RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts

RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/29/2011 9:18:18 PM)
That's just how he rolls,why ever would you question it ?

FirmhandKY -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/29/2011 9:19:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fmfclwu We have the highest premiums because we insure the most people (over 97%) and have the highest standards of coverage in the nation. When you get more in services, of course you pay more. Our costs are NOT the fastest growing in the nation - in fact, the individual plan market, which you claimed was so unaffordable, has risen only 2% per year since implementation (Source). Scare stories about how the cost of the program keeps rising neglect to mention that these cost increases are offset by decreases in the Health Safety Net Fund, which reimburses hospitals for emergency care provided to the uninsured. And for anyone arguing that more government involvement always means higher costs, you really need to take your blinders off and look at the rest of the world sometime. Out of all the UN Countries, the U.S. spends a higher portion of its GDP on healthcare than any other nation except East Timor. Forget the developed world, we are SECOND TO LAST in the world at controlling health care costs. And if government involvement always meant higher costs, we would expect a positive correlation between the percentage of healthcare paid for by a government, and the overall cost. Turns out the correlation works the other way: Sorry, your conclusion and chart may be as correct as far they go, but I see an important factor or two missing in the comparisons and analysis. For example, speed of services, and quality of care. Firm

angelikaJ -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/29/2011 9:22:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 "Perhaps the report’s most troubling finding is that the state relies on the honor system when determining who is eligible for free care — and does not review an applicant’s assets, or even require a Social Security number to verify income, citizenship or address, Sullivan said." It doesn't take genius to start finding the problems here. Are there lawyers in the US who know how to write laws to eliminate that shit? Why arent they being used, this is poor, too damn poor to be amusing Seems to me thats where most of the issues are, not the poor people or the illegals but the dumbarse heavily paid lawyers, yet the poor suffer AGAIN Despite my opposition to Public Healthcare, I do have the ability to look at things from both sides. You have absolutely no idea how bad healthcare in Massachusetts is and how Romneycare is killing us. If this " plan " we have is so flipping wonderful... why do we have the highest premiums in the US and the fastest rising healthcare costs ? People who aren't familiar with Romneycare think it's like univeral healthcare. It is not. Romneycare simply means you are mandated to have healthcare insurance, no matter what. You must purchase it. If that be thru work, so be it. If you fall into a category that makes you eligible for one of the state plans, you also pay for that, and they are not cheap for someone on a Disability check or a limited income. You must also pay your co pays to MDs and for your prescriptions, and the prescription plan is a tiered system, so you may be paying big bucks for your " free healthcare ". Something as simple as Lantus Insulin is a top tier medication. Romenycare was instituted to insure everyone has coverage, it did not address cost. Cost is not a part of Romneycare. Insurers can still charge as much as they want and increase as they want, and that's exactly what they are doing. Why not ? They have a nice little pool of fish who are forced to pay whatever they say or be fined by the State. As a result the costs just keep going up. The insurance companies are getting richer and richer and we are paying out the nose for crappy insurance. Over the last few weeks there has been quite a few scandels about BCBS of Mass. It is coming to light exactly how Romnneycare has done nothing but serve the insurance companies, not the people. Business are leaving this state in droves in part due to Romneycare, they cannot afford to keep their employess insured. mbmbn There are rather generous allowances for families with children as well as the ability to opt into Mass Health for them. Also, I can tell you that I am on disabilty and so am on a fixed income. The guidelines for medicaid (aka Mass-health) have not changed. I am still eligible. Once I was on SSDI for 2 years I also became eligible for Medicare, and with my Mass-health eligibility they are picking up the premium. Oh, and every year I have to recertify my eligibity for Mass-Health and included in that re-cert application is my social security number and initially a copy of my driver's license was needed the first time.

tazzygirl -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/29/2011 9:22:59 PM)
quote: For example, speed of services, and quality of care. Standards of care do not have to go down. They dont in other countries who utilize the same standards as we do in many areas, especially maternal health. Speed of service. Might help if you expand on that.

