RCP/The Health Care Mess In Massachusetts.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Massachusetts Mess

Posted 07/18/2011 07:09 PM ET

Failure: ObamaCare is supposed to increase health coverage and slow spending. The promises of RomneyCare in Massachusetts were the same. But it has neither brought universal coverage nor contained costs.

To read the rest of this article, click on this link:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578707/201107181909/Massachusetts-Mess.htm

[AsburySkinsFan]

Don't blame us, Romney is from your party.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Don't blame us, Romney is from your party.

I didn't blame anybody but if this is how we should look at it, does that then mean that if Romney sent his Fiscal Deficit plan to President Obama, the President should just go with that and make it happen?

I don't think so. I half believe that you are just joking with this last response.

[DRSmith]

Single payer is the only way for the government to truely control costs

[ABQCOWBOY]

Single payer is the only way for the government to truely control costs

Perhaps, if Government control is what you want.

[Baculus]

Massachusetts Mess

Posted 07/18/2011 07:09 PM ET

Failure: ObamaCare is supposed to increase health coverage and slow spending. The promises of RomneyCare in Massachusetts were the same. But it has neither brought universal coverage nor contained costs.

To read the rest of this article, click on this link:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578707/201107181909/Massachusetts-Mess.htm

This article seems a bit short for a rather complex issue, explaining no whys or sources.

As a note, "RomneyCare" was based upon Republican ideas, so, if it's indeed a failure, what went wrong? How are we supposed to address health care reform, for its costs and the millions of Americans whose health is suffering? If "ObamaCare," which used ideas from conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation, does indeed fail, then where does that leave Republicans? Devoid if ideas, other than raising retirement ages, capping malpractice lawsuit judgments, and defunding public health care? Is it possible for the Republicans to have a serious discussion on this, separate from ideological, political pronouncements? What is the GOP solution? Please don't say "tort reform," and please don't say, "We have the best health care system in the world!" either.

The REAL alternative? Single-payer health care.

This is what conservative Winston Churchill had to say on the subject:

"The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2009/08/14/healthcare/

Right-wingers are supposedly patriotic, but they don't seem to have much solidarity with their fellow Americans. I guess it's the individualist "me" vs. the collective "we," as in "We the people . . ."

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 05:35 PM ----------

Perhaps, if Government control is what you want.

As opposed to corporate control? Private "death panels"? The alternatives ain't pretty.

[ABQCOWBOY]

This article seems a bit short for a rather complex issue, explaining no whys or sources.

As a note, "RomneyCare" was based upon Republican ideas, so, if it's indeed a failure, what went wrong? How are we supposed to address health care reform, for its costs and the millions of Americans whose health is suffering? If "ObamaCare," which used ideas from conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation, does indeed fail, then where does that leave Republicans? Devoid if ideas, other than raising retirement ages, capping malpractice lawsuit judgments, and defunding public health care?

Is it possible for the Republicans to have a serious discussion on this, separate from ideological, political pronouncements?

What is the GOP solution? Please don't say "tort reform," and please don't say "we have the best health care system in the world" either.

The progressive response? Single-payer health care. BTW, this is what conservative Winston Churchill had to say on the subject:

"The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2009/08/14/healthcare/

Right-wingers are supposedly patriotic, but they don't seem to have much solidarity with their fellow Americans. I guess it's the individualist "me" vs. the collective "we," as in "We the people . . ."

It leaves them where they are currently, I would imagine. There is another plan out there. As far as Patriotic goes, that has nothing to do with the We vs Me theory. Everybody has an opportunity, each person does what they can with that opportunity. That does not mean that you or anybody should or is required to be responsible for me IMO. I am responsible for me and my family. That is how I look at this.

[DRSmith]

Actually I have always found single payer with the right taxes and fees attached to be fiscally conservative

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 01:42 PM ----------

It leaves them where they are currently, I would imagine. There is another plan out there. As far as Patriotic goes, that has nothing to do with the We vs Me theory. Everybody has an opportunity, each person does what they can with that opportunity. That does not mean that you or anybody should or is required to be responsible for me IMO. I am responsible for me and my family. That is how I look at this.

