New Mass. Healthcare bill, step in right direction?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Nate

Missing
Moderator Emeritus
15+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2003
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
6
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060404/ap_on_he_me/massachusetts_health_4

BOSTON - Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill Tuesday that would make Massachusetts the first state to require that all its citizens have some form of health insurance.

The plan — approved just 24 hours after the final details were released — would use a combination of financial incentives and penalties to dramatically expand access to health care over the next three years and extend coverage to the state's estimated 500,000 uninsured.

If all goes as planned, poor people will be offered free or heavily subsidized coverage; those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage; and those already insured will see a modest drop in their premiums.

The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.

The cost was put at $316 million in the first year, and more than a $1 billion by the third year, with much of that money coming from federal reimbursements and existing state spending, officials said.

The House approved the bill on a 154-2 vote. The Senate endorsed it 37-0.

A final procedural vote is needed in both chambers of the Democratic-controlled legislature before the bill can head to the desk of Gov. Mitt Romney, a potential Republican candidate for president in 2008.

Romney has expressed support for the measure but has not said whether he will sign it.

"It's only fitting that Massachusetts would set forward and produce the most comprehensive, all-encompassing health care reform bill in the country," said House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a Democrat. "Do we know whether this is perfect or not? No, because it's never been done before."

The only other state to come close to the Massachusetts plan is Maine, which passed a law in 2003 to dramatically expand health care. That plan relies largely on voluntary compliance.

"What Massachusetts is doing, who they are covering, how they're crafting it, especially the individual requirement, that's all unique," said Laura Tobler, a health policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The plan hinges in part on two key sections: the $295-per-employee business assessment and a so-called "individual mandate," requiring every citizen who can afford it to obtain health insurance or face increasing tax penalties.

Liberals typically support employer mandates, while conservatives generally back individual responsibility.

"The novelty of what's happened in this building is that instead of saying, `Let's do neither,' leaders are saying, `Let's do both,'" said John McDonough of Health Care for All. "This will have a ripple effect across the country."

The state's poorest — single adults making $9,500 or less a year — will have access to health coverage with no premiums or deductibles.

Those living at up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $48,000 for a family of three, will be able to get health coverage on a sliding scale, also with no deductibles.

The vast majority of Massachusetts residents who are already insured could see a modest easing of their premiums.

Individuals deemed able but unwilling to purchase health care could face fines of more than $1,000 a year by the state if they don't get insurance.

Romney pushed vigorously for the individual mandate and called the legislation "something historic, truly landmark, a once-in-a-generation opportunity."

One goal of the bill is to protect $385 million pledged by the federal government over each of the next two years if the state can show it is on a path to reducing its number of uninsured.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has threatened to withhold the money if the state does not have a plan up and running by July 1.
 
Does it make sense to require people to get health insurance that don't want it? I'm interested in hearing arguments for that, but at the moment I think it's idiotic , and probably a consequence of government being a slave to the insurance industry. I've thrown around the idea (hypothetical of course since it would NEVER happen with the industry being the behemoth that it is) of outlawing all forms of insurance other than life (health, car, malpractice etc.) I believe the insurance industry is among the most malevolent there are.
 
I'll be interested to see how the MA plan works. I'm not sure if the MA plan addresses this, but I think the healthcare system would work much better if we all had coverage, with costs only for elective proced's like plastic surg, etc. Can you imagine being a poor family and having to figure out whether to bring your sick child to the ER b/c it will drive you into deep debt? I know I will get flamed out of town, but after only one year on the wards as an intern I see how broken our system is......so torch away 😀 .

btw-Nate -great post
 
history in the making.

It's only a matter of time before this country adopts sweeping health care reform. Health care expenditures doubled in the last ten years alone. This effort will be forced by the employers. They want out. I've heard that GM now spends more money per car on employee health insurance than it does for the steel!

I've also heard that Blue Cross' profits could easily cover the 40+million uninsured Americans. What kind of sick society do we live in where it is okay to take billions of dollars out of the health care delivery system? Yes, physicians should be suitably compensated for their services, but do we really need third parties taking out a huge share? The Government would put the money back into the system where it belongs.

Changes are around the corner and we need to help lead this reform in a responsible, patient care-oriented manner.

