Congressman Paul: Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right

[DarkReign]

Speaking of " wits."

If this legislation is pushed through (its starting to get dicey), the guy makes a good point.

I cant believe this is even a conversation. With any hope, this will be pushed off until 2010 when jobs are at stake with each signature.

[Supergirl]

Here's what friends in Canada and London have told me about their state-funded, universal health care: "It's great in an emergency, because you can be seen anywhere, anytime. It's a pain for a regular appointment because it often takes a long time. But it's definitely worth it."

That seems pretty logical, actually, and is pretty consistently the message I've gotten from my not-statistically valid sample size of friends and acqaintances.

HOWEVER - and this is a big HOWEVER - WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Repeat after me: We are not going to have socialized medicine. For better or for worse, depending on your viewpoint. Obama has never proposed anything even remotely close to what Canada and Britain have. He has proposed something that is a lot more similar to what Massachusetts currently has: A "uniquely American" hybrid model which includes state-funded health care for the poorest and/or elderly/disabled residents, but also requires the rest of us to have health insurance, either through our employers or through purchasing it. If you purchase it, you have a premium based on your income. If you make less than 35K a year, you get insurance free (Mass Health - state subsidized) to you, if you make more, you get bumped up to Commonwealth Care, which offers a wide variety of plans depending on your needs and for pretty reasonable premiums.

In case you're interested, my employer offers insurance through Tufts, so that's what I have.

[Marcus Bryant]

If this legislation is pushed through (its starting to get dicey), the guy makes a good point.

Sure. The source of the great "cost savings" touted by every half wit with the state's nuts on his chin.

I cant believe this is even a conversation. With any hope, this will be pushed off until 2010 when jobs are at stake with each signature.

At this point, I can. We'll have to go through some regress before true progress can resume.

[ElNono]

Here's what friends in Canada and London have told me about their state-funded, universal health care: "It's great in an emergency, because you can be seen anywhere, anytime. It's a pain for a regular appointment because it often takes a long time. But it's definitely worth it."

That seems pretty logical, actually, and is pretty consistently the message I've gotten from my not-statistically valid sample size of friends and acqaintances.

HOWEVER - and this is a big HOWEVER - WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Repeat after me: We are not going to have socialized medicine. For better or for worse, depending on your viewpoint. Obama has never proposed anything even remotely close to what Canada and Britain have. He has proposed something that is a lot more similar to what Massachusetts currently has: A "uniquely American" hybrid model which includes state-funded health care for the poorest and/or elderly/disabled residents, but also requires the rest of us to have health insurance, either through our employers or through purchasing it. If you purchase it, you have a premium based on your income. If you make less than 35K a year, you get insurance free (Mass Health - state subsidized) to you, if you make more, you get bumped up to Commonwealth Care, which offers a wide variety of plans depending on your needs and for pretty reasonable premiums.

In case you're interested, my employer offers insurance through Tufts, so that's what I have.

I don't think Obama's proposition matches what's currently circulating in Congress right now. And THAT is the problem.
Excerpted from this article:

In recent weeks, polls have shown that a solid majority of Americans support the stated goals of health reform. Most want the uninsured to be covered and want the option of a government-run insurance plan. Yet the polls also show that people are worried about the package emerging from Congress.

[Marcus Bryant]

Polls are great. How about we scrap the Cons ution and use those to form our government?

[ElNono]

Polls are great. How about we scrap the Cons ution and use those to form our government?

Are you suggesting we're not doing that already?

[Marcus Bryant]

Are you suggesting we're not doing that already?

Good. Your vision is not totally obscured.

[Spursmania]

Here's what friends in Canada and London have told me about their state-funded, universal health care: "It's great in an emergency, because you can be seen anywhere, anytime. It's a pain for a regular appointment because it often takes a long time. But it's definitely worth it."

That seems pretty logical, actually, and is pretty consistently the message I've gotten from my not-statistically valid sample size of friends and acqaintances.

HOWEVER - and this is a big HOWEVER - WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Repeat after me: We are not going to have socialized medicine. For better or for worse, depending on your viewpoint. Obama has never proposed anything even remotely close to what Canada and Britain have. He has proposed something that is a lot more similar to what Massachusetts currently has: A "uniquely American" hybrid model which includes state-funded health care for the poorest and/or elderly/disabled residents, but also requires the rest of us to have health insurance, either through our employers or through purchasing it. If you purchase it, you have a premium based on your income. If you make less than 35K a year, you get insurance free (Mass Health - state subsidized) to you, if you make more, you get bumped up to Commonwealth Care, which offers a wide variety of plans depending on your needs and for pretty reasonable premiums.

In case you're interested, my employer offers insurance through Tufts, so that's what I have.

Do you have any clue as to what is happening in Mass. because if you did, it would be extremely illogical to point to that system as a model of reform. They are going broke and dropping people from the plan, The hospitals and Doctors are now suing the states for lack of payments, etc...

As a matter of fact, the Mass. plan is being used as an example of a failure by those who do not want government take over healthcare.

[SonOfAGun]

Polls are great. How about we scrap the Cons ution and use those to form our government?

Didn't you hear? The United States Cons ution is a living breathing do ent meant to be altered according to the public opinion of the current time.

[Spursmania]

Here's what friends in Canada and London have told me about their state-funded, universal health care: "It's great in an emergency, because you can be seen anywhere, anytime. It's a pain for a regular appointment because it often takes a long time. But it's definitely worth it."

Everybody in the US can get emergency care anytime and in any hospital. So, how is this better or different from the system we already have?

