|
January 24, 2010
What Is Wrong With Massachusetts?
I put up a video of Scott Brown in a short discussion with a voter about health care reform. My first personal complaint about what he said was at the beginning of the video when he says: "We're past campaign mode"i.e. I no longer have to lie to win. I guess now that he is elected he can afford to be honest. A real confidence builder in his basic integrity. Then some folks at Classical Values were saying that I'm asking too much of Brown. So let me reprise what Brown said in the video. The quotes may not be exactly exact. They are close. 1. Every one is going to get some kind of care Do I have to? 2. Offer a basic plan for everyone Isn't that what insurance companies already do? 3. Should we raise taxes? Hell yes. The economy is doing way too well. 4. Or cut half a trillion from Medicare? Sure. The plan already has too many doctors. No doctors no patients. I can see vast savings from that. It might also help keep Social Security solvent. A Twofer. 5. Affect veterans care. VA hospitals are already too good. Here is his position on health care from his recent US Senate campaign. I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but I am opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in Congress and will vote against it. It will raise taxes, increase government spending and lower the quality of care, especially for elders on Medicare. I support strengthening the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs and make it easier for people to purchase affordable insurance. In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage, but I also recognize that the state must now turn its attention to controlling costs.i.e. in a rich state like Mass. the plan they have is not affordable. So has he Got Plan? Oh. Yeah. Raise taxes, or cut Medicare, or lower standards at Veterans Hospitals. Or some combination. Sounds like a plan to me. So how is the Massachusetts Plan doing? When enacted, MassHealth was touted as the answer to correcting the problem of the uninsured in Massachusetts. Healthcare providers (i.e., hospitals) and insurers were compelled to take cuts in reimbursement upon implementation of the program several years ago.Scott had to know the State plan was in trouble and instead of suggesting a better National Plan we got vague promises during the election. Fine. He is elected. Can't he think of Something better than to raise taxes? Or cut backs in Veterans Care? There is more on how the Mass. plan is failing. * Although the state has reduced the number of residents without health insurance, 200,000 people remain uninsured. Moreover, the increase in the number of insured is primarily due to the state's generous subsidies, not the celebrated individual mandate.Skyrocketing costs and a shortage of doctors. Something to look forward to I suppose. Say. I have an idea. How about we look at the National Republican Plan. What Americans want are common-sense, responsible solutions that address the rising cost of health care and other major problems. In the national Republican address on Saturday, October 31, 2009, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) discussed Republicans' plan for common-sense health care reform our nation can afford. Boehner's address emphasized four common-sense reforms that will lower health care costs and expand access to quality care without a government takeover of our nation's health care system that kills jobs, raises taxes on small businesses, or cuts Medicare for seniors:I don't get number three, but all the rest make good sense. I can think of one or two more that might help. Make Medical Savings accounts cumulative so that anything not spent in one year can be rolled over to build a cushion over time. In addition catastrophic coverage plans that cover anything above the out of pocket expenses that the Medical Savings Account would cover.* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines. We can try that for a few years and see if changes or additions need to be made. It might also be a good idea to tighten the borders to reduce hospital's unfunded costs. But Mr. Brown mentioned none of those. Even after his election. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 01.24.10 at 02:04 AM
Comments
MassHealth was passed with a slew of lies. One was that there was an emergency. Two was that the uninsured were to blame for driving up costs. Three is that health insurance is comparable to auto insurance. Four was that the pols were concerned for the welfare of the people. Five was that people were choosing to not have insurance. Six was it would reduce costs. Seven was that they were going to succeed or at least get away with it. Eight was that it was a noble experiment (see one), which other states could advance. Nine is the real kicker -- that they had any right or authority to dispose of uncollected money. philip · January 24, 2010 06:46 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2010
December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
A New Theory Of Electrodynamics
Making Christianity work -- in the angry arab street The conservative blogosphere's Pauline Kael moment? "How do you do that?" Pleistocene nostalgia for evolution's end times? A Disaster Of Biblical Proportions Take the bass line for a walk Free Speech Sleep deprived Northeastern federalist? Or "Communist in Republican Clothing"? Naked Dancing Girls
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I would add an additional factor: limitation on benefits. Poor people are given a limited amount of money for food stamps, not an open credit line at any restaurant they choose. Housing vouchers are similarly limited to modest apartments, not mansions. Any health care benefits being provided by taxpayers should be very limited, and exclude procedures such as in vitro fertilization, organ transplants, massage therapy, aromatherapy, or sex change operations. And perhaps there should also be a cap on yearly outlays. If somebody needs $100,000 of treatment each year to survive, perhaps that is where the "death panels" kick in and turn the patient over to charity.
I currently live in Oregon, and each year there seems to be a great fuss over a patient being denied some desired treatment because Oregon health care sets limits on what they will pay for. There are notices in the local paper asking for donations for organ transplants or other medical treatment not covered by our version of Medicaid. In contrast, my mother-in-law spent years going from doctor to doctor seeking treatment for neck pain. She was told that some of the pain was untreatable, but could be greatly mitigated by exercise and therapy. She refused to participate in therapy and firmly believed that there was an easy medical solution, and Medicare happily paid for the plethora of doctor visits, MRIs, etc. I know people go absolutely nuts at the idea of any sort of limits on medical care, but I don't see why it couldn't be set up so that only basic coverage is provided by the taxpayer and people would have to pay either out-of-pocket or via personal insurance for other procedures.
(My husband is on Medicare, and I am paying out of pocket for health insurance since my employer does not offer it.)