So the I am responsible and not other people apply to the socialization of military cost

[PeterMP]

Numbers with no context are meaningless. How much are other things up in MA? How much is health care spending up in comparable states that doen't have such a health care law?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Actually I have always found single payer with the right taxes and fees attached to be fiscally conservative

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 01:42 PM ----------

So the I am responsible and not other people apply to the socialization of military cost

It is in the Constitution so yes.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 11:46 AM ----------

Numbers with no context are meaningless. How much are other things up in MA? How much is health care spending up in comparable states that doen't have such a health care law?

I don't think it's meaningless Peter. It was advertised as something that would drive down costs and provide coverage for the majority of the states citizens. It has not done that. Now, I do agree that there are probably reasons for this that are not outlined in the article and if you wanted to discuss the why's of it all, then I think it's very reasonable to ask for that info.

[DRSmith]

It is in the Constitution so yes.

So if they decided to put health care under military costs then you would be cool with it

Interesting that you fall back position after claiming personal responsiblity is that it can be excused under the constitution

[ABQCOWBOY]

So if they decided to put health care under military costs then you would be cool with it

Interesting that you fall back position after claiming personal responsiblity is that it can be excused under the constitution

I already am. It's the VA. If you serve, then that is part of the benefit you earn. It is not interesting or uninteresting. It is simply how it works here.

[DRSmith]

I already am. It's the VA. If you serve, then that is part of the benefit you earn. It is not interesting or uninteresting. It is simply how it works here.

So other people do cover the costs

Funny how easy it is to dismiss all gettng the same coverage when you already get it covered

[PeterMP]

I don't think it's meaningless Peter. It was advertised as something that would drive down costs and provide coverage for the majority of the states citizens. It has not done that. Now, I do agree that there are probably reasons for this that are not outlined in the article and if you wanted to discuss the why's of it all, then I think it's very reasonable to ask for that info.

I seriously doubt that anybody ever claimed that the law would cause a healthcare costs to decrease in absolute terms. I even seriously doubt that anybody ever claimed the law would cause health care costs to not increase less than inflation.

Even in the OP, you talk about slowing spending. You can't determine if spending has been slowed without some sort of idea of what is was before or what was likely to be w/o the law.

[ABQCOWBOY]

So other people do cover the costs

Funny how easy it is to dismiss all gettng the same coverage when you already get it covered

No, not exactly. You agree to a term of service. Part of the risk is that you may be called upon to give up your life in the performance of that service. Part of the agreement is that you receive health benefits from the Government in return for your service. This is not a hard concept. If you want this benefit, then agree to the terms of that contract. Interesting how you are breaking your neck to avoid that simple reality. If you don't want to enter into that agreement, then you don't receive that benefit. Not complicated in my mind.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 11:57 AM ----------

I seriously doubt that anybody ever claimed that the law would cause a healthcare costs to decrease in absolute terms. I even seriously doubt that anybody ever claimed the law would cause health care costs to not increase less than inflation.

Even in the OP, you talk about slowing spending. You can't determine if spending has been slowed without some sort of idea of what is was before or what was likely to be w/o the law.

Suit yourself but I doubt the people of Massachusetts would have agreed to a health care plan that would eventually bankrupt the State. I don't know, I'm just making an assumption on that but it does not seem as if it would be a reasonable conclusion to come to.

If you break it down to the simplest terms of course.

[DRSmith]

The benefits you recieve as given to you at the exspense of tax dollars spent by your fellow citizens, you have no problem recieving public services so what would be the problem if everyone got the same and they paid a tax which all people would so they bear their own costs?

You know the government offers that service to you?

Because no private insurer in their right mind would

[ABQCOWBOY]

The benefits you recieve as given to you at the exspense of tax dollars spent by your fellow citizens, you have no problem recieving public services so what would be the problem if everyone got the same and they paid a tax which all people would so they bear their own costs?

You know the government offers that service to you?

