NEWS: Massachusetts Attempts Universal Health Care

Originally posted by DYepes
We do not smoke, drink alcohol, caffeine, eat fried foods or foods that are mostly sugary or fatty.

My God Man! No CAFFEINE!!?? I would die without my sweet, sweet nectar.

Unfortunately the amount needed to cover a real problem wouldn't be FDIC insured. Chemotherapy can cost well over $100k. And good eating can't guarantee against cancer. When I was young my mother developed breast cancer, and when it was all said and done the insurance claim came to close to a million. Of course this doesn't happen to everybody.

I agree with Sekeerof on this one.

The only ones to benefit is the multibillion dollar empire that is our private insurance industry.

No only they will have unwilling amount of people now force to buy their policies but also they will get additional money from the government that is more money from the tax payer.

As ususal when is money to be made the prices will be outrageous.

Funny I see a great deal but not for the population.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by marg6043]

LOL, marg. It's not just the private insurers who are salivating over this. The government is sure to get a taste of this cash cow. As premiums go up for those who can ill afford to pay more.
I'm still waiting to see how this is supposed to be funded.

It's the people of Massachusetts who are the losers here.
It may be the wave of the future, but it's not for the good of the citizens. Get the government involved in your life even more and some day that government will tell you, ooops, you're 55, that is too old for that kidney transplant. We have only to look to our northern neighbor too see the future if this country chooses to go down that path.

DontTreadOnMe

I agree, I also wonder if the private insurance groups that will be doing the policies will be choose by the state government also.

Because if they are limited to a group or just one private insurance group, them I will said that I smell a rat and will become a monopoly.

Then we may have something more juicy to talk about like political private and personal agendas.

I don’t see this really working but I will love to see where is heading.

As everything that has to do with money is always room for abuses.

sounds like a mandatory cost for being a Mass. resident

i wonder how many folks are going to to get a P.O Box 'residency' and apply for Auto Liscenses in the neighboring states.

on the other hand, poor, elderly, disadvantaged in neighboring states,
who are not already covered in Medicaid or Medicare, might flood the
Mass. Medical Program & their proposed 'sliding-scale' premium rates...
using the same PO box 'residencies' to access the subsidized healthcare

then theres another demographic; the throngs of Illegal Immigrants...
back in 2004 campaigns, i mentioned that Mitt Romney might seek the 2008
nomination....but this universal-compulsory-health premium levied on all present MA residents will be his waterloo if he insists on pushing it thru.

i don't think the Exploratory teams or the Actuary tables and Statisticians
ran enough 'models' to see the worst-case scenarios unfold before them.

Socialized (Third-Party Payer, Marxist.... whatever you want to call it) health care doesn't work anywhere else, but Mass. insists on doing it anyway? Considering the Senators Mass. has, this doesn't surprise me. Their costs are going to go through the roof......... just watch.

Edit for spelling

[edit on 8-4-2006 by zappafan1]

Originally posted by zappafan1
Their costs are going to go through the roof......... just watch.

Costs are thru the roof now with the rip off artist running the HMOs and telling me what Dr. to see, what treatment i can receive, not to mention the exorbitant co-pays.

As a selfemployed small businessman; Ill go with a STATE run plan any day over greed fueled HMOs. You can play the Marxist, Socialist card if you want but it's BS. Take it from a Capitalist entrepreneur of 30+ yrs. In the long run, this type of health care will be more efficient and cheaper for all concerned.

Hey ZF, ever been to Scandinavia? Lowest mortality rate on the planet. Guess what, State sponsored Health care. It works in Japan. You can bad mouth Canadian Health care but they live longer than we do.


[edit on 8-4-2006 by whaaa]

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 8-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

I'm glad that both sides of the aisle could actually do something together, but I don't think that a universal healthcare system can coexist with private coverage.

Insurance operates on a simple premise- chance of cost times cost per incident, plus allowance for above-expectation incidence, must be less than than total contribution by members.

There are several ways to achieve this in a high risk field.
1. Exclude those at highest risk, causing the system to be a safety net for those who need it least. This is typical of private insurance.

2. Restrict the field of coverage to lower risk incidents. Typical of all insurance systems, but more readily challenged in government systems.

3. Force the inclusion of low-risk groups, causing those who have little risk to subsidize the needs of those who are at high risk. This is typical of government systems.

