1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!
  2. CowboysZone Upgrade Coming Soon! For more information, click here.

Massachusettes "Universal Heatlh Insurance Law" - Coming to Obamaland Soon

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by PosterChild, Jun 4, 2008.

  1. PosterChild

    PosterChild New Member

    2,027 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    By Rick Moran


    [FONT=times new roman,times]Hey kids! Wanna see what's in store for the American people if the Democrats win the White House next year?

    Well here's a gander at what's been going on in the nation's only mandatory health insurance state - Massachusetts:

    [/FONT]
    [FONT=times new roman,times]Five percent of taxpayers failed to obtain health coverage last year, and more than half of those - about 97,000 - were forced to forfeit their personal exemption - worth $219 - after it was determined they could have afforded health care.[/FONT]

    [FONT=times new roman,times]Two percent of taxpayers - about 62,000 - were found not to earn enough for health care, avoiding fines. Under the landmark law, taxpayers must show they are insured or face penalties. The numbers were based on a review of 86 percent of expected tax filers for 2007.[/FONT]

    [FONT=times new roman,times]The state's first-in-the-nation universal health insurance law required everyone in the state to be insured by July 2007, except for those who secured a waiver proving they couldn't afford insurance.[/FONT]

    [FONT=times new roman,times]Gov. Deval Patrick said the fact that 95 percent of filers were insured shows the 2006 law is making progress.[/FONT]

    [FONT=times new roman,times]"We continue to put one foot in front of the other," Patrick said Monday.[/FONT]

    [FONT=times new roman,times]A total of $9.7 million in fines was deposited into a trust fund to help cover the cost of the law. Monthly penalties for those who can afford health care but refuse will jump and could total as much as $912 for individuals by December.[/FONT]
    [FONT=times new roman,times]Just think of all the fun we'll have when the IRS gets to enforce health insurance mandates. Imagine all those new IRS employees we'll have to hire to go after the millions of people who might choose not to be insured. I know how much you love and enjoy the services brought to us by the IRS now. I can't wait until they start taking our refunds (or simply adding to our tax bill) if we don't comply with our masters in Washington.

    And just to really top off your day, here are some of the results from the state's survey on compliance with the mandated health insurance program. The good news is that fewer people were paying a lot of out of pocket money for health care. The bad news?

    [/FONT]
    [FONT=times new roman,times]Despite the increase in the ranks of the insured, the study found little effect on the use of emergency rooms for non-emergency care. And the fear that employers would begin dropping health coverage as the new law took effect hasn't happened. [/FONT]

    [FONT=times new roman,times]Long said the study also included good news for policy makers: 71 percent of working-age adults expressed support for the law. [/FONT]

    [FONT=times new roman,times]That will come in handy as lawmakers struggle to find ways to cover the soaring costs of the law. [/FONT]

    [FONT=times new roman,times]"The continued challenge of health reform requires the continued support of the population and we find support for health care reform among adults in Massachusetts remains high," Long said. [/FONT]

    [FONT=times new roman,times]In 2006, a legislative committee estimated the law would cost about $725 million in the fiscal year starting in July. In his budget, Patrick set aside $869 million, but those overseeing the law have already acknowledged costs will rise even higher. [/FONT]

    [FONT=times new roman,times]Lawmakers are hoping to close the gap in part with a new dollar-per-pack cigarette tax. [/FONT]
    [FONT=times new roman,times]The big lie about national health insurance is that it will decrease costs. I guess we can forget about that in Massachusetts anyway.

    I am starting a contest: guess what the cost of the Massachusetts program will be in 5 years? The winner gets an apple a day for a year and a lifetime subscription to the Daily Worker - the only publication in 5 years that will still think national health insurance is a good idea.


