Here comes your socialized health care...sort of...

[cute fuzzy bunny]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/04/05/MNGHSI3N571.DTL
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2006/pi20060404_152510.htm
http://www.healthcareformass.org/

MA will require as of mid next year for all people living in the state to purchase health care. The state appears to be creating some private subsidized plans that will cost nothing or nearly nothing for those living at the poverty level. For those earning 3x the poverty level, it would top out around $200 to $250 a month (not bad).

For people who cannot obtain or afford healthcare, a waiver would be available.

Employers who do not provide health care would have to pay the state $295 per employee per year.

Taxpayers in the state will need to supply proof of insurance on their 2008 tax returns or face a loss of deductions and fines amounting to $1200 per year or higher.

I wonder if this becomes widespread, what the effects would be on profit margins at hospitals, drug companies and so forth...

I imagine if this flies, a lot of other states will follow suit.

 

[Cool Dood]

Why, why, why?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

"There is already enough money in the system to pay for universal coverage.

- $1 billion in 2005 from taxpayers, hospitals, employers and the insured to pay for
uncompensated care for the uninsured.
- $4.8 billion in out-of-pocket for care by the uninsured and underinsured.
- $2.2 billion in clinical and administrative savings from modest cost containment and quality
improvement initiatives for state programs – 100% electronic physician claims reporting; automated hospital patient safety reporting; chronic care management; and a public health
initiative to stop the growth in childhood/adult obesity rates.
- Over $1 billion in social and economic benefits from new jobs, higher incomes, higher corporate
profits, new tax revenues. The Urban Institute estimates that every dollar spent to expand
coverage generates about $3.00 in economic and social benefits – as much as $1.7 billion
depending on the number of Massachusetts uninsured and the type of reforms adopted.
- Total – over $9 billion - $5.8 billion in existing spending, $2.2 billion in potential savings and
over a billion in economic and social benefits – available to expand coverage and ensure timely,
high-quality, cost-effective care for every resident."

 

[Cool Dood]

Well, pretty much any argument over the theory will almost inevitably lead to a massive, pointless shouting match, but I'll just say that I have reason to doubt how that math will work out in practice. Anyway, it's not my business, MA can do whatever it wants.... I'd sure be glad if they came up with a workable way to do health care, whether it's public or private. It's not like U.S.'s or Canada's works now.

 

[justin]

Good for MA. If it works well, I'm sure many other states will adopt a similar program soon. If it is a miserable failure, at least I didn't get f***ed over.

 

[tryan]

It'll never work! When has gov regulation ever solved a problem.

When I fire'd in October, COBRA was a option from my MA employer at $1054/month. Problem is there is no competition when the insurance industry is regulated. Car insurance is the same way ... higher than any other state. So people go over the border to NH and pay 1/2. No wonder MA is the only state with NEGATIVE population growth!

In MA the maration runner pays the same health insurance rate as the smoker/aids patient. No credit for great health; no deduction if you say "no more kids". All for one and one for all. Like socialism.

Crazy really ... they legislate out free market forces. It'll never work ... the state will go bankrupt as people and businesses leave the state.

 

[Outtahere]

tryan, I hear ya, I'm in MA too and the insurance is killing us. I hope this healthcare thing works but I doubt it. I did hear they are now talking about changing the auto insurance system, I certainly hope so, it's ridiculous the way is.

 

[Cut-Throat]

It'll never work! When has gov regulation ever solved a problem.

The air and water are much cleaner today than 25 years ago due to government regulation. The government helped get us out of the depression of the 1930's.

When has Exxon and Walmart ever helped us out?

Don't repeat this right-wing mantra crap. - Idiots will believe you instead of the facts!

 

[Cool Dood]

Er, Exxon and Walmart have made it possible for literally millions of people to move themselves and cheaply acquire food and consumer items, allowing them to lead full and rich lives, let alone all the secondary effects through other businesses acquiring cheap gas, for instance. They've done so much for people that you can measure what people have voluntary paid them for in the hundreds of billions of dollars -- and that doesn't count the intangibles like the massive amount of freedom that's been gained by their customers through having to spend less time earning money to buy stuff at less efficient and more expensive stores. They've done so incredibly much, it's almost impossible to cover it all.

Ending the depression is hardly an example I would have chosen as an example of the federal government doing good... There's no shortage of worthwhile examples they actually did -- force universal acceptance of blacks, defeat the Nazis, kill thousands of terrorists, etc.

Just because right-wing mantras are idiotic, doesn't mean left-wing mantras aren't also idiotic

 

[Maximillion]

CoolDood, a dead Iraqui 10 year old and his Mother hardly qualify as Terrorists?.

Thousands have been killed all right, but maybe a few hundred legitimate Bad guys.

I bet that if the real numbers were revealed, more US Troops have died than real enemy??

 

[Martha]

I have read some about the Mass. experiment. I am curious as to how it turns out. So far, Minnesota leads on the most people covered by insurance. It subsidizes coverage for the uninsurable and the poor. However, Minnesota's programs have their problems--mostly conservatives trying to eliminate them or cut them back.

Minnesota's economy is healthy. Jobs are not exiting the state enmass. People like to come and live in Minnesota in part because of the services the state provides.

Lack of regulation of the insurance industry will lead to insurance companies covering only the absolutely healthy. Already if you are healthy there are a number of options for buying insurance. Competion isn't going to help a losing proposition--covering people too poor to pay premiums or who have preexisting problems. The insurance model for healthcare doesn't make a lot of sense. Insurers only want to insure what happens in the future, not past problems. Insurers want to underwrite--genetic tests? Family history? Insurers only want to insure those who can pay their premiums. Insurers want to cut you off if you make too many claims. This is what insurance companies would do without regulations.

