In 2006, [Massachusetts] lawmakers seeking to broaden health coverage made it illegal to be uninsured. It works like this: Employers have to offer you a health plan. If you are jobless or don’t like your employer’s plan, you must buy your own. If you don’t get one, you pay a stiff fine. This strategy—known as an employer and individual “mandate”—forms the backbone of the national health reform bills now making their way through Congress.
On paper, the experiment was a resounding success. According to an Urban Institute estimate, the number of uninsured residents quickly fell from 13 percent to 7 percent following the law’s passage.And yet, something strange happened. Despite having health insurance, roughly one in 10 state residents still failed to fill prescriptions, ended up with unpaid medical bills, or skipped needed medical care for financial reasons. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to insure more Massachusetts citizens, but many people still weren’t getting necessary care. What happened?
Assume you’re looking to buy insurance. The state has a handy Web site where you can find the cheapest plan. For a young family of four, that plan costs roughly $9,500 per year, which doesn’t include a minimum annual deductible of $3,500 before many benefits kick in. (The state helps cover some of the premiums for those who make very little money, but many still have to pay the other fees.) And if anyone is hospitalized or needs a lot of specialized care, you also pay 20 percent of that bill. In this relatively cheap plan, the family can be liable for an extra $10,000 per year of medical costs. This sort of “high deductible” health plan is clearly structured to discourage medical care.
The article goes on to detail the effects of the program, parts of which may end up in Obama’s plan. The author’s conclusion?
The expensive Massachusetts plan is not well-designed to systematically improve anyone’s health. Instead, it’s a superficial effort to clear the uninsured from the books and then clumsily limit further costs by discouraging care.
#97, Europe didn’t rebuild – America rebuilt Europe.
You might as well give it up. The grass is always greener on the other side of the ocean and no amount of proof or logic will convince them otherwise.
93- Friend of a friend stories are always suspicious.
What cancer did she have and what was the time frame?
I suspect she was terminal regardless, if the story is true.
#99
Whilst such ideas may help – they won’t improve the system much. More over they just add complexity. It’s a kludge, and overall things will remain the same. Perhaps the point of the suggestion – that somehow what we have is good. It is not.
A universal system is better because its simpler and cheaper. There isn’t a middleman. You can’t be refused. If you get sick you don’t have to worry about being dropped by your insurance company (and not being able to change insurance company) or being bankrupted with co pays etc.
Having the government as the insurer is in fact a great way to go – as they have the simplest way to pool money and spread risk. They can handle big ideas such as preventative health care etc. There aren’t issues about inside and outside network etc.
There is no claim that such a system will provide the best health care possible. Such a system requires infinite finance. What it will provide is good health care. Which frankly is whats reasonable.
If you want to spend lots of money on health care through private insurance etc, then you can do that. In the Uk system if you do, then you’ll actually get a proportion of your money back from the government.
Yes, insurance companies will have a tougher time. Well we tried it that way it didn’t work very well. Time move on.
Unfortunately Obamas plan is probably a bit half arsed. And may not work that well – not least because of the health industry will try and fight it tooth and nail. Still as long as there is a government option, I have some hope for it. It’s got to be better than what there is.
The arguments against it seem rather weak – in that the biggest complaint is everybody is going to join it. Well if its so terrible (with all that rationing and queues etc) why would they do that? Doesn’t make sense.
#99, Loser,
Tax credits won’t fix a broken system. Nor will it insure those on the edge. The only thing a tax credit will do is satisfy the Liebertarian logic of “tax cut = good”.
Individual policies are less efficient and more expansive to retain. The inefficiencies in the whole health insurance field are enough to drive up the costs 25 times more than comparable national health care plans.
Purchasing from an State would void any standards set in a specific State. Another race to the bottom, which is another Liebertarian hallmark.
So again, nothing new. Just tax cuts will solve all the world’s problems.
Somethings been bothering me about LLs tax cut plan. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m mistaken.
Income Tax returns don’t give you money. They only return the excess taken from paycheck withholding. Except rare (recently not so rare) stimulus givaways, you dont get back more than you put in.
Lets say you paid $10k in Federal taxes last year. You need treatment for an illness that costs $50k.
Where does that $40k come from? Tax credits wont help you here.
#92–SL==perhaps I have stumbled as well substituting my thinking on “free market” when you are actually sticking to the stated subject of “the market?” And then of course, the definition of free market can be disputed, remain contested, ambiguous, not addressed, ignored–just as most subjects proceed.
Similarly as to Losers constant drumbeat that any tax reduction is “a plan” but #106 tcc3 points out the obvious defect there that others correctly conclude simply describes the LACK OF a plan.