Fill out this poll to share your opinions with Congress:
http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/speak_out/hcpoll.php
 
Why require individuals to have insurance? Money. In essence, right now MA acts as a default insurance company by paying hospitals for "free care" and to some degree for non-paying patients. In some areas this is a significant number of people. So if the state is able to pay for health insurance or subsidize insurance it'd be a more rational way to spend the money they are already spending. Also if there's less "non-paying" because everyone is required to have insurance, then hospitals won't have to try to make that money back from insured patients, potentially bringing hospital charges down.

A pretty good idea IMHO.

There's also a MA bill in the works that would prevent docs from referring patients to imaging centers that they have a financial interest in. This will also lower the costs of healthcare.
 
I think it's a good idea and a step in the right direction.

There is one question I have. What do you do with people that prefer to not have health insurance for religious reasons? Can the state/nation punish people monetarily for their religious beliefs?

I ask this because one of my old bosses did not have health insurance because she believed that God would protect her. Whatever his/her will was was what would happen.

A little background info - She was having twins at the time and had no health insurance or prenatal care. She was having the twins at home with the assistance of a midwife. Not that this information matters, it's just an interesting tidbit of how strong her devotion was to her faith.
 
Spankete87 said:
I think it's a good idea and a step in the right direction.

There is one question I have. What do you do with people that prefer to not have health insurance for religious reasons? Can the state/nation punish people monetarily for their religious beliefs?

I ask this because one of my old bosses did not have health insurance because she believed that God would protect her. Whatever his/her will was was what would happen.

A little background info - She was having twins at the time and had no health insurance or prenatal care. She was having the twins at home with the assistance of a midwife. Not that this information matters, it's just an
interesting tidbit of how strong her devotion was to her faith.

Uh....what if I prefer to not follow speed limits because of my religion? What if I don't want to carry car insurance because of my religion? What if I want to smoke weed because of my religion? A law is a law, and people's crazy beliefs don't matter.
By the way, if god was protecting her, why'd she need a midwife, couldn't she just pop them out and let the lord work his magic? 🙄
 
The reason it's mandatory isn't so they can be proud of covering everyone, although thats what the politicians will say. It's so that risk is spread over a larger pool, ensuring lower premiums.
 
BklynWill said:
I've also heard that Blue Cross' profits could easily cover the 40+million uninsured Americans.

In NJ, where they are still chartered as a "non-profit", their skyrocketing profits have led some to call for decreased premiums. But no, they're not doing that.
Lawmakers wanted BC to convert to for-profit in order to be able to use the conversion funds to fund the state deficit, but then there was uproar bc if theres a conversion, by law its supposed to go towards a trust fund for charity care/uncomp. care, not the state deficit.
BCBS is EVIL.
 
Nate said:
If all goes as planned, poor people will be offered free or heavily subsidized coverage; those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage; and those already insured will see a modest drop in their premiums.

The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.

The cost was put at $316 million in the first year, and more than a $1 billion by the third year, with much of that money coming from federal reimbursements and existing state spending, officials said.

So essentially all theyre doing is expanding Medicaid? Also, 295/employee doesn't seem like an awful lot - anyone know the costs of a small business offering HI to employees? Finally, how are the insurance companies incentivized to drop premiums for their low-risk carriers? 😕
 
I think it is a step in the right direction. This is how I see it: Right now there are thousands of people without health coverage. When do they go to the doctor? ... When they are in extremely bad health and there is no other choice. Maybe if everyone has insurance, more people will go in for periodic check-ups (breast exams etc...) and catch serious diseases before they become expensive and uncurable. This should drastically cut down on expensive procedures in the future.
So, maybe if the government and/or employers help foot the bill now to get everyone health insurance, everyone will save money in the long run. 👍
Im just guessing though.
 
(nicedream) said:
Uh....what if I prefer to not follow speed limits because of my religion? What if I don't want to carry car insurance because of my religion? What if I want to smoke weed because of my religion? A law is a law, and people's crazy beliefs don't matter.
By the way, if god was protecting her, why'd she need a midwife, couldn't she just pop them out and let the lord work his magic? 🙄


I believe you are allowed to smoke weed if it's your religion. I remember hearing something about a Jamaican a few years back who said the ganja was an integral part of his religious practice. And let's not forget sacrificing animals and all that Santeria. It's a valid point. I don't know if it would hold up, but it is valid.
 
nvshelat said:
So essentially all theyre doing is expanding Medicaid? Also, 295/employee doesn't seem like an awful lot - anyone know the costs of a small business offering HI to employees? Finally, how are the insurance companies incentivized to drop premiums for their low-risk carriers? 😕
Alot more than that for comprehensive HMO/PPO care. Private insurance for a deductible of $1000 will cost you easily $300/mn, and if you have any preexisting conditions, they can put riders on that.

