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.
I'm new to all of this, but did not realize MassHealth stepped in and covered those who are denied Medicaid- doesn't that essentially mean you aren't poor enough to have Medicaid? So why are you poor enough to have Masshealth?
Because there's a HUGE gap in between qualifying for Medicaid and affording health insurance - especially in areas with high COL like eastern Mass.
Grouped in there as well are people with preexisting conditions who cannot afford or are denied private insurance.
"Quantification from a reliable source please. My source is from high-level hospital execs (that are relatives), in the industry in the state, and doing a quick on-line search will repudiate your claim...."
Are you referring to Steward Health Care System/Cerberus Capital Management? Yes they currently have 10 Hospitals under their control, 2,500 Doctors and 15,000 employees. Their model is the purchase financially failing hospitals and it remains to be seen how successful that model will be, but they are an emerging player.
Other than that outfit there is no major player in the private healthcare industry in Massachusetts who would be of any threat to the current Non-Profit Systems like Partners, BI, Children's, Dana Farber, etc...and I do understand this industry quite well as I am a Budget/Finance Director at the largest Healthcare system in the State.
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
So do you also advocate the abolishing Social Security?
Yes.
Public Education?
As long as I don't have to pay for it. (no one, other than the family, paid for mine. Don't ask me to pay for yours).
Property and Income Taxes?
Only those taxes that don't cover military protection, police/fire/road services. I am a fan of 'pay for what you use, or benefits you', like a VAT
Federal protection via FDA, EPA etc?
Gladly pay Federal tax for those. 'pay for what you use'. I eat food, I don't like it when someone dumps MTBE... etc
Mandating auto insurance or driver's ed or minimum age requirements?
Those are fine. Doesn't cost me a thing. (Having no insurance is an IQ test). All those things are legal requirements.
And you are correct, you are not owed any of this. But from instituting child labor laws to 40 hour work weeks to clean air and water requirements to safer automobiles and highways to product safety oversight, when done with proper balance the Federal Government's involvement is necessary.
True, but the topic here is healthcare. Non sequitur.
A true "wild West" every man for themselves way of life would have unforeseen bad consequences for you.
Possibly, but not necessarily.
Civilized societies care for those who are less fortunate. An enlightened society provides a way for them to become "fishermen" instead of simply being fish consumers.
Well, the way our government is working, we all can turn into fat, dumb happy fish consumers. Let me transfer all assets out of my name (oops, already did), appear financially destitute, demonstrate I am unemployable, and as the Three Stooges stated "Nothing to do but eat and sleep and live off the fat of the land."
I don't know anyone who likes the waste in some of our welfare programs just like I know those who have personal pride do not like accepting welfare unless truly necessary.
Hopefully Romney returns to moderate politics once he is done pandering to the knee jerk conservative movement.
First and foremost we have to understand that having coverage does not specifically mean that costs go down. The vast majority of states require car insurance to drive a car on public roads (which is the majority..it would be nearly impossible to make a network of private roads). NH does not require it but the premiums they have are actually LESS that in Mass. Why is that? Well because insurance in some cases can cause moral hazard.
Recently a women died in a car crash and her friends were on tv saying "We know she was wearing her seat belt" as if somehow that gives permission to speed or drive recklessly or to not pay attention to the road.
If the government subsidizes demand then prices go up. I'll tell you about several cases of this
1) student loans. The government makes it very easy to get student loans. You just sign up and pretty much get it. But because nearly everyone qualifies it means that schools get swamped with people. There are limited numbers of teachers, staff and buildings so naturally to compensate for larger classrooms and a higher workload they (public unions mostly and I cannot blame them to be honest) want more money. But then this become circular. You need loans to pay for schools because loans cause it to go up. There's no competition between schools as ultimately if you want to take out loans to go to a higher cost school you can (provided the grades get you in) The medium debt is about $24k but I have met some that graduated law school with 100k debt.