Because no private insurer in their right mind would

The problem is that it is unsustainable IMO. I would have no problem with it if it were something that I believed we could sustain. Perhaps we could sustain it if everybody contributed into the tax pool but everybody doesn't so I can't speak for that.

You don't have to offer a contract to any one of these men and women. You can simply not accept them into the service but they are providing a service in return for the benefit. They are earning the benefit through the work they are providing. In your scenario, that is not the case. You are expecting the benefit for all while all are providing no service.

[PeterMP]

Suit yourself but I doubt the people of Massachusetts would have agreed to a health care plan that would eventually bankrupt the State. I don't know, I'm just making an assumption on that but it does not seem as if it would be a reasonable conclusion to come to.

If you break it down to the simplest terms of course.

No, I doubt they would have. Of course, it is completely possible the state would be going bankrupt even if the law hadn't passed based on the numbers you've given so I'm not at all sure your point is at all relevant.

[ABQCOWBOY]

No, I doubt they would have. Of course, it is completely possible the state would be going bankrupt even if the law hadn't passed based on the numbers you've given so I'm not at all sure your point is at all relevant.

No, that's completely true and I do not dispute that for a moment but I do disagree that my point is not relevant. I'm certain the idea was to cover as many citizens as possible in a way that could be sustained. I'm certain that the objective was a very honorable one at the outset, even if I do not agree with the approach. The fact that it is failing, IMO, makes the point relevant. It does no good to implement failed policy. Sometimes you are going to try something and it's not going to work. Sticking with a failed policy is where I have a problem personally. I don't see the point of that.

[PeterMP]

No, that's completely true and I do not dispute that for a moment but I do disagree that my point is not relevant. I'm certain the idea was to cover as many citizens as possible in a way that could be sustained. I'm certain that the objective was a very honorable one at the outset, even if I do not agree with the approach. The fact that it is failing, IMO, makes the point relevant. It does no good to implement failed policy. Sometimes you are going to try something and it's not going to work. Sticking with a failed policy is where I have a problem personally. I don't see the point of that.

What if a reasonable argument can be made that MA is going bankrupt less slowly because of the law, is it still failed policy?

[ABQCOWBOY]

What if a reasonable argument can be made that MA is going bankrupt less slowly because of the law, is it still failed policy?

I think that would depend on how slowly slowly was. If they were going bankrupt in 100 years, then no I would not consider it a failure. If they are going bankrupt in 5 years then yes. As I said earlier, I have nothing against trying new things to see if they work. Had we not had Massachusetts, we would be even less informed on the subject so I have no problem with that aspect of it. However, if the goal was to create something that could service the citizens of Massachusetts long term and be sustainable, then yes, I think it would be a failed policy if it can not achieve that goal. It is a subjective question you ask so I don't expect the results of the question to be uniformed but I personally would probably call it a failure if it could not deliver a long term, cost effective health care plan, yes.

[PeterMP]

I think that would depend on how slowly slowly was. If they were going bankrupt in 100 years, then no I would not consider it a failure. If they are going bankrupt in 5 years then yes. As I said earlier, I have nothing against trying new things to see if they work. Had we not had Massachusetts, we would be even less informed on the subject so I have no problem with that aspect of it. However, if the goal was to create something that could service the citizens of Massachusetts long term and be sustainable, then yes, I think it would be a failed policy if it can not achieve that goal. It is a subjective question you ask so I don't expect the results of the question to be uniformed but I personally would probably call it a failure if it could not deliver a long term, cost effective health care plan, yes.

I don't think that's unreasonable, and I don't know of any evidence to suggest that the healthcare system in MA is significantly altering the economic situation for the state of MA in a positive manner.

I don't think that what has been posted is good evidence that the answer is to mantain the status quo nationally, or for the state of MA to return to the pre-Romney care state.

[Baculus]

It leaves them where they are currently, I would imagine. There is another plan out there. As far as Patriotic goes, that has nothing to do with the We vs Me theory. Everybody has an opportunity, each person does what they can with that opportunity. That does not mean that you or anybody should or is required to be responsible for me IMO. I am responsible for me and my family. That is how I look at this.