Also, I'm sure is this just major medical insurance or HMO? Does it have full coverage? I want to know the specs on this ...
 
laboholic said:
So, maybe if the government and/or employers help foot the bill now to get everyone health insurance, everyone will save money in the long run. 👍
Im just guessing though.

Are you really serious by thinking that the government and employers will be paying for it? Do you know where the government gets the money to pay for things? It taxes you and me. Do you know where your employer gets the money to pay for things? They pay you and me less money. The people who will actually be paying for this, then, is you and me.
 
scpod said:
Are you really serious by thinking that the government and employers will be paying for it? Do you know where the government gets the money to pay for things? It taxes you and me. Do you know where your employer gets the money to pay for things? They pay you and me less money. The people who will actually be paying for this, then, is you and me.


Currently, self-employed individuals and people whose employers do not offer health plans pay for health insurance out-of-pocket for themselves and their families. Premiums for private insurance would probably be substantially higher than a new tax to fund "Medicare for all", as Ted Kennedy likes to call it.

Employers used to love using health plans as an attractive recruitment feature. Now that health plans cost so damn much employers are opting out of this technique.

And one's salary should increase if the employer is saving money by no longer offering a health plan.
 
BklynWill said:
And one's salary should increase if the employer is saving money by no longer offering a health plan.

Yes, it should, but it won't happen. During the fuel crisis of the mid 70's there was a price and wage freeze. Employers couldn't give out more money, but they could give out benefits like paid insurance to try to attract good workers. Americans began to rely on that a little too much. Companies no longer care about attracting good workers. They want people that they can hire for practically nothing. The quality of the work doesn't even seem to matter in a lot of cases. Have you eaten at a restaurant or stayed at a hotel lately?
 
The one question I have about this is:

What coverage will this bill provide for illegal aliens? The article mentions only citizens.. if this wave of thought is hoped to cover the entire nation, someone needs to take this into account. The burden of illegal aliens in increasing, and it appears many, if not most, are uninterested in becoming citizens. So, if we have this national healthcare system funded by the citizens (the almighty tax dollar) for the citizens - who is going to pay for the illegals?

Will they be left out of this plan (as, if the wording of this article is correct, they SHOULD be), and if so, where will the money to cover their healthcare come from?

noone had brought this up, yet.

jd
 
DeLaughterDO said:
The burden of illegal aliens in increasing, and it appears many, if not most, are uninterested in becoming citizens. jd

Perhaps it's a little off the subject (but you did open the door 🙂 ), but it's not that they don't want to be citizens. The wait for a visa for Mexicans can be 12 to 15 years, even if you already have family living in the US. They just don't want to wait that long.
 
Very few people know about Mitt Romney, Governor of MA. This article doesn't give credit to Romney for his role in all of this. I've been following this story for months now and most of this plan was developed by Romney himself. Once people start hearing and learning more about him, I believe he will be a major candidate in the 2008 Presidential Election.
The guy has made his living on turning poor companies into profitable corporations. He single-handedly took the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake and turned them from a major $ deficit and potential disaster (scandal) to one of the most sucessful, if not the most sucessful winter games ever. When he entered office as Governor, there was a several billion dollar deficit, now there is a huge surplus. You have to appreciate that he's a Republican in a heavily Democratic state and he still get's things done. The guy is a winner. He's smart as hell. He may be our next President.
 
scpod said:
Perhaps it's a little off the subject (but you did open the door 🙂 ), but it's not that they don't want to be citizens. The wait for a visa for Mexicans can be 12 to 15 years, even if you already have family living in the US. They just don't want to wait that long.

this is true. My family and I had to wait 12 years before we could come to the U.S.

If the proposed guest worker program passed, would that make the illegal aliens citizens or temporary residents? this would further complicate the mandatory health insurance dilemma.
 
mshheaddoc said:
Alot more than that for comprehensive HMO/PPO care. Private insurance for a deductible of $1000 will cost you easily $300/mn, and if you have any preexisting conditions, they can put riders on that.