2) Remember cash for clunkers? The argument was that funds would be given to those trading in cars with a low mpg to get one with a higher mpg. But the problem with this was multifold. The new cars hardly had that much of a gain 0.7mpg! Now people are stuck with debt on cars they didn't need to begin with...and because the used cars were destroyed it drove up the price of used cars for everyone else!
How can prices go down? Here's a few examples
3) Eye laser surgery. There is no government funding for this and yet the rates have declined dramatically. Competition drove prices down with new techniques and people with more experience
2) Electronics. The price of computers and other technologies has dropped like a rock. A micro sd chip the size of my pinky finger nail holds 16gb...8 times the amount of space of the hard drive in my first computer I bought in 1996!. Competition drives prices down. No one is given free money to buy anything within this.
The problem with healthcare is that we never looked what the problems were and what causes those problems. it is expensive...ok why.. well here's a few reasons
1) States license doctors. If we want more doctors they have to license more
2) You could not and still cannot buy insurance across state lines. How much sense does that make in the world where tech support comes from india, fuel from south america and tv's from asia ?
3) Growing longevity and growing populations means more people will find themselves in conditions that did not exist in the past. The numbers of say 90+ year olds with Alzheimer was much lower 50 years ago then it is today or it simply didn't happen.
4) Some states do not allow drug store clinics to operate? why? A strep throat does not require a doctor to tell them to take a certain prescription.
5) The money in medical care is more on specialty care rather than general. This extends even to animal care. If you live in a rural area and deliver a baby cow you will hardly get paid much. But if you want to construct new legs for a cat or a dog that is where the money is. Likewise Boston is pretty much one of the top if not THE top place for specialist care on the planet.
A health care plan does not automatically make people healthier. There is a difference between a cost benefit analysis and a cost effective analysis. Insurance did not cause people to quit smoking, drinking, doing drugs or start exercising. Habitual actions combined with the environment (I'd say we've done a fair job in Mass on that vs the past) and diet -the government has mandated consumer information be provided..there isn't that much else they can do...pink slime was removed due to cries from the consumer, not government.
I am a graduate student in healthcare administration at one of the top programs in the state, in addition to volunteering extensively in nonprofits/hospitals focusing on healthcare and working in the alumni office of my undergrad alma mater where I have a lot of contact with major players in the Mass healthcare and insurance industries. Are you sure your relatives aren't a plot device to prove your point? Because they're outright lying if what you say is true.
You don't have to be an academic to see that the main nonprofit players aren't in any danger - and are in fact growing rapidly. People travel from all over the world to go to Dana Farber, MGH, BIDMC, Mass Ear and Eye, etc. The Partners system is not going to go away, and in fact is only getting more and more widespread. My cancer center was appropriated about 4 years ago by a Partners public hospital. Previously, it was a private practice.
Notice how you can't find many private practices anymore?
Nonprofit hospital partnerships, like Partners, is the trend that healthcare is going in. Hospitals are no longer the brick building on the hill that you only go to if you're really sick - they house everything from overnight care to specialists to PCPS/pediatricians for well visits. That is the overwhelming trend. If your "relatives" say otherwise, you might want to get prepared to help them financially when they lose their jobs.
Second on the "private" hospitals. Has not happened largely in Mass., and has failed each time, as in Metrowest, and others. Hospitals are joining into consortiums for many reasons, including power to negotiate rates, including the one where I work.
Yes, third-party involvement makes costs go up, as in student loans, etc. But with healthcare, there is already a third-party involved, and that's insurance companies. Makes it very difficult to opt out of the system because of the third party involvement.
Limiting insured access to tiered hospitals is one way to start lowering costs. Getting rid of "cookbook algorithims" for symptoms to defend against lawsuits is a good way to go, and end-of-life discussions should be routine everywhere. Tort reform a good thing, too. Where is it?
"As long as I don't have to pay for it. (no one, other than the family, paid for mine. Don't ask me to pay for yours)."
Did this poster go to private school from first grade on? Or do I misunderstand?
We all benefit from things like public education and a high baseline for healthcare. Those do not exist in a vacuum - even if you were in private school and had no children, or if you never get so much as a sniffle. Look at the youth crime rates in the summer versus during the school year, as a really striking example. And what about the spread of previously eradicated diseases because people chose not to vaccinate?
