|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Apr 12th, 2006 08:42 AM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore | At hockey? |
| Apr 12th, 2006 07:45 AM | |
| Geggy | Dammit. Canadians alway wins. |
| Apr 12th, 2006 01:31 AM | |
| Preechr | But then they'd have to be Canadian, and NOBODY wants that. |
| Apr 11th, 2006 03:34 PM | |
| AChimp |
Massachusetts should just join Canada already if they want free healthcare. 
|
| Apr 11th, 2006 03:03 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore | Yet you were compelled to post anyway, Giggles. |
| Apr 11th, 2006 02:58 PM | |
| Geggy |
I have something to say that will make you all very, very angry. I currently have dual health insurance, one from work and one from social security, thanks to my disability. And the best thing about it is it's all legal. So I can't really have any say about this. 
|
| Apr 11th, 2006 02:27 PM | |
| mburbank | Only totally. But I'm not sure his 'corrective action' is anything more than a show for his Presiential run. He can veto and slow things down, but that's it. |
| Apr 11th, 2006 01:28 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
"My Democratic counterparts have added an annual $295 per-person fee charged to employers that do not contribute toward insurance premiums for any of their employees. The fee is unnecessary and probably counterproductive, and so I will take corrective action." So, uh, maybe I'm wrong, but won't this sort of pull the teeth out of the legislation? |
| Apr 11th, 2006 01:23 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008213 Health Care for Everyone? We've found a way. BY MITT ROMNEY Tuesday, April 11, 2006 12:01 a.m. BOSTON--Only weeks after I was elected governor, Tom Stemberg, the founder and former CEO of Staples, stopped by my office. He told me, "If you really want to help people, find a way to get everyone health insurance." I replied that would mean raising taxes and a Clinton-style government takeover of health care. He insisted: "You can find a way." I believe that we have. Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced. And we will need no new taxes, no employer mandate and no government takeover to make this happen. When I took up Tom's challenge, I assembled a team from business, academia and government and asked them first to find out who was uninsured, and why. What they found was surprising. Some 20% of the state's uninsured population qualified for Medicaid but had never signed up. So we built and installed an Internet portal for our hospitals and clinics: When uninsured individuals show up for treatment, we enter their data online. If they qualify for Medicaid, they're enrolled. Another 40% of the uninsured were earning enough to buy insurance but had chosen not to do so. Why? Because it is expensive, and because they know that if they become seriously ill, they will get free or subsidized treatment at the hospital. By law, emergency care cannot be withheld. Why pay for something you can get free? Of course, while it may be free for them, everyone else ends up paying the bill, either in higher insurance premiums or taxes. The solution we came up with was to make private health insurance much more affordable. Insurance reforms now permit policies with higher deductibles, higher copayments, coinsurance, provider networks and fewer mandated benefits like in vitro fertilization--and our insurers have committed to offer products nearly 50% less expensive. With private insurance finally affordable, I proposed that everyone must either purchase a product of their choice or demonstrate that they can pay for their own health care. It's a personal responsibility principle. Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian. Another group of uninsured citizens in Massachusetts consisted of working people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford health-care insurance. Here the answer is to provide a subsidy so they can purchase a private policy. The premium is based on ability to pay: One pays a higher amount, along a sliding scale, as one's income is higher. The big question we faced, however, was where the money for the subsidy would come from. We didn't want higher taxes; but we did have about $1 billion already in the system through a long-established uninsured-care fund that partially reimburses hospitals for free care. The fund is raised through an annual assessment on insurance providers and hospitals, plus contributions from the state and federal governments. To determine if the $1 billion would be enough, Jonathan Gruber of MIT built an econometric model of the population, and with input from insurers, my in-house team crunched the numbers. Again, the result surprised us: We needed far less than the $1 billion for the subsidies. One reason is that this population is healthier than we had imagined. Instead of single parents, most were young single males, educated and in good health. And again, because health insurance will now be affordable and subsidized, we insist that everyone purchase health insurance from one of our private insurance companies. And so, all Massachusetts citizens will have health insurance. It's a goal Democrats and Republicans share, and it has been achieved by a bipartisan effort, through market reforms. We have received some helpful enhancements. The Heritage Foundation helped craft a mechanism, a "connector," allowing citizens to purchase health insurance with pretax dollars, even if their employer makes no contribution. The connector enables pretax payments, simplifies payroll deduction, permits prorated employer contributions for part-time employees, reduces insurer marketing costs, and makes it efficient for policies to be entirely portable. Because small businesses may use the connector, it gives them even greater bargaining power than large companies. Finally, health insurance is on a level playing field. Two other features of the plan reduce the rate of health-care inflation. Medical transparency provisions will allow consumers to compare the quality, track record and cost of hospitals and providers; given deductibles and coinsurance, these consumers will have the incentive and the