Also, I'm sure is this just major medical insurance or HMO? Does it have full coverage? I want to know the specs on this ...

Hilarious! I love politicians! So basically they're saying, well we know this plan isn't going to work bc its still cheaper to cop out and pay the fine... so atleast while it doesn't work, we'll be extracting the maximum value we can from them. Surprised they didn't make the fine = market rate - $.01.

Mass. should try what NJ did in the early 90s, making small business and individual lines community rated.
 
DeLaughterDO said:
The one question I have about this is:

What coverage will this bill provide for illegal aliens? The article mentions only citizens.. if this wave of thought is hoped to cover the entire nation, someone needs to take this into account. The burden of illegal aliens in increasing, and it appears many, if not most, are uninterested in becoming citizens. So, if we have this national healthcare system funded by the citizens (the almighty tax dollar) for the citizens - who is going to pay for the illegals?

Will they be left out of this plan (as, if the wording of this article is correct, they SHOULD be), and if so, where will the money to cover their healthcare come from?

noone had brought this up, yet.

jd

Illegal aliens don't make enough money to contribute significantly to the tax system. Most of them have to work their butts off just to feed their kids. The real tax burden is on the wealthy, who actually pay for the majority of our social services.
Some illegal immigrants are even scared to use the ER, fearing they may get caught and deported; but I think word is spreading fast that ER = "free care."
 
scpod said:
Yes, it should, but it won't happen.

It will. No one in their right mind will take a job with low pay and no benefits. In the long run, people will have to be compensated for their risk.
EX-> My father currently gets paid extra to forego his health insurance coverage (we're covered through my mom).
 
nvshelat said:
It will. No one in their right mind will take a job with low pay and no benefits. In the long run, people will have to be compensated for their risk.
EX-> My father currently gets paid extra to forego his health insurance coverage (we're covered through my mom).


When you have mouths to feed and no other options, you will do what you have to do. There are lots of people who work two and three part-time jobs because employers don't have to pay benefits to them. There are plenty more who work full-time jobs with little or no benefits and low pay because those are the only jobs available. People work in these jobs every day, not because they want to, but because they have no choice. Less than 20% of the people in my state graduate from college. Many counties have double-digit unemployment. The real world can be brutal for many families in the US. Where have you been?
 
scpod said:
Are you really serious by thinking that the government and employers will be paying for it? Do you know where the government gets the money to pay for things? It taxes you and me. Do you know where your employer gets the money to pay for things? They pay you and me less money. The people who will actually be paying for this, then, is you and me.

How much do you think the taxpayer already pays out for all the uninsured people who have to go to the ER or have expensive surgeries? A lot. Im proposing that it would be cheaper in the long run just to use tax money to insure these people. Then they could go to the doctor on a regular basis and catch serious diseases before they become expensive. Its no different than using tax money to pay for their expensive treatments. Right?
 
laboholic said:
How much do you think the taxpayer already pays out for all the uninsured people who have to go to the ER or have expensive surgeries? A lot. Im proposing that it would be cheaper in the long run just to use tax money to insure these people. Then they could go to the doctor on a regular basis and catch serious diseases before they become expensive. Its no different than using tax money to pay for their expensive treatments. Right?

The insurance system is riddled with problems that significantly increase the cost of healthcare. For five consecutive years, premiums that employers pay have risen more than 9%. That's way more than inflation. Under current insurance plans, people have very little choice in their health care. They are slaves to the insurance industry, and the insurance industry's only concern is increased profits. This country became a world leader because the free market system works...BUT, the free-market system is NOT used in healthcare. Patients have no idea how much money is actually being spent; all they care about is that their insurance company will pay for it. They demand expensive drugs and tests that they don't need and doctors go through with it for fear of being sued. The insurance system is broken. Why do you want to add to the problems by requiring more people to become a part of a system that is, in itself, actually increasing the cost of health care in order to make more profits? Things like Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA) and Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) are a good start, but until you actually put some competition into health care, then the costs won't fall. People select every other thing in life that they pay for based on cost: houses, cars, clothing, food, etc. Why not do the same with healthcare?
 
scpod said:
Where have you been?

LOL, that's cute.

My response was in ref. to what you had replied to BrooklynWill. Brooklyn said that since benefits were started as a method of attracting employees during periods of wage freezing, when benefits are in turn cut, that salaries would have to increase in response.
You then said they wouldn't because we live in a harsh world.

