Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-24-2011, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,734 posts, read 40,783,268 times
Reputation: 61948

Advertisements

Romneycare has been in effect for 5 yeasrs so now it is being studied.

"Researchers at the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) at Suffolk University in Boston found that the Bay State healthcare reform plan has led to increased healthcare expenditures and private health insurance costs, as well as additional payments for Medicare and Medicaid, for a total of $8.5 billion in new outlays...But the state has been able to shift the majority of the costs to the federal government, which continues to absorb a significant part of the cost of healthcare reform through enhanced Medicaid payments and the Medicare program — meaning Americans outside Massachusetts are helping to pay the bills for the healthcare plan."


State healthcare expenditures up $414 million over the five-year period.

Private health insurance costs up by $4.31 billion.

Federal government has spent an additional $2.41 billion on Medicaid in Massachusetts.

Medicare expenditures up by $1.42 billion.

http://news.newsmax.com/?ZK4RYbG775A...6BBJ7kQlzxJRAZ

"Anyone who believes ObamaCare will mean lower healthcare costs and higher-quality healthcare has only to look to the state that has been suffering under the prototype for ObamaCare for the past five years to be disabused of such notions. Massachusetts’ healthcare costs far exceed those of other states; and now Bay State legislators and Gov. Deval Patrick (D) are resorting to the age-old, destined-to-fail approach to high costs: price controls. The result, of course, will be a shortage of quality healthcare...Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that average insurance premiums in Massachusetts are the highest in the nation; small business costs have increased by 5.8 percent since RomneyCare was instituted; and per capita health spending is 27 percent higher than the national average (15 percent higher when adjusted for local wages and research grants)."

RomneyCare Brings High Healthcare Costs, Calls for Price Controls (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/8041-romneycare-brings-high-healthcare-costs-calls-for-price-controls - broken link)

What's disturbing is Romney is sticking by this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-24-2011, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Austin
4,105 posts, read 8,258,726 times
Reputation: 2134
Wow, I never knew Massachusetts took in more money from the feds than it put in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2011, 01:15 PM
 
14,250 posts, read 17,848,223 times
Reputation: 13807
It does not mean that we do not need healthcare reform. Just that the Massachusetts experiment is not the way to do it. Trying to layer UHC over an already broken system is not the answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2011, 01:34 PM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,342,039 times
Reputation: 2922
I can imagine a debate against Romney and Obama.

Romney " One of the reasons you should not vote for the POTUS is his health care plan that was modeled by my state and I signed into law. Look at Mass HC now it is a total disaster do you want that for the whole country"

Anyway, the facts prove that it is not working as advertised, it did not lower cost and make it more affordable. I usually have a strong opinion and ideas on everything but when it comes to HC the issue is too complicated. The best idea that I liked and made sense came from Max Baucus {D} who wanted the creation of non profit insurance providers to be part of the exchange. Sounds logical the non profits would give the for profit some competition and would result in lower cost.

Some will say that will put the insurance companies out of business, answer who cares the country is trying to reign in cost and not so much worried about profits on our ailments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2011, 01:38 PM
 
46,757 posts, read 25,681,251 times
Reputation: 29277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade View Post
The best idea that I liked and made sense came from Max Baucus {D} who wanted the creation of non profit insurance providers to be part of the exchange. Sounds logical the non profits would give the for profit some competition and would result in lower cost.
That pretty much describes the German model, but Heaven forbid the US emulates a model that has worked since the 1840s.

Quote:
Some will say that will put the insurance companies out of business, answer who cares the country is trying to reign in cost and not so much worried about profits on our ailments.
They can learn a useful skill, I'm sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2011, 01:40 PM
 
14,250 posts, read 17,848,223 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade View Post
I can imagine a debate against Romney and Obama.

Romney " One of the reasons you should not vote for the POTUS is his health care plan that was modeled by my state and I signed into law. Look at Mass HC now it is a total disaster do you want that for the whole country"

Anyway, the facts prove that it is not working as advertised, it did not lower cost and make it more affordable. I usually have a strong opinion and ideas on everything but when it comes to HC the issue is too complicated. The best idea that I liked and made sense came from Max Baucus {D} who wanted the creation of non profit insurance providers to be part of the exchange. Sounds logical the non profits would give the for profit some competition and would result in lower cost.

Some will say that will put the insurance companies out of business, answer who cares the country is trying to reign in cost and not so much worried about profits on our ailments.
Good post. I would add that another practical reform would be to simplify rates and billing structure with a view to reducing the inordinately high cost of administration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2011, 01:44 PM
 
Location: London UK & Florida USA
7,923 posts, read 8,815,551 times
Reputation: 2059
Anyone who doesn't realise how much employment would come from a UHC or still want to hold onto the most expensive and least efficient health care system of all industrialised nations must be sooo brainwashed that Nothing...not eaven seeing how other systems are successful and work and are less expensive than the present system in the USA..... NOTHING will change their minds.
Only extremely poor third world countries have worse healthcare than the USA ...... What a great achievement!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2011, 03:08 PM
 
Location: SC
9,101 posts, read 16,391,930 times
Reputation: 3619
I have witnessed first hand the hole Massachusetts dug itself into both before during and after Romneycare as an independent health insurance agent in Massachusetts.