fmfclwu -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/29/2011 9:27:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: fmfclwu We have the highest premiums because we insure the most people (over 97%) and have the highest standards of coverage in the nation. When you get more in services, of course you pay more. Our costs are NOT the fastest growing in the nation - in fact, the individual plan market, which you claimed was so unaffordable, has risen only 2% per year since implementation (Source). Scare stories about how the cost of the program keeps rising neglect to mention that these cost increases are offset by decreases in the Health Safety Net Fund, which reimburses hospitals for emergency care provided to the uninsured. And for anyone arguing that more government involvement always means higher costs, you really need to take your blinders off and look at the rest of the world sometime. Out of all the UN Countries, the U.S. spends a higher portion of its GDP on healthcare than any other nation except East Timor. Forget the developed world, we are SECOND TO LAST in the world at controlling health care costs. And if government involvement always meant higher costs, we would expect a positive correlation between the percentage of healthcare paid for by a government, and the overall cost. Turns out the correlation works the other way: Sorry, your conclusion and chart may be as correct as far they go, but I see an important factor or two missing in the comparisons and analysis. For example, speed of services, and quality of care. Firm Good point. Much better to cling to the 37th ranked healthcare system in the world, for which we pay the second highest cost of ANY nation in the world, than to risk improving our standards and lowering costs. </sarcasm>

FirmhandKY -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/29/2011 9:34:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: For example, speed of services, and quality of care. Standards of care do not have to go down. They dont in other countries who utilize the same standards as we do in many areas, especially maternal health. Speed of service. Might help if you expand on that. Tazzy, I'm not taking a position about Mass Healthcare ... I don't know, and its not important enough for me to spend a lot of time on. My comments were that the information presented didn't include a lot of factors, including how long it takes for people to receive treatment for different types of illnesses, or injuries. Here is a link to a short article about comparisons of healthcare systems. European Healthcare. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/29/2011 9:38:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fmfclwu Good point. Much better to cling to the 37th ranked healthcare system in the world, for which we pay the second highest cost of ANY nation in the world, than to risk improving our standards and lowering costs. </sarcasm> Throw sarcasm around all you want. You have no clue as to my leanings or beliefs about healthcare, or insurance companies in the US. I was pointing out that your data was incomplete, and therefore your conclusions were suspect. They still are, and being a "smartie pants" and sarcastic about it isn't much of a defense. Firm

SexyBossyBBW -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/29/2011 9:57:09 PM)
[sm=offtopic.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda What's the difference between someone who isn't insured taking an unnecessary ambulance ride to the hospital and never paying for it, and someone taking an unnecessary ambulance ride to the hospital and making the state pay for it? Sssshhhhh... as long as the bill's hidden... Where've you been?!!??! Stay!!!!! Don't go!!!!! Yes, welcome back kittinSol. I've missed seeing you here. [sm=dance.gif] M