    [/FONT]http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/massachusettes_universal_heatl.html
  2. PosterChild

    PosterChild New Member

    2,027 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    * The Daily Worker is a communist party published rag out of NYC.
  3. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    81,555 Messages
    5,495 Likes Received
    There is no doubt in my mind that this will be sold as the rich will pay for it how soon will it be when most middle class people are being considered rich? Sorry I don't want Government controlling my health care!!!!!
  4. Vintage

    Vintage The Cult of Jib

    13,283 Messages
    1,033 Likes Received
    Wait. Who was the governor of Mass. again?
  5. PosterChild

    PosterChild New Member

    2,027 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Obama's notion of the "rich" has troubled me from the get-go. And I further imagine the threshold is actually quite flexible contingent on budgetary needs. And as we see with the Mass. UHC prgm budget overruns are inevitable . It would be a harder sell, initially, if more realistic cost projections were publicized.
  6. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Backwoods Sexy Staff Member

    63,303 Messages
    6,822 Likes Received
    I want to know. Is Obama's proposed health care the exact same as Mass?

    I remember Hillary and Obama fighting back and forth with him saying hers was MANDATORY while his was not so that is why I am asking.

    So...do we know if his is the same as the one used by Mass or not?

    I don't want universal health care period...although we already have it in limited roles like welfare, SS, in the military or a politician. But what I do want to know is if this article is just assuming it would be the same as Mass or if it really will be.

    With articles and stuff concerning Obama I have learned to grow weary of things because many times they are just wrong or very slanted.
  7. Rackat

    Rackat Active Member

    2,134 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I *think* the author of the article was not saying it was *Obama*, but rather any national health care plan that will cost us out the wazoo. I am a third tier Director in a hospital, and I see the actual costs of healthcare and the actual reimbursement. Any plan that counts on the government to enforce, pay for, or otherwise manage is going to kill our healthcare industry. In a lot of ways it already is killing it. Most insurance companies follow the lead of Medicare/caid and try to lower what they have to pay for their insured customers. The healthcare providers in turn have to jack up prices just to break even. It's a no win proposition and it WILL get worse with a national healthcare system.

    Caveat Emptor, especially if you want a national healthcare system. Do you really want ANY government entity running the system that is there to take care of your medical conditions? The government does such a splendid job with our tax money already, do you really want the government in charge of your health?
  8. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg That gum you like. Zone Supporter

    9,546 Messages
    832 Likes Received
    His is not the same and is not mandatory. He actually specifically used Mass as an example as to why Hillary's mandatory plan does not work.
  9. canters

    canters Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    2,019 Messages
    106 Likes Received
    Never to fear, Barry O' will not get elected. I keep hearing the the GOP opposition research has some bad stuff that Barry and Michelle have said in the past,,,wacky leftwing potentially racist stuff.

    The GOP will find more stuff on Barry than The Dems will on Johnny Mc.
  10. PosterChild

    PosterChild New Member

    2,027 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Obama's health plan

    Danny Huddleston
    [FONT=times new roman,times]Now that Hillary is fading fast in Obama's rear view mirror we should take a look at some of his proposals for America. Let's start with health care. Here are his words on the subject from one of his speeches:

    [/FONT]
    [FONT=times new roman,times]“We now face an opportunity — and an obligation — to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates… My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.”

    — Barack Obama, Speech in Iowa City, IA, May 29, 2007

    [/FONT]
    [FONT=times new roman,times]It's a very ambitious plan and it's not free health care as some believe. If you have insurance already you will continue to pay your premiums. He does promise to lower your premiums, I'm not quite sure how he intends to do this. Here are some of the features of his plan:

    1. It covers every American.
    2. If you already have Insurance your premiums will be lower.
    3. He will offer a plan similar to the one Congress has to all Americans.
    (You will have to pay premiums for this plan)
    4. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
    5. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
    6. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.
    7. It will require that all children have health care coverage.
    8. It will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs.

    Of course there is a lot more to it than what I've listed here, you can see the whole plan here:
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=times new roman,times]Every one of those 8 items listed above is going to cost a lot of money, what it all boils down to is, If you are a middle income American you will still have to pay Insurance premiums. And it's possible he might lower your premiums a little. But your taxes are going to go up. Someone is going to have to pay for subsidies, expanded eligibility for Medicaid and SCHIP and to insure the 45 million that are now uninsured and I wonder does that 45 million include illegal aliens?

    However, Obama says he can lower costs by modernizing the U.S. Health Care System. Let's take a look at how he plans to do that. Here are three paragraphs taken from his web page on that subject, let's analyze these:
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=times new roman,times]Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=times new roman,times]Just what hospitals need more paperwork, think this will lower costs?