Before HIPAA, people were trapped in jobs because changing jobs and health plans led to preexisting condition exclusions and waiting periods. That federal regulation certainly helped a lot of people. It just didn't go far enough.

 

[samclem]

I guess I feel that Exxon "helps me out" (and I help them out) every time I need gas for my car.

While Walmart might not make many "our favorite employer" lists, it does supply jobs for a lot of folks (this is something my parents used to call an"opportunity.").

As far as direct benefit to poor folks, Walmart is of HUGE benefit to people of modest means.

The following snippet is from an op-ed piece in the Washington Post (no right wing rag).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR2005112700687.html
*************************************************************
The average Wal-Mart customer earns $35,000 a year, compared with $50,000 at Target and $74,000 at Costco. Moreover, Wal-Mart's "every day low prices" make the biggest difference to the poor, since they spend a higher proportion of income on food and other basics. As a force for poverty relief, Wal-Mart's $200 billion-plus assistance to consumers may rival many federal programs. Those programs are better targeted at the needy, but they are dramatically smaller. Food stamps were worth $33 billion in 2005, and the earned-income tax credit was worth $40 billion.

Set against these savings for consumers, Wal-Mart's alleged suppression of wages appears trivial. Arindrajit Dube of the University of California at Berkeley, a leading Wal-Mart critic, has calculated that the firm has caused a $4.7 billion annual loss of wages for workers in the retail sector. This number is disputed . . .
********************************************************************

So, poor folks often shop at Walmart, and all consumers benefittted to the tune of $200 billion due to Walmart's lower prices last year. Assuming poor folks got a good share of that, then Walmart likely provided more assistance to the poor than either/both food stamps and the EITC. I'd say they are "helping out."

Doing well by doing good. Or at least doing good while doing well.

 

[Martha]

But don't forget, Walmart wants the minimum wage to increase because their customers are having a harder time shopping there.

 

[Cut-Throat]

There's no shortage of worthwhile examples they actually did -- kill thousands of terrorists, etc.

I don't think so - A total waste of time, money and Lives!

 

[Nords]

I'm impressed, TH. You managed to have Godwin's Law invoked within the first page of posts, and it was a totally unrelated non-political subject!

 

[samclem]

It was very impressive, and he didn't even have to jump in to help drive things off the rails.

Of course he provided fertile ground--health care, Massachussets, talk of taxes.

 

[HFWR]

As much as I'd hate to subsidize others' bad habits, seems to me the only way to insure everyone is to spread the risk as widely as possible...

Walmart is good; Walmart is bad. And your point is I shop there for certain household supplies, but much of the rest of their merchandise is too low quality, even for a cheap bastard like moi...    But for all the complaining about how they treat their employees, I worked in small mom 'n' pop stores way back when, and the wages sucked and there were no bennies. Where would most of those folks work otherwise? Probably stocking shelves, bagging groceries, loading/unloading trucks, clerking at a register... Just like they do at Walmart...

As for Iraq, I wonder who's killed the most Iraqi citzens - the US military, or the bad guys  insurgents?

I do not, however, confuse the "War on Terror" with the war in Iraq...

Now, let's talk about boobs or something...  

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Hey, nobody is more impressed than I am at the range of topics we covered. Of course, it helps when a troll or two kicks in to derail the subject at hand from health care to the iraqi war...because we all know the latter is the real topic we're all here to discuss.

 

[limey]

Hey, nobody is more impressed than I am at the range of topics we covered. Of course, it helps when a troll or two kicks in to derail the subject at hand from health care to the iraqi war...because we all know the latter is the real topic we're all here to discuss.

CFB .. you sure seem to have trolls on the brain.

I have read this tread with great interest and the subject is, and remains, socialized health care.

True, Iraq and terrorists have been mentioned but strictly 'en passant' by two or three posters; purely incidental to this discussion.

So get it through your brain that hitherto nobody has tried to derail the subject at hand. Unless I am mistaken you have an over-active imagination!

 

[REWahoo]

... you sure seem to have trolls on the brain.

To quote 'Mike from Montreal':

"I have hitherto intentionally refrained from posting to this thread expressly to avoid the potential of this happening."

 

[limey]

To quote 'Mike from Montreal':

"I have hitherto intentionally refrained from posting to this thread expressly to avoid the potential of this happening."

Does anyone here object, I mean seriously object, when a poster, me for instance, points out the obvious?

Tell me REWahoo is there the slightest danger of this thread being derailed if one were to look at the posts made so far.

Yes or No?

And where, pray tell, are these (imaginary) trolls?

 

[maddythebeagle]

It looks like mike1/max/howard now have a new login known as limey. :

 

[haha]

CFB .. you sure seem to have trolls on the brain.

I have read this tread with great interest and the subject is, and remains, socialized health care.

True, Iraq and terrorists have been mentioned but strictly 'en passant' by two or three posters; purely incidental to this discussion.

So get it through your brain that hitherto nobody has tried to derail the subject at hand. Unless I am mistaken you have an over-active imagination!

Limey, I want more posts from you. You used "en passant" and hitherto" in the same post.

I am thrilled.

Ha

 

[Cool Dood]

I'm impressed, TH. You managed to have Godwin's Law invoked within the first page of posts, and it was a totally unrelated non-political subject!

Didn't that thing die in 1999? Or was it just a persistent vegetative state...

 

[limey]

I am thrilled.

Ha

So am I.

It is not everybody that is able to appreciate well written prose. Plus I figure the French might impress a few. Next time I will endeavour to throw in a little bit of Latin. That shows real class.