information for market forces to influence behavior. Also, electronic health records are in the works, which will reduce medical errors and lower costs. My Democratic counterparts have added an annual $295 per-person fee charged to employers that do not contribute toward insurance premiums for any of their employees. The fee is unnecessary and probably counterproductive, and so I will take corrective action. How much of our health-care plan applies to other states? A lot. Instead of thinking that the best way to cover the uninsured is by expanding Medicaid, they can instead reform insurance. Will it work? I'm optimistic, but time will tell. A great deal will depend on the people who implement the program. Legislative adjustments will surely be needed along the way. One great thing about federalism is that states can innovate, demonstrate and incorporate ideas from one another. Other states will learn from our experience and improve on what we've done. That's the way we'll make health care work for everyone. Mr. Romney is governor of Massachusetts. |
| Apr 8th, 2006 08:10 PM | |
| kahljorn |
"But should the government be in the business of defining what is good and bad dietary behavior? " No, obviously it should be put into the hands of researchers. Nothing the government does should be lacklusterly based on some opinion they delved out of nothingness, we pay/elect them to make thoughtful decisions based on facts and relevant, often scientific, data. I agree with the other issue you put forward, and is why I suggest the intervention in education and reinforcement. |
| Apr 8th, 2006 03:33 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
No you didn't, I think a discussion about behavior and education must go hand in hand with any talk of universal coverage. " Psychology perpetuates itself, for the most part, and there's really only a few ways to stop it. Stopping the perpetuation, the movement and force, is more important than stopping mcdonalds." But should the government be in the business of defining what is good and bad dietary behavior? This is probably my biggest problem with the idea of universal, single payer healthcare. In order for it to be effective, in order for the state to finance and be in the business of health, they need to mandate what is and isn't healthy behavior. Otherwise, You and I are paying for the guy who smokes a pack a day and eats cheeseburgers all day. That's sort of why i like this plan. It covers those who can't otherwise afford it, and mandates that those who can do so at their own expense. i'm not a big fan of the car insurance comparison, but it basically works. |
| Apr 8th, 2006 01:47 PM | |
| kahljorn |
You really think that's trying? I drew a picture of me cleaning the dishes, and lo and behold, they weren't done when I walked out there. The pyramids are nice but they still aren't really enough. Trying to scientifically discover how much every person should eat is ridiculous, especially considering everybody has a different body with different needs. If you aren't eatting what your body needs it could actually have a negative effect on your body, no matter if you're eatting fruits or vegetables(of course, it would be alot better for you than mcdonalds). I just think there should be a bigger, more responsible movement to get people healthy. I mean, remember when I posted that thing about reinforcement the other day? You can't reasonably expect people who are caught up in their lives to take the time to break the negative psychology they perpetuate, and a drawing of a pyramid certainly isn't going to do it. Kids learn from their parents. Psychology perpetuates itself, for the most part, and there's really only a few ways to stop it. Stopping the perpetuation, the movement and force, is more important than stopping mcdonalds. Anyway i totally went off-topic, I apologize. |
| Apr 8th, 2006 11:50 AM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore | The government already tries to do that. Ya know, pyramis charts and stuff? Not nearly as appealing as a McDonalds commercial. |
| Apr 7th, 2006 02:20 PM | |
| kahljorn | I think an interesting insurance plan all around would involve teaching people how to be healthy, essentially preventitive care(or what most people call "Living healthy"). |
| Apr 7th, 2006 10:16 AM | |
| mburbank |
Oh, PS. Kev; the REAL reason I didn't get in on this conversation earlier? I have insurance through work and nothing much will change for me. SO it should come as little surprise to people who really know me that while I might pretend, I don't really give a damn about the uninsured in my state. Fuck 'em. Now if W comes out against our statewide plan, THEN I'll get all angry and make really long posts about wht fuck he is, but otherwise? Fuck the uninsured, man. Just don't die where I have to step over your damn body. I bet ol' Abchdhgeadf knows about this, though. He knows everything. It makes me all swoony. Ask him. |
| Apr 7th, 2006 10:13 AM | |
| mburbank |
I'm inlcined to think it's good. We require people to have automobile insurance and we've worked that out. I'm wary though, and witholding judgement, because I''m way behind on figuring out the mechanics of how this will be handled and honestly I've found the reporting on it confusing. That means there are a LOT of folks out there who'll need to get covered who don't have clue about what's being asked of them. I also haven't heard what they'll do about folks who show up at the emergncy room ininsured. Ticket them? BUT, I think bit by bit at least Mass is trying to bull it's way through the shit towrd the possability of getting everybody medical care. In the wake of recent studies finding that everybody gets pretty shoddy medical care, insured, uninsured or privately paying, I figure we might as well give it our best slog. |
| Apr 7th, 2006 09:50 AM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
It was initially something like $900. And it's only if you have more than a certain # of employees. I think it is basically fair. The more uninsured employees you have, the greater the likelihood that they will just be a drain on the overall tax payers due to your desire to save a buck. making you cover your liability seems fair to me. |