It is mindnumbingly STOOPID to watch the Repuglicans and LIEBERTARIANS zombie like fashion find taxes should be lowered during good times in order not to restrict growth, and taxes should be lowered in bad times in order not to prevent recovery. Hah!!! I say HAH!! Its not “BRAINS” the Zombies need or seek, its lower taxes. Two words, tough to be a Zombie. Maybe “MINE” could be their call?
#75 Wait a minute, bobbo did you actually criticize monopolism? Not a particular monopoly but monopolism itself, right? Since you support the idea of government running things so I have to assume that you have a different word for it if the government does it. Or it could be that your motto is “Monopoly! It’s ok if the government does it!”
What the fuck has happened to this country that so many people think it is not their responsibility to look after themselves anymore?
What is wrong you people? What could possibly convince me that paying for your medical expenses is in my best interest? You don’t think you should be responsible for your own well being at all? You think the government should be totally responsible for your health?
I’d probably break down and cry right now if I didn’t have a meeting to go to in five minutes.
#106, Lets say you paid $10k in Federal taxes last year. You need treatment for an illness that costs $50k.
Sigh. Once again . . .
If you have the insurance (which you would because your taxes would be refunded back to you upon proof of purchase), you wouldn’t have had to pay the $50k in the first place.
So, no, you wouldn’t be out the 40k.
#105, Tax credits won’t fix a broken system.
Yes, it will.
#108–Hi GD==I prefer free markets when they can function as theoretically conceived most appropriately. Almost always most appropriate for non essential services. Take Hollywood or the arts for instance. Free Market is GREAT for who makes the best movies or painting. ESSENTIAL SERVICES–military, water, electricity, healthcare should be provided without the vargaries and inapplicabilities of market considerations.
Amusing to watch EU countries provide healthcare so admirably and USA can’t learn from it WHILE at the same time, EU subsidizes “the Arts” and is filling up wharehouses with paintings that no one wants to buy.
All programs need constant attention and modification. Sticking with failure because it matches a philosophy is something only brain dead LIEBERTARIANS (“MINE”) would do.
So if you wiki “free market” you will find by definition that excludes governmental control/provision/occupation. I don’t want government buying ART and I only reluctantly after 50 years of demonstrated failure have to conclude that healthcare is not an appropriate subject of free market competition the default provider of which can only be the government.
#109 LL What the f*ck has happened to this country that so many people think it is not their responsibility to look after themselves anymore?
Do you build your own roads? No? WTF is wrong with you that you don’t look after yourself? You drive on roads that OTHER people build, you worthless sack of sh*t. How can you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning?
I know, I know, it’ll be wasted on him. Sigh.
# 113 Phydeau said, “Do you build your own roads?”
An individual is now the equivalent of a publicly owned road? I’m sorry but, are you totally insane? No, offense, serious question.
#98 mf,
Hey, complaining to a bureaucrat is like complaining to no one. Here’s what can and will happen; it will be discovered one day by a patient who finally goes to the media that there have been thousands of complaints about a facility/doctor for years. Don’t think this will happen in a government run monopoly? See the VA stories of the last couple of years.
Here’s my plan; keep an emergency fund to pay small to medium healthcare costs, get indemnity (high deductible) insurance to protect my assets should anything really big happen.
Oh, wait there is a plan like this (we had it at my previous job). We switched from the typical ppo plan to a high deductible plan. The cost savings (the high deductible plan is about 40 percent of the typical plan) was put into an HSA (health savings account). Since the amount of savings more than covered any deductible I kept a little for myself and got a $50 raise. Now the great thing about an HSA is that it’s not use it or lose it like flex. When the amount in the HSA covers your deductibles then quit contributing. Or keep contributing, what ever.
Why do people think that insurance should “pay” for things. We don’t see life insurance like that, or auto insurance like that. Those only come into play if ‘something happens’. If people paid for the service they get then you’d see the medical establishment change. Right now what happens is that I go in to see someone about the flu and then 6 weeks later I see the bill on the insurance statement; $360. I just wonder what cost so much then shrug my shoulders. But if I had to pay at the time of service I can guarantee we’d be finding a more reasonable doctor to visit.
There is no doubt that the government is proposing socialized medicine. Is that really the way we want to go? Shouldn’t we unleash ‘market forces’ instead?
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. — Thomas Jefferson
#114 – Liberalism is a form of insanity.
# 114
# 109
The road analogy is good.
LibertyLover has lost the plot. With universal healthcare what makes him think he’ll be paying for ‘our’ health care. Any more than paying to an insurance company he’ll pay (if he doesn’t claim) for other peoples health care. Same thing.
Unless he is saying he’ll never need health care. Or that its his right to never have health care even if that is retarded – because in doing so he is ‘free’.
The only difference is a government health programs purpose is to keep people healthy, not maximize profits.