I maintain that in the long run, wages will of course have to increase if firms aren't offering any benefits. Firms will want to compete for the best workers, and the most efficient way to do that without offering health insurance would be to increase their compensation. Firms that are preying on workers by giving them low wages and no benefits won't survive in the long run.

I agree that several million people can't afford health insurance, the vast majority of whom make too much to qualify for MA but too little to afford the plans offered by their employers. But you won't survive long with a high percentage of uninsured workers.
 
scpod said:
The insurance system is riddled with problems that significantly increase the cost of healthcare. For five consecutive years, premiums that employers pay have risen more than 9%. That's way more than inflation. Under current insurance plans, people have very little choice in their health care. They are slaves to the insurance industry, and the insurance industry's only concern is increased profits. This country became a world leader because the free market system works...BUT, the free-market system is NOT used in healthcare. Patients have no idea how much money is actually being spent; all they care about is that their insurance company will pay for it. They demand expensive drugs and tests that they don't need and doctors go through with it for fear of being sued. The insurance system is broken. Why do you want to add to the problems by requiring more people to become a part of a system that is, in itself, actually increasing the cost of health care in order to make more profits? Things like Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA) and Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) are a good start, but until you actually put some competition into health care, then the costs won't fall. People select every other thing in life that they pay for based on cost: houses, cars, clothing, food, etc. Why not do the same with healthcare?

The last part is meant to be sarcastic, right? Or are you just waiting for someone to bite?
 
nvshelat said:
I maintain that in the long run, wages will of course have to increase if firms aren't offering any benefits. Firms will want to compete for the best workers, and the most efficient way to do that without offering health insurance would be to increase their compensation. Firms that are preying on workers by giving them low wages and no benefits won't survive in the long run.

In a fair world things would happen that way...but it's only a dream. Firms don't really care about the best workers; they want the cheapest ones. It's all about money. What measure does every single company who needs to cut back on expenses take first? It's either wage and benefit reductions or lay offs.

One of the reasons that I left the business world and went back to college to do my med school pre-reqs was that I was surrounded by very solid companies who continued to cut benefits and salaries year after year. Entry-level workers in many industries are easily replaceable. Those are the ones who have the biggest problems. If you actually find a good employee, then that's a good thing, but ALL employees are expendable these days. The good employess are given a promotion, and each one of them takes over the responsibilities of two other people who are fired. They won't teach you that in business school, but it's the way things really work. I've been in on numerous meetings where the focus was what we, as a company, can do to hire more employees and decrease wages at the same time, or how many positions can we eliminate and still get things done, or can we get rid of the current employees and hire new ones for less, etc.

The bottome line is that businesses who cut benefits and wages can and do survive-- in fact, they thrive because of reduced expenses.
 
scpod said:
The insurance system is riddled with problems that significantly increase the cost of healthcare. For five consecutive years, premiums that employers pay have risen more than 9%. That's way more than inflation. Under current insurance plans, people have very little choice in their health care. They are slaves to the insurance industry, and the insurance industry's only concern is increased profits. This country became a world leader because the free market system works...BUT, the free-market system is NOT used in healthcare. Patients have no idea how much money is actually being spent; all they care about is that their insurance company will pay for it. They demand expensive drugs and tests that they don't need and doctors go through with it for fear of being sued. The insurance system is broken. Why do you want to add to the problems by requiring more people to become a part of a system that is, in itself, actually increasing the cost of health care in order to make more profits? Things like Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA) and Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) are a good start, but until you actually put some competition into health care, then the costs won't fall. People select every other thing in life that they pay for based on cost: houses, cars, clothing, food, etc. Why not do the same with healthcare?


I agree that the healthcare system we have could be much better, but what a family has a child with a brain tumor and costs rise into the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to pay for it. I dont know if the average person could put enough into an FSA to pay for that.
 
nvshelat said:
The last part is meant to be sarcastic, right? Or are you just waiting for someone to bite?