It is unfortunate that the worst run states when it comes to health insurance happen to also be in the states where the Media are based or we might have been able to avoid this whole silly health care "crisis" if states like New York and Massachusetts hadn't projected their problems due to bad decisions made by their legislators that ruined the regulatory environment in their state, on to other states.

As is ALWAYS the case with any industry the government gets involved in quality goes down and costs skyrocket. Health insurance is no different.

When you look at the states that have allowed the free market to work when it comes to health insurance, you see lots of carriers doing business in that state, you see affordable rates and LOTS of choices of plans. You also see High Risk Health Insurance Pools so that people that fall through the cracks and find themselves with an severe chronic or degenerative disease without health insurance can get it from the high risk pool at a reasonable rate.

The stubborn states where government has gotten over involved and the regulatory environment is suffocating to carriers. You see ZERO high risk pools, few carriers wanting to do business in these states that choose to leave for friendlier states.

The answer to Massachusetts' less than desirable health care situation is right next door in New Hampshire which has one of the most successful high risk pools in the country.

If Obama was smart and really wanted a successful model for a national healthcare program , he would have chosen New Hampshire.

There is another big factor that has drastically increased costs and reduced peoples protection and that is the false belief people seem to hold that a low deductible co-pay plan is the "best" kind of plan they can buy. NO WAY. People have been given TERRIBLE ADVICE about this. You get ZERO PROTECTION for out of pocket costs when it comes to co-pays with these AWFUL and Extremely overpriced co-pay plans. Not only are you paying thousands of dollars more every year in premiums, if you are unlucky enough and have to be on a bunch of Rx, your prescription drug co-pays could add up to several hundred dollars even thousands of dollars per month! You'd be FAR BETTER OFF with a plan that will eventually pay for all of your prescriptions that is Health Savings Account Qualifed.
There are NO EXCEPTIONS. You will ALWAYS get MORE PROTECTION FOR YOUR MONEY with an HSA compatible plan than ANY co-pay plan with unlimited co-pays.

Example: A man from Massachusetts recently contacted me. He was on $25k worth of prescriptions EVERY MONTH. His individual premiums in Massachusetts were $1000 per month for a co-pay plan with a $1000 deductible. His premiums were $12,000 per year and his co-pays added up to roughly $8000. I pointed out that if he had an HSA compatible plan with a $5000 deductible that only cost $4000 per year he'd be a lot better off. Rather than his plan and all the co-pays costing $20k per year, getting a sensible plan with STOP-LOSS protection that would cover his Rx 100% after he reached the out of pocket maximum he'd have saved a bundle of money -- having only paid $5000 for the deductible plus $4800 for the insurance premiums or $9800 not including another $1000 he would have saved in taxes that he wouldn't have been able to staying with the co-pay plan. NOT TOO SHABBY. I showed this man how to save roughly $11,000 per year and get a better quality plan to boot !!!! The good news is until the government takes away Health Savings Account compatible insurance plans, everyone can upgrade their protection and DRASTICALLY lower their costs

Moral of the story: When it comes to health insurance and especially co-pay plans you do NOT always get what you pay for.

Last edited by emilybh; 07-24-2011 at 03:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2011, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Portlandia "burbs"
10,229 posts, read 16,235,990 times
Reputation: 26005
I think it is too late to come up with ANY plan or strategy to fix this problem. It is AT LEAST 25 YEARS TOO LATE!!!! I can remember panic over the costs in rising health care CLEAR BACK INTO THE 80'S (and my employer then was paying horrific premiums)! I don't know what Hilary's plan was but it was already too late by then. No leader or law-maker, or even lobbyists, seemed concerned or even saw the problem ~ they all sat and did absolutely nothing (just as was done with illegal immigration, which started in the early-80's).

Of course Rominey's plan isn't that successful ~ it is not affordable! I don't know about most people, but insurance rates of more than $200 a month is NOT something I could pay for! In fact, I couldn't even pay for that now! When an out of pocket premium of $400 is considered "cheap", something is damn wrong.

A number of things figure in to the causes besides high profits: 1) High costs of medical care, Period, all-around. Why does a mri have to cost so much??? 1) Wages. I have a niece who earns $40 or more an hour as a nurse in a hospital. 2) The insureds ~ us ~ go to the doctors for every little thing. Although yes, the population in general does get sick a lot more often. 3) Modern culture has made the stupid decision that we need to try and live forever. But that requires a lot of medical maintenance.

If this problem is fixable, it will take a long time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2011, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,807 posts, read 4,255,627 times
Reputation: 3984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
That pretty much describes the German model, but Heaven forbid the US emulates a model that has worked since the 1840s.

They can learn a useful skill, I'm sure.
Heaven forbid someone actually pay for their own healthcare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top