Whether you realize it or not, you are a member of a community, a state, a nation, a collective, which is above and beyond your "atomistic" individualism. This is a constant tug-of-war, and it's a complex issue.

There aren't many, if at all, any, serious conservative reform plans out there, because health care reform is not a key Republican issue, seeing how they bring up tort reform as the main issue (which benefits the physician lobby and not the patients).

And no, everyone does NOT have an opportunity -- that's the problem. What if you play your cards right, work hard, buy insurance, do everything you're supposed to do, but you lose your job? Or you get a serious condition that your health insurance won't cover? What if you can't pay for it?

That's one of my problems with the conservative view you just stated: it's so absolutist. Here is the irony, too -- it's a sort of blanket philosophy, a sort of one-size-fits-all solution, for the millions of individual health care situations, ignoring each individual case while supposed trumpeting the needs of the individual to pay for their own health care. It does nothing at all to address the problems which we face. That is why we need REAL solutions, and not just slogans which doesn't manage public wellness, which affects us all.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 06:52 PM ----------

It is in the Constitution so yes.

What are you referring to? Can you specify?

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think that's unreasonable, and I don't know of any evidence to suggest that the healthcare system in MA is significantly altering the economic situation for the state of MA in a positive manner.

I don't think that what has been posted is good evidence that the answer is to mantain the status quo nationally, or for the state of MA to return to the pre-Romney care state.

Entirely reasonable, I agree.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 02:12 PM ----------

There aren't many, if at all, any, serious conservative reform plans out there, because health care reform is not a key Republican issue, seeing how they bring up tort reform as the main issue (which benefits the physician lobby and not the patients).

I don't agree with this. I think a few years ago, this might be a more accurate statement but in light of the President's passing of his Health Care Plan and the debt issues associated with that plan. GOP can't afford to not be serious about that issue. I think Ryan's plan is a serious plan. I know that there are other ideas out there but I don't know the level to which those plans have been developed or scored. The question I would have is if the President's plan is ruled unconstitutional, defunded or simply scrapped in part because of debt considerations, what then does the President have to consider? Not saying this would happen but I think it's a possibility that would need to be accounted for.

And no, everyone does NOT have an opportunity -- that's the problem. What if you play your cards right, work hard, buy insurance, do everything you're supposed to do, but you lose your job? Or you get a serious condition that your health insurance won't cover? What if you can't pay for it?

Again, I disagree. If you are in this country, by and large, you have an opportunity. That is not to say that you will be wildly successful but the opportunity is there. As to what happens if you face one of the situations you describe, well, I would say you do what we have done since the country started. You make due until you can improve your situation. There will be winners and losers with this but that would be the case anyway. There will be winners and losers in the Presidents plan as well. I don't think you can plan for a full proof system.

That's one of my problems with the conservative view you just stated: it's so absolutist. Here is the irony, too -- it's a sort of blanket philosophy, a sort of one-size-fits-all solution, for the millions of individual health care situations, ignoring each individual case while supposed trumpeting the needs of the individual to pay for their own health care. It does nothing at all to address the problems which we face. That is why we need REAL solutions, and not just slogans which doesn't manage public wellness, which affects us all.

I think at this point, the REAL problem is can we afford this? I don't think anybody is ignoring that. If you feel like this is just a slogan, so be it. I can assure you that I take it very seriously indeed. I think that everybody involved in this thing is taking it seriously right about now. JMO

[DRSmith]

The problem is that it is unsustainable IMO. I would have no problem with it if it were something that I believed we could sustain. Perhaps we could sustain it if everybody contributed into the tax pool but everybody doesn't so I can't speak for that.

You don't have to offer a contract to any one of these men and women. You can simply not accept them into the service but they are providing a service in return for the benefit. They are earning the benefit through the work they are providing. In your scenario, that is not the case. You are expecting the benefit for all while all are providing no service.

Another great myth, people do not pay taxes which is not true they may not make enough to pay income tax but they pay other taxes and one things I have always stat.ed is that behaviours and foods that will increase ones need for health care should have a tax on them to cover their increase risk.

There is already talk of lack of health care and escalating costs being a national security issue