No sarcasm involved. If doctor X had office visits for $25 and Doctor Y had office visits for $35, then Doctor X would probably get more patients. However, if Doctor Y advertised in the newspaper with a $10 OFF coupon that includes a free diabetes screening, then Doctor X would be forced to give something else in return. That's capitolism, and it's what made this country a world leader. Let's face it, medcine is a business, but it's a business where the usual and customary charges are not controlled by the business owner. The government and insurance companies tell the owner how much s/he can make off of every customer. There is no competition in medicine; thus, no incentive to decrease the cost. As long as the government and insurance companies control the business aspect, then prices will continue to skyrocket.
 
laboholic said:
I agree that the healthcare system we have could be much better, but what a family has a child with a brain tumor and costs rise into the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to pay for it. I dont know if the average person could put enough into an FSA to pay for that.

That's true, and that's what insurance was designed to help with intially: catastrophic emergencies. Your car insurance and homeowner's insurance aren't used for day-to-day costs and regular maintencance. They are only used for catastrophic problems. Can you imagine how much car and house insurance would cost if they covered oill and gas and washing and repainting and trimming the hedges? Why then do people think that health insurance should pay for every day-to-day problem that hey have?

It all occured after Medicare and Medicaid came into existence in the 60's. At that time, most health insurance didn't cover doctor's visits and only covered 80% of hospital charges. When Medicare patients started getting medical care for practically nothing, some enterprising young executive came up with a way for the insurance industry to make a killing-- the HMO was born.

I could go on for hours about this, but I won't do it right now. I need a break. When I think about the fact that some mid-level insurance executive is telling a patient right now that s/he can't have the surgery the their doctor says is necessary because it's not covered by the policy, I get angry 😡 I don't want insurance companies making deciscions about my health, but that's what is happening in America today 😱
 
scpod said:
In a fair world things would happen that way...but it's only a dream. Firms don't really care about the best workers; they want the cheapest ones. It's all about money. What measure does every single company who needs to cut back on expenses take first? It's either wage and benefit reductions or lay offs.

One of the reasons that I left the business world and went back to college to do my med school pre-reqs was that I was surrounded by very solid companies who continued to cut benefits and salaries year after year. Entry-level workers in many industries are easily replaceable. Those are the ones who have the biggest problems. If you actually find a good employee, then that's a good thing, but ALL employees are expendable these days. The good employess are given a promotion, and each one of them takes over the responsibilities of two other people who are fired. They won't teach you that in business school, but it's the way things really work. I've been in on numerous meetings where the focus was what we, as a company, can do to hire more employees and decrease wages at the same time, or how many positions can we eliminate and still get things done, or can we get rid of the current employees and hire new ones for less, etc.

The bottome line is that businesses who cut benefits and wages can and do survive-- in fact, they thrive because of reduced expenses.

I suppose we'll agree to disagree. I think right now a lot of people are suffering from firms making their health insurance too expensive, particularly firms that don't require skilled labor since these workers are easily replaceable. But I think that eventually firms will be the ones to suffer, as an uninsured population is an unhealthy one. I just don't foresee the majority of firms offering unaffordable packages combined with lower wages - they're going to have to cave on one of the two if they want domestic workers.
 
scpod said:
No sarcasm involved. If doctor X had office visits for $25 and Doctor Y had office visits for $35, then Doctor X would probably get more patients. However, if Doctor Y advertised in the newspaper with a $10 OFF coupon that includes a free diabetes screening, then Doctor X would be forced to give something else in return. That's capitolism, and it's what made this country a world leader. Let's face it, medcine is a business, but it's a business where the usual and customary charges are not controlled by the business owner. The government and insurance companies tell the owner how much s/he can make off of every customer. There is no competition in medicine; thus, no incentive to decrease the cost. As long as the government and insurance companies control the business aspect, then prices will continue to skyrocket.

It's been well documented that the free market doesn't apply to health care, for obvious reasons. Diabetes screening is one thing, but thats primary care/preventative type stuff that is low cost as it is. What's the going rate for a blood transfusion these days?
 
scpod said:
That's true, and that's what insurance was designed to help with intially: catastrophic emergencies. Your car insurance and homeowner's insurance aren't used for day-to-day costs and regular maintencance. They are only used for catastrophic problems. Can you imagine how much car and house insurance would cost if they covered oill and gas and washing and repainting and trimming the hedges? Why then do people think that health insurance should pay for every day-to-day problem that hey have?

It all occured after Medicare and Medicaid came into existence in the 60's. At that time, most health insurance didn't cover doctor's visits and only covered 80% of hospital charges. When Medicare patients started getting medical care for practically nothing, some enterprising young executive came up with a way for the insurance industry to make a killing-- the HMO was born.

