The Model for The Affordable Healthcare Act is a Success (medical, plan)

[livecontent]

The model that was used for The Affordable Healthcare Act was the Massachusetts Health Law that was created when Romney was Governor of Massachusetts; he signed it into law. He now goes around and attacks "Obamacare" but what is the real truth of the law he approved in Massachusetts. The real telling truth is that the Massachusetts Health Law has proved to be a success.

Mass. Health Law May Bode Well for Federal Law - US News and World Report

Now Romney wants to repeal a law that will give all of us the same benefits as the people of Massachusetts. You have to ask yourself; is his motives for the welfare of all Americans or the he is just using an unjustly inflamed opposition for votes to get himself elected. Whatever the truth, the model of this law is working well.

Livecontent

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by livecontent

. Whatever the truth, the model of this law is working well.

Livecontent

Woring well?

Keep in mind, this 'successful" plan dropped 30,000 of it's residents in a cost saving measure in 2009....just 3 years into the plan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/15insure.html
"The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage just as Congress looks to the state as a model for overhauling the nation’s health care system."

I believe there was a succesful lawsuit that just recently reversed this but now Mass has to figure out how to pay for it.

[Ariadne22]

This video is well worth watching.

Supreme Court Ruling on Affordable Care Act - C-SPAN Video Library

Apparently, there are very clear legal holes in the "employer" mandate. If the federal govt sets up the exchanges instead of the states, the employers do NOT pay a fine if their employees are not covered. Many GOP states are not setting up the exchanges. When the GOP states realize this loophole favors employers (if true), they won't.

Other interesting points here, as well, among them SEIU in NY dropped dependent coverage for children.

http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/1...-for-children/

Not sure if this was ever rectified. A lot covered. Not saying this is gospel, but worth a listen, more than once.

Supreme Court Ruling on Affordable Care Act - C-SPAN Video Library

About 1.5 hours. Their estimate, 25 million will remain without coverage.

[Robyn55]

I guess another thing to keep in mind is that although Massachusetts seems to have achieved a high level of coverage (noting on the other hand that it started from a very high base number compared to many other states) - it is still grappling with the issue of costs (health care costs there are among the highest in the US and the state legislature is currently trying to hammer out a bill to deal with those costs):

Massachusetts health care reform enters new phase - Worcester Telegram & Gazette - telegram.com

I guess it's also important to keep in mind that Massachusetts doesn't have large deep pockets of poverty - or large numbers of illegal immigrants. It's also important to keep in mind that Massachusetts (especially in the Boston area) has many "high-priced spread" major medical centers affiliated with university medical schools. And I think these institutions are still in the process of sorting out how various state and local laws/changes in the laws will affect them.

For years - many places like this (not only in Massachusetts but elsewhere) have simply tried to look like "nice guys" by treating indigents (or people with low-paying plans - like Medicaid) because they could do massive cost-shifting (to private plans - Medicare - etc.). Those days are coming to an end. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Here's what is happening in Florida. With Jackson Memorial Hospital (which used to be the main teaching hospital for the University of Miami and is still now hanging on by its fingernails):

Jackson Health: Miami Hospital System In 'Death Spiral'

And with Shands UF Gainesville (which is still kind of alive and well but cutting back on indigent services):

Shands looking at cuts in care | Ocala.com

FWIW - when I speak of massive cost-shifting - I speak from personal experience. My husband went to UF Shands JAX once after we moved here (because his old neurologist in Miami recommended a neurologist there). He had an EMG (relatively simple procedure) and a doctor consult. And we received a bill for five point five frigging thousand dollars!!!!! I think that bill paid for about 100 uninsured/under-insured patient visits.

Finally - I do not at all understand the concept of paying doctors and hospitals for results - and not procedures. Especially if I have something serious going on. Like if I present with stage 4 breast cancer or stage 3 lung cancer or stage 3 pancreatic cancer - and I die even if the providers do their best - does that mean the provider doesn't get paid - or gets paid less - because I die (even though I'm statistically likely to die no matter what anyone does)? There is something about this way of compensating providers that doesn't compute to me. Won't this means of compensation discourage providers from treating sicker (and in many cases older) patients? Robyn

[golfgal]

Some of these concerns are being addressed with Obama's plan to grant amnesty to young people that are hear illegally because of their parents. It will allow these kids, who have grown up next to your kids, to prosper which can only help the US in the long run.

[Robyn55]

The plan you're talking about is not amnesty (at least according to President Obama):

“Now let’s be clear: this is not an amnesty,” Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden, anticipating the Republican response. “This is not a path to citizenship. It is not a permanent fix.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us...pagewanted=all

From everything I've read - all this policy does is stop the deportation of certain people who aren't in the country legally - and allow them to get temporary work permits (for 2 years at a time IIRC). IOW - it doesn't change the legal status of these people. So - unless they get health insurance voluntarily paid for by their employers from any jobs they might get with their temporary work permits - they won't have health insurance. And we're right back where we are now. Robyn