    [/FONT]
    [FONT=times new roman,times]Tackle disparities in health care. Obama will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage and promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities. He will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs, and diversification of the health workforce.
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=times new roman,times]OK, I give up. I don't know what this one is about but I know it involves more paperwork and cost.

    [/FONT]
    [FONT=times new roman,times]Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems: Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients' privacy is protected.
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=times new roman,times]In order to lower the cost of keeping medical records we have to spend $50 billion dollars? Is it possible this is just a way for the government to get its hands on your medical records?

    Obama knows that the American people are leery of nationalized health care, I think his plan is a way to ease us into it. I predict in his second term he will propose we go to a completely government run program.

    [/FONT]http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/obamas_health.html


    This author thinks Obama will employ a phased approach to his plan to fully nationalize health care, in which case it would be as voluntary as paying taxes.

    edit: worth reading twice; "[FONT=times new roman,times]Every one of those 8 items listed above is going to cost a lot of money, what it all boils down to is, If you are a middle income American you will still have to pay Insurance premiums. And it's possible he might lower your premiums a little. But your taxes are going to go up. Someone is going to have to pay for subsidies, expanded eligibility for Medicaid and SCHIP and to insure the 45 million that are now uninsured and I wonder does that 45 million include illegal aliens?"[/FONT]
  11. Bach

    Bach Benched

    7,645 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    Many Dems already consider those making more than $50K a year "rich".
  12. jimmy40

    jimmy40 Well-Known Member

    15,440 Messages
    418 Likes Received
    Maybe you can tell me why 17 years ago my insurance was charged $45.00 for Vaseline for my son's circumcision. My son's proud but he ain't that proud.
  13. Rackat

    Rackat Active Member

    2,134 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    If it was based on size, I'd say your son is going to get lucky...a lot. However, 17 years ago I was not in hospital management, I was still serving in the Navy.
  14. jimmy40

    jimmy40 Well-Known Member

    15,440 Messages
    418 Likes Received
    Lol. This is not a shot at you I just will always remember the price of that Vaseline on the itemized bill. I couldn't believe it then and I still can't believe it now and that was 17 years ago. I can only imagine what it would cost now. I could have stopped by Kroger and got a jar for a $1.00.:confused:
  15. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Backwoods Sexy Staff Member

    63,303 Messages
    6,822 Likes Received
    Same thing for simple acetaminophen (tylenol without the brand name). About 10 years ago the wife had to go to the ER. We get the bill later and two costs $8. I told the wife, why in the world do they charge that much when you can go and get a bottle of 100 for less than $8? Imagine if you had to buy a bottle of 100 at $4 a piece....a $400 dollar bottle of Tylenol...geez that would give you a headache.

    Crazy stuff.
  16. STAR GAZER

    STAR GAZER Benched

    2,047 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I'm an American living abroad in Taiwan. My wife is Taiwanese, so I have what is equivalent to a Green Card by American terms. That makes me eligible for the National Health insurance provided to every Taiwanese Citizen.

    I get full dental, full medical, and I pay about 2% of the cost of prescription medicine. I pay nothing except when I visit the doctor, and that is roughly 2% of all the expenses. If I was stricken with Cancer, and required Chemo- therapy, or any other elaborate medical expense, I would never pay more than 5% tops. The vast majority of medical illnesses are covered at the 2% out of pocket cost.

    My auto insurance is 25% of what it is in America, and my home owners insurance is about 10%.

    So how the hell is it, that we as American citizens, can't come up with a similar plan when the rest of the developed and/or developing nations can seem to do so?
  17. PosterChild

    PosterChild New Member

    2,027 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I have to say I'm unfamiliar with Taiwan's nation health plan but was intrigued, so I did a real quick look see. Not unexpectedly costs are escalating and they're having some trouble reigning them in. In a typical scenario keeping costs down and services at a premium level is a difficult balancing act due to mis-allocation of resources and over utilization of benefits. So typically you either must raise premiums or taxes or limit access to services (rationing).

    It doesn't look like Taiwan's NHI is a disaster by any means and customer satisfaction is still high yet if they don't get a handle on costs($30 Mil/mo deficit) that will change.

    Rising Costs

Share This Page