I could go on for hours about this, but I won't do it right now. I need a break. When I think about the fact that some mid-level insurance executive is telling a patient right now that s/he can't have the surgery the their doctor says is necessary because it's not covered by the policy, I get angry 😡 I don't want insurance companies making deciscions about my health, but that's what is happening in America today 😱

That makes 2 of us. I still don't understand how in the world insurance companies are exempt from lawsuits (ERISA or something??). But it lets them off the hook too easily.
 
scpod said:
ALL employees are expendable these days. The good employess are given a promotion, and each one of them takes over the responsibilities of two other people who are fired. They won't teach you that in business school, but it's the way things really work. I've been in on numerous meetings where the focus was what we, as a company, can do to hire more employees and decrease wages at the same time, or how many positions can we eliminate and still get things done, or can we get rid of the current employees and hire new ones for less, etc.

The bottome line is that businesses who cut benefits and wages can and do survive-- in fact, they thrive because of reduced expenses.

Sad, but true! This is also a reason I left the business world. Business cares about the stockholder or the CEO. They really don't worry about the guy who is being paid 1/2 of the national average for a given job. And they certainly don't worry about having too few employees. Corporations feed off of the loyal worker who will constantly submit to "cross-training" while nixing benefits and co-workers. The moral of the story......."Do what your told or get the ax!"

Anyway, I think the bill in MA is a baby step in the right direction. One thing that MUST be kept in check is the insurance companies. There absolutely has to be more regulation about the cost of insurance and the awards for malpractice. For example, in states that have some type of cap for awarding Pain and Suffering the # of lawsuits is down. http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/medicalmal/

Also in the article, some state Supreme Courts find caps unconstitutional. (makes me wonder if those on the bench have stake in the insurance companies 😱 )

(Get's off soapbox and drops $.02 in the self pay meter on the way out)
 
Tiagao said:
Also in the article, some state Supreme Courts find caps unconstitutional. (makes me wonder if those on the bench have stake in the insurance companies 😱 )

It's not about the insurance company...remember what those judges were before they sat on the bench and what they will be when they leave the bench-- lawyers. The only people who are hurt by reducing malpractice awards are lawyers. Many people, however, are helped by it.
 
scpod said:
It's not about the insurance company...remember what those judges were before they sat on the bench and what they will be when they leave the bench-- lawyers. The only people who are hurt by reducing malpractice awards are lawyers. Many people, however, are helped by it.

I don't think we need to cap malpractice suits at all - in fact, theres some data on this but I cant find it now, but basically neither the number or the average cost of lawsuits has risen significantly recently. In the meantime, premiums have gone skyhigh. The whole malpractice thing seems to be something that is put on every now and then by insurers to get more money.
 
Tiagao said:
Sad, but true! This is also a reason I left the business world. Business cares about the stockholder or the CEO. They really don't worry about the guy who is being paid 1/2 of the national average for a given job.

This is why unions exist

Tiagao said:
Anyway, I think the bill in MA is a baby step in the right direction. One thing that MUST be kept in check is the insurance companies. There absolutely has to be more regulation about the cost of insurance and the awards for malpractice. For example, in states that have some type of cap for awarding Pain and Suffering the # of lawsuits is down. http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/medicalmal/

Malpractice suits aren't contributing significantly to the rising cost of health care. Killing doctor-patient relationships, yes, but increasing costs, no.
 
scpod said:
Are you really serious by thinking that the government and employers will be paying for it? Do you know where the government gets the money to pay for things? It taxes you and me. Do you know where your employer gets the money to pay for things? They pay you and me less money. The people who will actually be paying for this, then, is you and me.

This is the circular logic of the rich. One might equally say -- "Where do you think people get their money? They purchase less from corporations and demand higher wages. Therefore, cutting public services will hurt business."

Neither chain of causality accurate describes the movement of money in our economy. You can make a case for higher or lower business taxes, or better or worse public services, but it is never simply a matter of everything coming out of the little guy's pocket in the end -- that's just propaganda spread by the big guys to protect them from the little guys' votes.

BTW, not that my feelings are hurt or anything, but what was wrong with the existing thread on this topic?
 
DrMom said:
moving to the Topics in Healthcare forum ...

Ah, I see what happened.
 
Top