| Apr 7th, 2006 01:52 AM | |
| kahljorn | The part about charging small businesses 300 dollars is a bit ridiculous, I doubt many small businesses could afford that and it would likely lower their workers wages. Obviously that needs to be reworked into the same format as the individual premiums. |
| Apr 7th, 2006 12:48 AM | |
| Preechr | I bet insurance companies that have been having such a hard time squeezing money out of those in their 20's understand it just fine. |
| Apr 6th, 2006 05:31 PM | |
| mburbank | The reason I haven't commented yet is it's still very, very muddy as to what it actually means and how it will actually be enforced. I don't understand how it's going to work yet. |
| Apr 6th, 2006 03:48 PM | |
| kahljorn |
Me too, and last I heard the federal government tries to interfere with the states progress as often as possible. For example, in california the medicinal marijuana bill was passed. However, not long ago the federal government declared it illegal. This means that while police officers won't fuck with you for smoking pot, a federal agent could have you arrested. Very strange. I really respect various states progress in many ways, even in states where I don't necessarily agree with what they are doing. Going off-topic a bit just to deliver an example: I don't personally give a fuck if alabama or some such state illegalizes gay marriages, as long as a gay wo/man could come to california(or some other liberal state) to live and get married. Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? |
| Apr 6th, 2006 03:40 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore | This plan only leads me to further believe that the states are doing all of the real work in this country, while the federal government holds press conferences and does Sunday talk shows. :/ |
| Apr 6th, 2006 03:36 PM | |
| kahljorn |
This is great, thanks for the interesting article. I really hope this passes. I've been to the hospitol twice over the past few years and I have a bill of over 12k. I'm never going to pay it, though, because each time I went through the process of getting medical or whatever to cover it they completely boned me out purposely. I even had the card and everything. It was kind of funny because they(probably purposely) sent this "Form" i had to fill out while I was in the hospitol to my house, and by the time I got home it was too late. The other time I don't even know what happened, but somehow I got charged despite completely going through their process to have the state cover it. |
| Apr 6th, 2006 02:27 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Mass. "universal" healthcare Or "mandate plan" as Gov. Romney apparently calls it. Max, I'm surprised you haven't brought this up. It seems to be some of the only truly good news we have to talk about. What's your take on it, being a state resident and all? I read that it'll cover 95% of the state, which would be 5% better than I think Hawaii...? http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health...1812147&page=1 Massachusetts to Vote on Universal Health Care Under State Plan, Everyone Making Above $9,500 Would Pay Something April 6, 2006 — - Joseph Landais, his wife and three children are among the more than 500,000 Massachusetts residents without health insurance. So when the Landaises need a doctor, they head straight to the emergency room, which isn't a good solution for them or the hospital. "My sister … broke her leg from about three years ago, and we're still paying off that bill," said Christine Landais, Joseph Landais' daughter. "It clogs the system up, and we get a backlog," said Dr. David M. Barrett, president and chief executive officer of Lahey Clinic, which is based in Burlington, Mass. "It's not unusual for people to have to wait four, five hours for care." Under the new system, residents who made less than $9,500 a year would get free health insurance. Those making $54,000 would pay the premium for the new health-care policy, which would be around $200 per month. Those making less than $54,000 would pay only a portion of the premium. For example, someone making $15,000 a year would pay $2.31 a week. "Everybody pays something. No more entire free rides," Gov. Mitt Romney said. "Everybody pays what they can afford." The new law also would require small-business owners who didn't provide their employees with health insurance to pay $300 per worker each year into a state fund. That doesn't sit well with Betty Ann Wasilunas. "You want me to start picking up people's insurance?" said Wasilunas, who owns Vissoi Salon in Westwood, Mass. "I think it's out of this world. I think it's crazy!" Still, many experts say after years of failed attempts in several states and by the federal government, the Massachusetts bill, which stresses individual responsibility, could serve as a national model -- and that's good news for the Landais family. How can Massachusetts afford to do this? "We spend roughly $1 billion a year providing free health care to people who don't have insurance, and the cost of helping those people buy insurance is closer to $650 million," Romney said. The state government would keep any money it saved in a special pool in case it incorrectly calculated the cost of universal health care, according to Romney. "Ultimately, we believe that people having insurance will mean people can go to their primary-care physician and clinic first and that means better health-care treatment," Romney said. "People who have insurance go to the hospital far less often and have much lower charges than people without it." Some people are speculating that Romney, a Republican, will run for president in 2008, but Romney said he's "not sure of future plans at this stage." He said he was pleased that as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, he was able to "introduce a plan to get everybody insured, work with the legislature to come up with a plan … to get the job done." "People want problem solving at the state and federal level," Romney said. "I hope that [this] is at least passed on to other states." Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures |
