Welcome to PatsFans.com

At an average of $13,788, MA's family plans are now the nation's most expensive

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Real World, Oct 7, 2009.

  1. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,452
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +911 / 7 / -3

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

    Peter Suderman: The Lesson of State Health-Care Reforms - WSJ.com
     
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,616
    Likes Received:
    170
    Ratings:
    +464 / 12 / -14

  3. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Growing pains.
     
  4. alvinnf

    alvinnf In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +16 / 2 / -0

    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.
     
  5. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,683
    Likes Received:
    758
    Ratings:
    +2,011 / 41 / -31

    #24 Jersey

    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.:confused::confused::confused:
     
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,987
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +593 / 24 / -19

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2009
  7. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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/weblogs/TWSFP/Small-bill proposal TWS(3).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.
     
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,452
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +911 / 7 / -3

    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.
     
  9. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    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.
     
  10. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    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. :mad:
     
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,452
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +911 / 7 / -3

    Right, cuz the only concern is to reduce costs. The quality of care, or the rights of the individual don't really have a place in all this. Just let the gubmit take over care (which means that the costs will probably quadruple in a couple years time), and let the bodies, ahem, the chips fall where they lay.
     
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,616
    Likes Received:
    170
    Ratings:
    +464 / 12 / -14


    No thanks I don't want the government to take over my families health care.
     
  13. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    What part of the public option is mandatory, precisely? (Also, lulz OMG .gov scary scary!)
     
  14. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Quality of care is already low and, shock, higher in almost every country with a nationalized solution. But don't let facts get in your way. (We've been over the measurably low quality of care in the US several times on this board, but the guys on the right don't seem to modify their thinking on the issue - surprise. The reality is that the quality of care in the US is all over the map - in some areas is among the worst in the civilized world, and in others among the best, but that it is also the most expensive while at the same time covering the lowest percentage of its citizens. By any measure other than the insurance industry's it is badly broken.)
     
  15. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Also: get your government hands off my medicare, medicaid, and VA.
     
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,452
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +911 / 7 / -3

    That's BS apple. People in this country are extremely happy with their care. What they hate is the cost. Oh, and don't go posting some insignificant World Body Ranking, or some diarea life expectancy BS. The way people on each side of the isle puppet nonsense is amazing. I hear people on the right say "what's wrong with HC", and then I hear people on the left spew nonsense about life expectancy.
     
  17. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    This is not the same thing as quality of care measured against other nations. And you'll have to correct the authors of several studies that their results are incorrect. They'll be glad to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

    And access.

    Insignificant? Waving a hand and pretending things aren't real doesn't make it so. In addition to the WHO rankings there are several studies that show problems with infant mortality, overall mortality for similar procedures/ailments, and widely vacillating qualities of care for common treatments when compared to other countries.

    Life expectancy is probably the farthest thing in the world from BS.

    Science is not nonsense.

    It sounds like your problem is more with the low quality of debate as opposed to the more meaningful aspects of it.
     
  18. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    It is not a BS statistic, but you certainly have to admit there are many mitigating factors to life expenctancy that extend beyond quality and availability of health care. Fact is Americans lead very unhealthy lifestyles. Please don't think I am being critical, but that's just the way it is.

    Suppose you have 2 hospitals that are perfectly equal in the care they provide. But 40% of the patients in hospital A are obese, while 6% of the patients in hospital B are obese. Also, 30% of the patients in hospital A smoke, while 8% of the patients in hospital B smoke. Obviously, the patients in hospital B are going to have greater life expectancies on average. But that statistic does not imply hospital B provides better care.
     
  19. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,887
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Nobody's saying life expectancy is a complete measure of the quality of care, but it is an important measure and something you have to take into account. It is part of the overall puzzle of public health.
     
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,616
    Likes Received:
    170
    Ratings:
    +464 / 12 / -14


    In HR 3200 if I change jobs move to a state where my current provider doesn't do business I am forced into the public plan, this is not an option it is coercion.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>