|
5 Painful health-care lessons from Massachusetts |
 |
 |
 |
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Tuesday, 15 June 2010 16:37 |
The best guide to how President Obama's historic health-care legislation will reshape the nation's medical marketplace and fiscal future is the pioneering model in Massachusetts. The Bay State's reform program started in late 2006, and it shares virtually all the major features of the new federal plan.
Both programs greatly expand Medicaid coverage for low-earners, and provide heavily subsidized policies for a broad swath of the middle class. They tightly restrict the range of premiums for customers of different ages and medical conditions; they bar insurers from charging older patients, or even coach potatoes who abuse their health, anywhere near their actual cost. Both plans impose a long list of expensive benefits insurers must provide whether patients want to pay for them or not, ranging in Massachusetts from in-vitro fertilization to chiropractic services.
At the same time the plans offer lavish subsidies that swell the demand for health care, they do nothing to increase the supply of medical services in a market suffering from shortages of everything from family doctors to nurses to hospital beds. Two years after enacting health-care reform to rein in costs, Massachusetts strengthened "certificate of need laws" that prevent hospitals and other providers from competing with high-cost, entrenched suppliers. The state now requires that ambulatory surgical centers and outpatient treatment facilities get permission from regulators before they can enter the market. Their rivals invariably lobby the regulators to block competition, and usually win.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 15 June 2010 16:51 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Medicare chicken-littlism |
|
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Wednesday, 30 April 2008 14:54 |
Reuters helps catapult the anti-Medicare propaganda in an article titled: 'Medicare "drifting towards disaster": U.S. official'
Medicare is lurching toward disaster and it is too late for the Bush Administration and Congress to do anything about it, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said on Tuesday.
He said the next administration will have to act to stop rising costs and get control of the $400 billion federal health insurance plan for the elderly, which now covers 44 million people.
"Higher and higher costs are being borne by fewer and fewer people. Sooner or later, this formula implodes," Leavitt said in a speech to the right-leaning Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute think-tanks.
...
Leavitt's speech echoes repeated warnings from other federal government officials who have noted that Medicare spending is projected to be 3.3 percent of gross domestic product in 2009
My Thoughts:
1. Bias: This "U.S. official" is political appointment by anti-government President Bush.
2. Double bias: His comments were delivered to two right wing "think-tanks" both of which were founded to undo progressive public programs like Medicare.
3. If the 40 million people covered by Medicare were covered by private insurance it would cost at least $30-$99 billion more given that private insurers spend 12-30% on administration whereas the efficient Medicare system spends only 4% on administr ation.
4. The solution to the problem is contained in his comments -- "by less and less people". We need to consider countering the right-wing noise on Medicare with a coordinated message: "Expand Medicare to save Medicare" by explaining the benefits of a universal risk pool versus what we do with Medicare right now -- redline out the most expensive patients to insure and make them the governments problem.
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 30 April 2008 15:20 )
|
|
Schumer : "Not sure we're not ready for national health insurance" |
|
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Friday, 25 April 2008 21:11 |
|
This post is from The Albany Project, which follows Progressive Politics in New York State: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was quoted in yesterday's The Hill saying the following: Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is "not sure we have the big plan on healthcare." "Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we're ready for a major national healthcare plan," Schumer said. Schumer said he would focus "on prevention above all and cost cutting until we can get a national healthcare plan." BTP over Rochester Turning had his own take on this. More and better Dems, please. Call Schumer's office to tell him how much you love paying high health insurance premiums and co-pays so insurance & big pharma can reap record profits and pay huge executive bonuses. Or, if you want a healthcare plan that looks more like what he enjoys, tell him that. It is hard how to read that because at first it sounds like Schumer doesn't think Americans are ready for a national health care program but then says that he would implement cost-cutting measures until we can get such a program. I have been upset by a few things Schumer has done (Mukasey, anyone?) but could he be saying that Americans are not ready here? Or does he mean that Congress is not ready? Americans ARE ready for it. So if that's what Schumer meant, I disagree with him and we should contact him and tell him so. But if he meant Congress is not ready, I actually agree with that. They are not in the position now to pass such legislation, mainly because a Republican is president. That should change if Obama or Clinton becomes president.
Are you ready for a National Healthcare program?
For some insight into Schumer's perspective know that he has taken $242,500 from the insurance industry, $218,220 from "Health Professionals", and $116,564 from unspecified Lobbyists. Source
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 25 April 2008 21:19 )
|
|
|
|
|
|