If someone is walking around with TB and is not able to afford going to the doctor to get it fixed, that's a microcosm of a health crisis. Let's not even talk about the morality of letting a person die because they cannot afford treatment for their curable/treatable illness - it's simply in the public good to keep members of society healthy so as not to spread disease and to keep the population productive.
Massachusetts has one of the most well educated populations with a low unemployment rate as compared to the rest of the country. If you don't like Massachusetts' general concern for others, move to another state. See if you prefer that kind of society. It's not nearly as difficult as moving to another country, as those of us who are concerned about these matters are often told to do.
"Quantification from a reliable source please. My source is from high-level hospital execs (that are relatives), in the industry in the state, and doing a quick on-line search will repudiate your claim...."
Are you referring to Steward Health Care System/Cerberus Capital Management? Yes they currently have 10 Hospitals under their control, 2,500 Doctors and 15,000 employees. Their model is the purchase financially failing hospitals and it remains to be seen how successful that model will be, but they are an emerging player.
Cerberus grabbed the Christi Health Care system in 2010... (2nd largest in New England), and yes, it is now Steward (as, given your position you are fully aware).
This isn't an all-out blitzkrieg... just happens slowly but steadily. Slow and steady wins the race.
Other than that outfit there is no major player in the private healthcare industry in Massachusetts who would be of any threat to the current Non-Profit Systems like Partners, BI, Children's, Dana Farber, etc...and I do understand this industry quite well as I am a Budget/Finance Director at the largest Healthcare system in the State.
I am a graduate student in healthcare administration at one of the top programs in the state, in addition to volunteering extensively in nonprofits/hospitals focusing on healthcare and working in the alumni office of my undergrad alma mater where I have a lot of contact with major players in the Mass healthcare and insurance industries. Are you sure your relatives aren't a plot device to prove your point? Because they're outright lying if what you say is true.
A plot device? I would tell you who my SO is who feeds me this info, as the person has been CEO of a few of the rather large hospitals in MA, and a few other states, but that would give away my identity. (And the relatives that also make the statement hate for-profits, they are docs, as their hands start to become tied when making medical decisions). Keep working on your graduate degree. We can talk about it more when you have 30 years experience in the field like these other individuals do. (None of this is my opinion, I just go out and volunteer and play every day).
You don't have to be an academic to see that the main nonprofit players aren't in any danger - and are in fact growing rapidly. People travel from all over the world to go to Dana Farber, MGH, BIDMC, Mass Ear and Eye, etc.
'splain to me Lucy, why the hospitals on hospital row in Boston keep merging, spinning off, and regrouping. How about the wing built at MG... that was a mess.
The Partners system is not going to go away, and in fact is only getting more and more widespread. My cancer center was appropriated about 4 years ago by a Partners public hospital. Previously, it was a private practice.
Notice how you can't find many private practices anymore?
Huh. My PCP and all the specialists I have are all in private practice. But then again, my sample size is small. I avoid hospital docs like the plague (no slam intended).
Nonprofit hospital partnerships, like Partners, is the trend that healthcare is going in. Hospitals are no longer the brick building on the hill that you only go to if you're really sick - they house everything from overnight care to specialists to PCPS/pediatricians for well visits. That is the overwhelming trend. If your "relatives" say otherwise, you might want to get prepared to help them financially when they lose their jobs.
Being full professors at Ivy league medical schools/research labs (or in really big private practices), they have nothing to worry about. Myself, not so sure.
Mine in green.
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.
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.
I would tell you who my SO is who feeds me this info, as the person has been CEO of a few of the rather large hospitals in MA, and a few other states, but that would give away my identity. (And the relatives that also make the statement hate for-profits, they are docs, as their hands start to become tied when making medical decisions). Keep working on your graduate degree. We can talk about it more when you have 30 years experience in the field like these other individuals do. (None of this is my opinion, I just go out and volunteer and play every day).
How about the wing built at MG... that was a mess.