4. Charge high fees. In private systems this necessarily excludes the poor, and in some cases may implicitly exclude certain high risk groups. In government systems this will be progressive in nature, implicitly causing the rich, sometimes at lower risk, to carry burden for the poor.


Competition between government and private insurance is not feasible for these reasons because it will necessarily places an burden on higher earners for a system they will not use. It's worse for the wealthy in that respect. It's worse for the poor too because the best care will stay in the private systems and the opposition of the rich to costs for a service they aren't using will cause the scope of coverage to be reduced.

If the goal is all-inclusive healthcare, then only a mandatory full-coverage monopoly will do, and you've got to ban any payment from outside of the system. This keeps everyone in the same pool of doctors and spreads the risk among the general population. It is not necessarily fair to everyone, and is not necessarily the thing to do. I am only saying that IF it is the goal to provide every person with reasonable quality health coverage, THEN the way to accomplish it is as I have said.

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by zappafan1
Their costs are going to go through the roof......... just watch.

Hey ZF, ever been to Scandinavia? Lowest mortality rate on the planet. Guess what, State sponsored Health care. It works in Japan. You can bad mouth Canadian Health care but they live longer than we do.

REPLY:You bring up one country, and one with a rather small population at that. Over your thirty years, how much have you sent to government house to give away to other people? You mean to tell me that you couldn't afford your own health care if that money was in your bank account?

The HMO's ARE a problem, and it started with... state and federal government getting involved with health care; HMO's began BECAUSE of government intervention, by forcing businesses to provide insurance.

What part of Marxism don't you understand?

Our meds here cost so much because of countries like Canada (who's health care system is aghorrent) because they set a limit on what they will pay for them, and American med purchasers charge us the difference.

As a businessman you should realise that someone might control the "price" of something, but you can't control the "cost." A "third-party-payer" system will drive the costs through the roof, because there's no market pressure to keep it down. Economics 101

They live longer than we do? Yeah..... those that survive. The number of those in Canada who come here for health care outnumber those who go there by 10 times at least.

[edit on 19-4-2006 by zappafan1]

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Zappafan:
The question you ask is flawed. "If you had saved all of the money you were taxed for government medical programs over the last 30 years, could you afford your medical bills?"

Depends.
1. On whose income? Are we talking about about somebody who makes 40k (a respectable income reflecting some degree of hard work, but still a tight budget if you have a family) or are we talking about somebody with fewer than 3 dependents who makes 80-100k?

2. Whose medical bills? A lot of us can get through life with very little medical care, but probability is sooner or later going to catch somebody. Somebody's got a genetic succeptibility to cancer or a weak heart. Somebody is gonna get in a car accident. Nevermind the injuries kids get. I've got 10 emergency room visits under my belt in the past 22 years- 8 of them between the ages of 3 and 11.


The real question here is what part of Marxism don't you understand?
Let's step back for a moment and ask ourselves the most basic question about the economy: What does it do?

It distributes goods and services, correct?

Everything else is a means to an end: the big question should be, how do we efficiently cause goods and services to be provided, especially where the necessities of life and communal infrastructure are concerned.

When I look at it from this perspective, my conclusion is that Marxism isn't the problem: it's the solution. Capitalism is the problem.

As I stated earlier, a capitalist system cannot coexist with Marxism. The success of socialization in any field demands the utmost communal effort in that field. A capitalist element coexisting with a socialized system in any single industry reduces contribution to the socialized system and ensures its failure. Effective socialized medical care requires a monopoly.

A centralized system would be capable of driving down prices, thus making it possible for a communal effort to provide care for all.

It will of course be suggested that profit motive for advancement is removed. I disagree because pay can still be awarded for innovation; very high pay. A billion dollar industry is way beyond profit motive; it's taking advantage of having the customer on the horns of a dillema: making someone choose between life and livelihood. You can have a government sponsored research lab, working at-cost with good six figure sallaries, and promise 7 figure bonuses for individuals directly linked to the innovation and it would cost far less, because you've taken out the need to provide a profit motive for investors. The profit motive for the investors is the will of the tax payer to have a quality healthcare industry at his disposal.

It will of course be suggested that nobody would want to be a doctor working for the government: I say nonsense. You can still have a high-paying industry with outcome based bonuses. I do not suggest that individual workers be pinched. I suggest that proprietary practices and investment be eliminated and replaced with tax-payer investment.