All this tax credit crap is just an answer by obfuscation – it doesn’t solve any of the underlying issue under the guise of a ‘tax cut’.
# 118 freddybobs68k said, “With universal healthcare what makes him think he’ll be paying for ‘our’ health care.”
Because he will be forced to pay even if he doesn’t use it. Not difficult to understand unless you are missing a brain…
#98
“..The current health insurance system is not a safety net..”
No it isn’t – nor did I say it was.
I said, the checks and balance offered by a 3rd party(ie.government) is the safety net. Something that’s needed to keep a single entity system -ANY- single entity system, from getting out of control.
My comment was clear and understandable and yet you couldn’t read a few simple words before imposing your opinion, jumping to an incorrect assumption.
#118
If that ‘road analogy’ is good, then get your butt over and cut my grass. Cause YOU must take personal responsibility of everything.
Since my yard can been seen from a road that you drive on and gives scenic pleasure to those driving on that road, it’s your job to ensure the scenic pleasure is maintained…and you’ve been slacking on your work ethic.
Or we could just say;
That you, me, others & possible even fusion, hired those OTHER people to build that road just for our personal use, funded with our pooled resources.
The road would not have been built without that cooperation – but the house, complete with an overgrown yard, would still exist.
#121
Idiot. How does it mean I or anyone else has to take ‘personal responsibility of everything’.
Roads exist. They are paid for by the you and everyone else through taxes. They are implemented by the government.
That’s how it stands right now. It apparently works.
Much like a universal health care system could work.
How that has anything to do with you and your freakin yard anybody knows.
One way of thinking about it – I realize this might be a stretch – but its not all about you.
The problem with letting the market sort this out is that Health care is not a fair market.
How can supply and demand balance when there is an infinite demand?
The market solves this problem the only way it know how: Those who can pay, live.
# 123 tcc3 said, “The problem with letting the market sort this out is that Health care is not a fair market.”
Correct. A few decades of Gov regulation has destroyed the free market in the insurance industry.
That’s overlooking the obvious. How can a business be competitive when the profitable solution is to deny services? Any business that dared to look out for the patient instead of the bottom line would not be as profitable.
You cant have a free market when the customer isn’t free to not buy the product. And the choice of death doesn’t count.
#125 Good point.
It’s also not a ‘free market’ because it exceptionally hard to compare policies. From the practical view – of reading through all of the fine print.
Moreover – how do you know if you do get sick they won’t find some way to drop your now expensive ass? They don’t generally have that in documentation.
It’s a crock. We all know it. People arguing the status quo – are either confused (probably from some brain dead ideology), or believe they gain by such a ridiculous arrangement. Sad indeed.
110 – LL
Sorry, I got distracted.
What about the scenario that this very post is about: People are buying insurance, are”covered” and then get buried in copays? What happens when you get sick and the ins co drops you for being too expensive? What happens if you cannot get coverage due to the dreaded and unprofitable “pre-existing condition?”
Insurance doesn’t pay for everything. And tax credits are only useful if you had enough money to pay for treatment anyway.
How do tax credits solve the basic problem of insurance not providing adequate healthcare for the cost?
#113, Do you build your own roads? No? WTF is wrong with you that you don’t look after yourself? You drive on roads that OTHER people build, you worthless sack of sh*t.
Again, you ignorant fuck, roads are the responsibility of the STATES and not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
How can you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning?
I sleep the sleep of the just because I know I did an honest day’s work, provided for my family and my employees.
If I am forced to start paying more taxes to fund a goverment agency that does not benefit me, you can bet your pansy ass I will shut down and retire to some little island in the caribbean. YOU can deal with finding work for my employees. YOU can pay their unemployment insurance. YOU can pay their HC costs while unemployed. YOU can explain to them that I am being selfish because I refused to deal with a society that thought we were all slaves to their whims.
And if you think I am the only one, I know six other local owners talking about doing the same thing. They have roughly 125 employees between them. Why should we belong to a society that doesn’t see us as men but as slaves?
125, You cant have a free market when the customer isn’t free to not buy the product. And the choice of death doesn’t count.
Death most certainly is an option. Do you choose to eat?
#127, What about it?
Some people live better than others. Not everybody lives in a $500,000 home but they manage. That is life. Get over it. There are always alternatives.
And before you start calling me heartless, you should consider how many charity hospitals per capita there were before Uncle Sam started putting his hands in everybody’s pockets.
This is as close to the truth as we’ve gotten
“Pay up or die you stupid poor person”
Basic sustenance is sustainable for anyone working and contributing to society. Healthcare is not always. If your position is truly: the rich deserve to live and the poor deserve to die, ok then. Man up and say it. But its not liberty you love, my friend.