Clearly, your friends mention how long a wait time it is for a regular appointment thereby validating the views of opponents to the reform bill. So , how does it make sense to pass a bill that will bring us longer waiting times to see a Dr. for a regular appointment? I don't see how this improves our health care in the US. This would be tantamount to rationing which even the experts admit will have to occur under this reform.

[Supergirl]

Everybody in the US can get emergency care anytime and in any hospital. So, how is this better or different from the system we already have?

THIS is exactly what is contributing to the financial decline of our country. Because poor people with no health insurance go to the ER whenever they are sick - BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE. It is about 200 times more expensive to be seen in the ER than to have regular doctor's appts and preventative care.

[Supergirl]

Do you have any clue as to what is happening in Mass. because if you did, it would be extremely illogical to point to that system as a model of reform. They are going broke and dropping people from the plan, The hospitals and Doctors are now suing the states for lack of payments, etc...

As a matter of fact, the Mass. plan is being used as an example of a failure by those who do not want government take over healthcare.

Uh...links? Because I LIVE in Massachusetts and have lived here for the last decade. Not only that I WORK in the health care industry and see the ins and outs of it on a daily basis.

We have financial problems like every other state in the country, but people are not being dropped by insurance and while our current model has signficant problems to work out, it is FAR BETTER than anything else any other state in the country has right now.

[Spursmania]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/15insure.html

Massachusetts in Suit Over Cost of Universal Care
By ABBY GOODNOUGH


Published: July 15, 2009
BOSTON — A hospital that serves thousands of indigent Massachusetts residents sued the state on Wednesday, charging that its costly universal health care law is forcing the hospital to cover too much of the expense of caring for the poor.
The hospital, Boston Medical Center, faces a $38 million deficit for the fiscal year ending in September, its first loss in five years. The suit says the hospital will lose more than $100 million next year because the state has lowered Medicaid reimbursement rates and stopped paying Boston Medical “reasonable costs” for treating other poor patients.
“We filed this suit more in sorrow than in anger,” said Elaine Ullian, the hospital’s chief executive. “We believe in health care reform to the bottom of our toes, but it was never, ever supposed to be financed on the backs of the poor, and that’s what has happened in Massachusetts.”
The central charge in the suit is that the state has siphoned money away from Boston Medical to help pay the considerable cost of insuring all but a small percentage of residents. Three years after the law’s passage, Massachusetts has the country’s lowest percentage of uninsured residents: 2.6 percent, compared with a national average of 15 percent.
Low-income residents, who have benefited most from expanded access to health care, receive state-subsidized insurance, one of the most expensive aspects of the state plan. But rapidly rising costs and the battered economy have caused more problems than the state and supporters of the 2006 law — including Boston Medical — anticipated.
According to the suit, Massachusetts is now reimbursing Boston Medical only 64 cents for every dollar it spends treating the poor. About 10 percent of the hospital’s patients are uninsured — down from about 20 percent before the law’s passage in 2006. But many more are on Medicaid or Commonwealth Care, the state-subsidized insurance program for low-income residents.
One of the state’s reimbursement rates to Boston Medical, dropped from $12, 476 in 2008 to $9,323 by 2009, the suit says.
Wendy E. Parmet, a professor at the Northeastern University School of Law, said the suit was “a step in a wider minuet” as state lawmakers, health care providers and other stakeholders try to figure out how to make the new law work in the long term.
“I think it’s going to be a very hard lawsuit for them to prevail on,” Professor Parmet said of the hospital. “I think they’re trying to bring another weapon into what is essentially, in many ways, a political and economic battle going on in the state about how to pay for health care, and making sure their voice gets heard.”
The suit comes as Congress looks to Massachusetts as a potential model for overhauling the nation’s health care system. Even before the suit, the state’s fiscal crisis had cast doubts on the law’s sustainability.
To help close a growing deficit, the Democratic-controlled Legislature eliminated coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants in the new state budget. Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, is seeking to restore about half of the $130 million cut, but lawmakers have expressed reluctance, saying that doing so would require cuts to other important programs.
State officials expressed surprise at the lawsuit, saying that Boston Medical received $1.5 billion in state funds in the past year and should not be seeking more in the midst of a fiscal crisis.
“At a time when everyone funded and served by state government is being asked to do more with less, B.M.C. has been treated no differently,” said Dr. JudyAnn Bigby, the state secretary of health and human services, in a prepared statement. “We are confident that the administration’s actions in this area comply with all applicable law and will be upheld.”
State officials have suggested that Boston Medical could reduce costs by operating more efficiently. The state has also pointed out that the hospital has reserves of about $190 million, but Tom Traylor, the hospital’s vice president of federal and state programs, said the reserves could only sustain the hospital for about a year.
“The magnitude of the loss here can’t be solved on the program-cutting or expense-cutting side,” Mr. Traylor said. Professor Parmet said the hospital’s dissatisfaction with the new law should be a warning to Congress that “insurance alone doesn’t solve the problems” of the health care system. In fact, she said, it might exacerbate the financial problems of safety-net hospitals in the short term.
Katie Zezima contributed reporting

[Spursmania]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/15insure.html

[Spursmania]

Posted links-figured out how to post them instead of entire articles.

[101A]

It is about 200 times more expensive to be seen in the ER than to have regular doctor's appts and preventative care.

Welcome, Supergirl, to 1994.

200 times is gross exaggeration and hyperbole - and many ER's have attached clinics, run much like normal doctor's offices for non-emergency services.