What we need is a system where the tax payers hire professionals directly on a sallary basis and therefore have a right to care. No more patenting medications or competing so that we've had 5 fold investment to develop 4 different drugs for doing the same thing- the government owns the labs, hands them the projects, and tells them how much money they get when they pull it off.


Of course some people don't approach from the angle of figuring out what the goal of the economy is and considering the direct route first and foremost. Some people start with the world as they've always known it and ask "why change", especially if they haven't personally had problems. I answer: What should happen to a pedestrian who is run over, rushed to the hospital, and has no money? They should be treated. The law requires them to be treated. Then why not someone who has cancer? Just because it's killing them slower? Well we've got to draw the line somewhere because the hospitals will go out of businesses! BINGO. So we've got two options: draw the line and let people die, or change the way business is done in such a way that will immunize hospitals against that risk.

Originally posted by zappafan1
Our meds here cost so much because of countries like Canada (who's health care system is aghorrent) because they set a limit on what they will pay for them, and American med purchasers charge us the difference.

Just a small correction:

American manufacturers charge Americans more for one reason, because they can.

We also don't allow pharmaceutical's to advertise to the consumer. Advertising costs are always built into the product.

I agree Vagabond on a few points. I think though some form of Capitalism should be kept, such as the freedom to competein non-essential businesses and products. Of course we should limit the over-saturation of non-essential resources. For instance entertainment should remain an element of free citizen thinking opportunity. I don't think ti would be very fun if the government ran all the night clubs, movie theatres, movie studios (although it is a rumor they already have influence in Hollywood), dance schools, art galleries, skating rinks, mini-golf, pool halls, bowling alleys, etc, etc. You get the point. I am definetly in favor of having our medical, defense, education, municipilaties, energy, food, and possibly others to be a service of a future system.

Perhaps a fitness regiment to maintain maximum health and minimal risk of illness and suceptiveness to certain disorders should be in place until legal adulthood. A healthy habbit practiced young is mroe likely to be continued throughout life. I am personally in favor of this. It would keep medical costs extremely low IMO. Of course many issues are simply accidents, but it is fact that most illnesses and disorders are a result of bad habits and lack of fitness throughout life. There is a reason many conditions develop later in life, the bad habits have finally caught up to the physical body.

Originally posted by DYepes
I agree Vagabond on a few points. I think though some form of Capitalism should be kept,

Oh, don't misunderstand. I have sociological beefs with capitalism, which really are another story since they aren't practical, but in general I'm only a socialist when it comes to necessities which the average person has difficulty procuring within capitalism.

So I wonder how this scenario would be covered under this horrible plan.

My mother is unable to work. She has not been able to work for many years. She is not eligible for Social Security assistance because, well she worked a very few years for minimum wage following my parents divorce. See my mother was a stay at home mom.

Now she lives with my brother. He makes $10 an hour and has two small children (who she helps care for since his wife passed away).

In December my mother had a heart episode (not quite an attack) and was hospitilized for 3 days to have some cathaterizations and stents put in. She had applied a few months before for state medicaid as her perscriptions at that time cost over $400 a month. I help with those cost but it is not always easy. She was denied state aid. Why? My brother makes $10 an hour and therefore too much. Now he has two children, a house and supports her but apparently the $10 is too much.

When she left the hospital after 3 days they gave her a bill. $87,000. This is at least 30% higher than someone we know who was in for heart surgery and hospitalized for weeks. Turns out without insurance the hospital does not offer a break on price unless you pay within 15 days. They are now sueing her. Within 30 days an attorney called and they are threatening her.

My point is, what would happen to her under the Mass law? She cannot be covered by the state, she cannot be covered by an employer because she is unable to work and due to a low work history she is not eligible for SS. I know for a fact there are many people like her out there. Mostly women all reaching their 50's who stayed home to raise kids and did not put enough years in to get benefits. States are denying them help if their children make was is really poverty level.

I think we will see more people die from this plan because they will be even more afraid to seek emergency medical care.

posted by DontTreadOnMe: “The State of Massachusetts hopes to become the first state in the U.S. to provide health care to everyone. The bipartisan effort, hopes to have 95% of its citizens medically insured. Citizens who can afford it and small companies who do not offer health care will be penalized. This plan will rely on government subsidies. The bill is due to go into effect July 1, 2007. Gov. Mitt Romney says he will sign. Will it slowly kill private insurance as the behemoth of public health care grows? I don't like the feature of individuals being momentarily penalized if they don't sign up for health care. I applaud the apparent bipartisan effort in Massachusetts, but I am a bit wary of Big governments programs like this. Perhaps this is the most disturbing facet of the new law. [Edited by Don W]

D/T/O/M says “I’m wary of big government . . “

Q1. Are you “wary” of ExxonMobil? Or the worlds largest corporation, Wal-Mart? Which do you have more input into, EM, WM or Mass. Which is more forthcoming, EM, WM or Mass?

Q2. Why are you “wary” of your fellow citizens working together for the common good?

donwhite,

I am wary of my government because they work hand-in-hand with Exxon, Mobil, the AMA, the dairy lobbyists, the energy lobbyists, the drug lobbyists, etc, etc.

I very much doubt that my fellow man will band together for the common good. I may be a cynic, but I look around and see way too much greed.
You're not going to turn that off just because someone decides they want to experiment in another state with universal health care.

No one with health care is going to want to get crappy coverage that is bound to come with this "universal" coverage.
Haven't you heard the rue and cry now that the auto industry is telling their employees that they have to pay SOMETHING for their health care? YOu think people like that will quietly adopt this plan?

What do you do with the existing health plans?
Whose going to tell BCBS to take a hike, their multi-billion dollar industry is no longer an option? How could it co-exist with this government model?

And, MOST importantly:
Name one thing the government has taken over that runs efficiently? Runs better? Is the epitome of how things should be run?
What makes you think government can run health care well?

It would be wonderful if there was anything going on in American government which actually represented a joint venture by the people.

I'm on only a slightly different page than DTOM. I don't distrust the plan because I'm wary of the government. I'm wary of the government because I distrust the plan.

Of course I assume that DTOM is basing his waryness on other failed programs, so that basically brings he and I onto the same page.

The plans are bad and suspicious in motive, more often than not hand in hand with big business (what joint venture by the American people caused G-dub to sing the praises of our jobs- and incidentally our employer-provided insurance- being exported to India?). So obviously based on previous experience, we're going to closely inspect anything that comes from them for 1. Obvious flaws. 2. Subtle potential for abuse/failure.

The question you ask is flawed. "If you had saved all of the money you were taxed for government medical programs over the last 30 years, could you afford your medical bills?"

REPLY: No, not flawed at all.... answer the question! What happened to individual responsibility? Where does it say in the Constitution that once I reach a certain age, I can reach into your pocket, or that of a neighbor, or someone who lives a hundred miles away, to pay for MY health costs or medication? Please point it out if it's there.

1. On whose income? Are we talking about about somebody who makes 40k (a respectable income reflecting some degree of hard work, but still a tight budget if you have a family) or are we talking about somebody with fewer than 3 dependents who makes 80-100k?

REPLY: On each individuals budget, of course! You plan ahead, tighten your belt, and use your own income to prepare for your future. America has enough resources to enable most anyone to better their situation, education and income level. If you plan on a large family, then plan to make ahead to make more money. On average, East of the big river, every male child costs $95,000 from birth to age 18; a female is $130,000. Divide that by 18 and you'll see how much more you'll have to make each year.

2. Whose medical bills? A lot of us can get through life with very little medical care, but probability is sooner or later going to catch somebody.

REPLY: Sorry....... not my problem, and your circumstances (sorry to hear you've had so many; honest) do not give you the right to take any of my hard-earned money to pay for your problems, medical or otherwise. It's bad enough that government house robs me at gunpoint each week.

The real question here is what part of Marxism don't you understand?
Let's step back for a moment and ask ourselves the most basic question about the economy: What does it do? It distributes goods and services, correct?

REPLY: No.... the free market allows for and sets the price of goods and services, and the distribution thereof.

"... especially where the necessities of life and communal infrastructure are concerned.

REPLY: Ahhhhh, the catch word..... "communal"; Meaning Socialist and Communist.

REPLY: Don't you do any research? Marxism/Socialism has never worked, and the economics (numbers) show it can't. Look at what's happening in Canada. I've studied politics and economy for over 35 years, and history shows I'm correct.

A centralized system would be capable of driving down prices, thus making it possible for a communal effort to provide care for all.

REPLY: No..... a centralized, "third-party" system has never worked, because if someone else pays for your care, you don't care HOW much it costs. If someone else payed for a new car for you, would you buy a Lexus or a Volkswagon?

A billion dollar industry is way beyond profit motive; it's taking advantage of having the customer on the horns of a dillema: making someone choose between life and livelihood.

REPLY: That's part of the problem, as too many people are trying to live beyond what nature or "God" intends. Way beyond profit motive???? Over 64% of seniors are invested, and part of their income is made from those evil drug companies. Ask them, or those who actually work making the drugs we use, if THEY hate how much the drug companies make. Ask the carpenters, automakers, electricians, plumbers, etc, if THEY hate the fact some executive makes lots of money.

You can have a government sponsored research lab, working at-cost with good six figure sallaries, and promise 7 figure bonuses for individuals directly linked to the innovation and it would cost far less, because you've taken out the need to provide a profit motive for investors. The profit motive for the investors is the will of the tax payer to have a quality healthcare industry at his disposal.

REPLY: Bogus and crap-ola! You obviously don't have a clue as to how much money it takes, and how much time it takes to develop and test each and every drug. Here's some facts for you: Out of, lets say, a hundred possible drugs a year that a company works on, only one or two actually make it to market. It costs around 200 MILLION dollars per drug to develop and test, and 10 to 15 years. Do the math.

It will of course be suggested that nobody would want to be a doctor working for the government: I say nonsense.

REPLY: Ask those in Germany right now, who's doctors are going to other countries because of the low wages.

You can still have a high-paying industry with outcome based bonuses. I do not suggest that individual workers be pinched. I suggest that proprietary practices and investment be eliminated and replaced with tax-payer investment.

REPLY: Not true! Case in point: 'ol Hillary got a law passed whereby our government would buy flu vaccines, and would set the price of what they would pay. At the time, America had 23 vaccine companies. Take away the profit motive, and what do you know.... we now have only ONE vaccine company in America. So, no matter WHO pays for it... there's none to be had. One can artificially control the price, but you can't control the COST. See my REPLY, above.

Capitolism is the problem.

REPLY: Capitolism has doubled our life expectancy in under 100 years, and has raised the baseline of human existance above any and everything that has come before it, in under 250 years.

What we need is a system where the tax payers hire professionals directly on a sallary basis and therefore have a right to care. No more patenting medications or competing so that we've had 5 fold investment to develop 4 different drugs for doing the same thing- the government owns the labs, hands them the projects, and tells them how much money they get when they pull it off.

REPLY: See all of the above.

The conservative point of view represents that the only role of government in the economy is to maintain the infrastructure, such as national defense, the roads, the sanitary (water/sewage) system and things of this order and that healthcare does not qualify as a function of government. Generally I agree with the conservative position, however not in the case of healthcare. The people are the most important part of the US infrastructure and the US government is not taking care of the people.

[edit on 25-5-2006 by df1]

What's the big deal. The Germans have had "National Health Insurance" since the end of the 18th century. Everybody ( adults) in the country pays a few marks (now Euros) per month and anybody in the country who needs medical attention, gets it, Each person pays a small fee (usually pennies) per prescription and a small fee to the doctor who collects the majority (almost all) of his fee from the National Health Insurance.

This program does not have some of the benefits of our system however and this will be the major complaint from our politicians and our insurance companies. For example:

1. No old person in Germany looses their home because of prescriptions costing hundreds of dollars each month.
2. No insurance company will pay the chairman of the board 400 million dollars a year in compensation, (Time Magazine) like some of our financially stressed insurance companies..
3. Politicians, under the German system, will not receive an annual stipend of hundreds of thousands of dollars each, for...whatever..., from various insurance companies since those monies will be forced to go for medical treatment for citizens health care.

So, since the German system does not have these above mentioned US system benefits National Health (that which Bill Clinton tried to introduce in his first term only to have it referred to as "Socialized Medicine" by Republicans who opposed the program) will not be popular in the US of A. Well it will be unpopular with republicans and insurance companies, at least.

I guess old Otto Eduard wasn't so dumb after all.


sayswho (skep by any other name)