Real World

This is the problem with gimmick "reform", it doesn't work.

Peter Suderman: The Lesson of State Health-Care Reforms - WSJ.com

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

patsfan13

BO wants to do to America what Romney did to MA...

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

sdaniels7114

Growing pains.

__________________
Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob everyone.

alvinnf

Mass Health would sink Romney's battleship if he were to run for POUTS again. I think one of the great components of not having government involved in health care is individuals can maintain their own self reliance. It will get awful expensive when people lose the motivation to maintain their health.

IcyPatriot

i think I figured out some of this. They are adding the threat of jail and/or fines if you don't buy insurance. So ... looks like we'll building a ton of jails ... that will get the construction industry moving forward. Well, unless the firms hire a bunch of Mexicans to come build them who also do not have any insurance.

Patters

Once again, the WSJ leads righties around by the nose. Health insurance premiums might cost more, but, according to the Commonwealth Fund (the source used by in the WSJ article) those are simply a continuation of trends that preceded MA health care reform, trends that necessitate national health care reform:

Massachusetts Health Reform: Employer Coverage from Employees' Perspective - The Commonwealth Fund

As of fall 2008, workers' satisfaction with the quality of employer-sponsored plans had increased in all measured areas—range of services covered, choice of health care providers, and quality of care.

Although there was no change in the number of total workers reporting high out-of-pocket spending, the percentage of small-firm workers who reported such spending increased from 4.7 percent in fall 2006 to 14.6 percent in fall 2008. This likely reflects increasing health care costs in the state, which predate health reform.

In the years after the state instituted its health care reform, access to employer coverage in Massachusetts has increased, as has employees’ satisfaction with scope and quality of coverage.

Stokes

good post Patters, but it doesn't get at what to me is the biggest issue, that health care reform did not stem the tide of increasing costs at all. One of Obama's favorite arguments is that these reforms will end up saving money, but that has not been borne out with state-level examples. If we insure more people and don't get a handle on costs, we've got another massive program we can't fund stably long term, right? What about starting smaller and seeing if we can do some things to increase coverage without huge spending increases? Here's one example, this was linked to in the weekly standard (I know, I know), and gives some things we could do (a couple of which at least I believe are also in Obama's plans) at a much lower price to gauge effectiveness before committing to billions or trillions in new spending over the next 10 years.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...TWS%283%29.pdf

At any rate I certainly don't think this little thing has all the answers, and recognize how difficult finding a good solution is, but my inclination is to work gradually towards a fix rather than an immediate, giant piece of legislation that carries a real risk of breaking the parts of the current system that actually work.

Real World

The point is that the "reform" in Massachusetts was supposed to make insurance more affordable, and it hasn't. It's been an epic fail of monumental porportions. Why? Cuz it's not reform. It's a gimmick policy that did nothing to curb the real problem, and that's the constantly rising cost of the care itself. People need to understand that the cost of coverage, and the cost of care, are two entirely different things. Coverage is what you pay for your insurance. When I say care, I mean the actual cost of having an Xray done, or getting treatment for an ailment of some kind. Getting more people to have coverage, or having someone else (the gubmit) pay the bill for you, does NOTHING to control the rising cost of care. The sooner people understand that real reform has to deal with the rising cost of care, the sooner we can reach a consensus on healthcare. Niether side is willing to do this though, cuz the left is hell bent on implementing an eventual single payer system, and the right is too concerned with making sure Obama and the left fail. In the end I still pay over $6k a year for my coverage.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

apple strudel

You are right. Nationalizing the whole thing is the best solution for reducing costs. Unfortunately, all 5 bills involve making insurance companies richer than they already are.

apple strudel

Republicans, insurance companies and Max Baucus are preventing real alternatives such as the public option which would almost necessarily lead to a lower cost alternative.