some on the right (Romney fans) are in a bind. Either they agree with you that MA healthcare has been abysmal failure and thus they were correct to not support Obama's similar program (but have to abandon Romney), or....they support their man Romney for what he did in MA, but then can't really bash Obama and the dems for their plan.

Romney is still a big hope for the right. But I guess he if is a socialist tax-raising commie (as is anyone who would support a universal healthcare program like he did in MA, right?), then he should be out of the running for 2012 repub nomination.

Looks like guys are back to choosing between Ron Paul or Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber. Good luck with that!

Why is this issue so politicized? Its a lot simpler than people make it.

Someone please answer these questions for me:

1) What is the cost of an MRI?

2) What is the cost to repair a broken arm?

3) How much does it cost to have a mammogram?

I ask you this because no one can tell you how much it costs. This is the only system in a "free market" economy where the consumer has no idea what the costs are and therefore cannot shop around for a better price.

The root-cause isn't this politician did whatever, its that we have let the system run amok and as consumers we have failed to discover the true cost of healthcare.

This is why healthcare represents 17% of GDP and its costs increase at twice the inflation rate. If left unchecked, it will be a drag on our economy and boom goes the dynamite.

Perfectly said.

rational wrote:

The root-cause isn't this politician did whatever, its that we have let the system run amok and as consumers we have failed to discover the true cost of healthcare.

The true cost of health care per individual is 2 trillion divided by 400 million => 5000 per head.

As to the cost of individual procedures it's sort of like like prices of airline tickets - all over the place.

Medicare and Medicaid pay the least - government sets the price.

Private insurers pay negotiated prices which are much higher than government's prices .... they subsidize the deadbeats and the government programs.

The uninsured get billed the list price - The well-to-do uninsured negotiate it down to the insurance price....and the rest of the uninsured go deadbeat/declare bankruptcy.

YES, this is a huge part of the problem and the reason I made the point about "copays" being 50% of the bill some 40-50 years ago. You don't pay for car insurance, and expect it to cover your oil changes, tire replacements, and 60,000 mile service. Nor do you show up at the dealership and expect to pay $15 to cover that engine replacement that you caused by neglecting your car, only to have someone else or some auto insurance pool pick up the tab. There is absolutely no price transparency or accountability embedded in the system.

And, by the way, the same thing happened with the credit crisis. The Federal Reserve and the GSEs (government-sponsored entities) obfuscated the price and availability of debt, and the transparency was clouded even further when the same government decided that they would only "charter" three ratings agencies, reducing competition and setting up the nepotism that the big banks exploited to the nth degree.

Wherever government meddles with "best of intentions," they deliver an inferior product at at least thrice the cost because they reduce competition and are not held to the same productivity-engendering standards as the businesses and individuals who FUND them. Just look at our public schools. That's why charter schools and talk of vouchers are cropping up all over the place.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

Sort of, but not exactly. I was saying: some on the right (Romney fans) are in a bind. Either they agree with you that MA healthcare has been abysmal failure and thus they were correct to not support Obama's similar program (but have to abandon Romney), or....they support their man Romney for what he did in MA, but then can't really bash Obama and the dems for their plan.

Romney's socialism is hardly popular on the right, which is what cost him the ticket in 2008. He is certainly better than Obama on the issue of sexualizing kindergarden children:

You guys need to knock this partisan bull$hit off. It's not constructive. Romney caved, as politicians do, lest his opponents gained ammunition. He acted in "bipartisan fashion." It was a bad program from the start. Just as Bush caved with the prescription drug benefit boondoggle. Politics as usual. I'm not at all convinced we have a REPUBLIC anymore, and the framers are rolling over in their graves, just as we carve out the next bust for Mt. Rushmore and look to put someone other than George Washington on the newly minted, debased dollar.

As I said, lacking balance and constuctive dialogue, we need a viable third party that understands the need to rein in gov't spending, check the Federal Reserve, dissolve the fascist lobbying, and generally make the HARD choices. And that's going to mean spending REDUCTION and efficiency gains. I don't care what side of the aisle it come from, just that it comes... We are on an unsustainable path, with a debt to GDP ratio that finds its parallel in nothing in modern economic history, not even Japan when their bubble burst. There are MUCH bigger fish to fry.

Sagarin wrote:

Just look at our public schools. That's why charter schools and talk of vouchers are cropping up all over the place.

Charter schools are still public schools.

And as far as vouchers, the use of tax payer dollars to support religious schools is abhorrent in my opinion. That was a terrible decision by the supreme court in 2002 to allow it (though it was absolutely LOVED by the religious right). However, fortunately most state supreme courts have ruled such programs in violation of state constitution.

Probably was a violation. But you are being partisan and digressing in a way that adds nothing to the dialogue about COMPETITION. Yes, charter schools draw from some of the same pools of funds, but they were germinated in the ostensibly perceived NEED for competition, accountability, and IMPROVEMENT in the public school abyss. So far, they are doing the job. Parents tend to be more involved though, which is a good thing.

The state of Tennessee was a pilot program for Hillary's plan back in the 90's. It was a complete and total disaster. I sucked every bit of money out of the treasury. Eventually it was cut WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY back to care for only children and pregnant women.

you should speak with ACORN and ask them what their professional opinion is

BTW, remember that all of these entitlements and promises were made when "times were good." They were based on flawed actuarial assumptions and never prepared for a rainy day. Just look at California. They made their own bed, and now the VERY people who voted for such inane policy, who are resourceful enough to leave, are doing just that, leaving an even bigger mess behind. Ultimate hypocrites.

Well, times aren't good anymore and they're not coming back for a very long time (present INORGANIC growth in GDP because of demand for cars and homes being artificially pulled forward notwithstanding). And, yet, here we are, talking about the GRAND entitlement, the assumptions of which no actuary I know can get their arms around.

Sagarin wrote:

And that's going to mean spending REDUCTION and efficiency gains. I don't care what side of the aisle it come from, just that it comes...

I certainly agree but this day and age you can't get elected promising to do LESS. You have Obama and the Dems promising all the poor mornons that the government can give them everything short of a free Christmas, by taxing "the rich."

Even McCain jumped on that "me too" bandwagon during the election. He should had the nuts to say NO we need to do LESS and the government the heck outta our lives.

Serve Obama Children wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zQryISazAc

President Obama's choice to monitor school safety once boasted that he introduced homosexual advocacy into the school system in Massachusetts by manipulating the message presented to lawmakers.

The revelations about Kevin Jennings, who was named assistant deputy secretary for the office of Safe & Drug Free Schools in the U.S. Department of Education...

...it was Jennings' group that in 2000 held a seminar for public school teens on the benefits of "fisting." The group handed out a document called "The Little Black Book" to young teens, a pornographic homosexual how-to that includes a directory of homosexual bars.

Sagarin, I'll be with you so long as you're willing to admit that military spending needs to be cut back too.