maybemaybenot -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/29/2011 10:13:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fmfclwu Our costs are NOT the fastest growing in the nation - in fact, the individual plan market, which you claimed was so unaffordable, has risen only 2% per year since implementation (Source). Your " source " is correct in that the state run programs have increased only 2%, but your " source " aslo says that private insurance, you know .. the ones we working people have to pay for, rose 7.5% from 2006-2008. You may want to fact check the rise in rate thru 2011. Why do you think Governor Patrick tried to cap the amount they can increase by ? •The Commonwealth's health care system is a key employer and driver of economic growth for the region. However, personal health spending per capita is higher in Massachusetts relative to the nation and continues to rise. •Average monthly health insurance premiums increased 12% from 2006 to 2008. If employers and individuals had purchased comparable benefits each year, the growth in premiums would have been larger. •Health care spending in the Commonwealth increased 7.5% per year from 2006 through 2008, a growth rate that is higher than the nation. http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eohhs2terminal&L=5&L0=Home&L1=Government&L2=Laws%2C+Regulations+and+Policies&L3=Division+of+Health+Care+Finance+and+Policy%3A+Regulations&L4=Email+Notifications&sid=Eeohhs2&b=terminalcontent&f=dhcfp_government_eblast_cost_trends1&csid=Eeohhs2 2010: Massachusetts has higher health insurance premiums than the U.S. average, and for at least the past five years premiums have grown at a faster rate. http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dhcfp/r/cost_trends_files/part2_premium_levels_and_trends.pdf "The only problem is that the state has the highest average insurance premiums in the United States. Health care spending is 27 percent higher in Massachusetts than the national average and costs keep growing." "The theory of the universal health insurance system, of course, is to bend the cost curve of health insurance. Yet in practice, the new Massachusetts system has resulted in annual 30 percent increases in the individual health insurance market." http://www.gohealthinsurance.com/blog/coverage/entry/201003011 Do the math... the people who have private insurance, pay more to offset the state plan. Last year our premiums were increased 30%, I don't have the figures for this year as they are not out yet, but you can bet your bottom dollar it's increased again. So yeah, that's great that the state plan people are only paying 2% more, but the average working joe is getting fucked up the ass with no lube. "Thanks to new taxes and fees imposed last year, the health plan’s jittery finances have stabilized for the moment. But government and industry officials agree that the plan will not be sustainable over the next 5 to 10 years if they do not take significant steps to arrest the growth of health spending." "Alan Sager, a professor of health policy at Boston University, has calculated that health spending per person in Massachusetts increased faster than the national average in seven of the last eight years. Furthermore, he said, the gap has grown exponentially, with Massachusetts now spending about a third more per person, up from 23 percent in 1980." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html mbmbn

maybemaybenot -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/29/2011 10:23:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelikaJ There are rather generous allowances for families with children as well as the ability to opt into Mass Health for them. Also, I can tell you that I am on disabilty and so am on a fixed income. The guidelines for medicaid (aka Mass-health) have not changed. I am still eligible. Once I was on SSDI for 2 years I also became eligible for Medicare, and with my Mass-health eligibility they are picking up the premium. Oh, and every year I have to recertify my eligibity for Mass-Health and included in that re-cert application is my social security number and initially a copy of my driver's license was needed the first time. Yes, angelika Mass Health is a good plan, better than any private plan I know of. However, not every one who is on SSI Disability is eligible for it. Many, Many are not. They have to purchase Commonweath Care. And it is not cheap, when you factor in what they recieve in SSI each month. I have 2 friends who are on SSI. Both were nurses, one had a stroke and the other had back surgery that is botched. Their checks are less than 2K/mos and they both pay 249/mos and 275/mos. They both are on a lot of meds and they pay good rates for some of their meds and top tier rates for other meds, Neccesary items are not covered. The one with the stroke has very bad leg edema from the stroke. The special stockings she has to wear to help control this are not covered and cost $ 125 dollars per pair. Neither are eligable for food stamps, so when you factor in medical costs, they are left with a big chunk of money gone. mbmbn ETA : and keep in mind, it is not only folks recieving a government check who use Commonwealth care, it is working people who generally make income below the poverty level and/or whose small place of business doesn't have private insurance. They also are payingout the nose for, what I consider, crappy insurance.

maybemaybenot -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/29/2011 10:28:00 PM)
And the fact remains, as was in the OP... fraud and corruption is running rampant. The Commonweath of Massachusetts can't even contain the abuse of the system, let alone the runaway cost of the system. mbmbn

fmfclwu -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/29/2011 10:40:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot Yes, angelika Mass Health is a good plan, better than any private plan I know of. However, not every one who is on SSI Disability is eligible for it. Many, Many are not. They have to purchase Commonweath Care. And it is not cheap, when you factor in what they recieve in SSI each month. I have 2 friends who are on SSI. Both were nurses, one had a stroke and the other had back surgery that is botched. Their checks are less than 2K/mos and they both pay 249/mos and 275/mos. They both are on a lot of meds and they pay good rates for some of their meds and top tier rates for other meds, Neccesary items are not covered. The one with the stroke has very bad leg edema from the stroke. The special stockings she has to wear to help control this are not covered and cost $ 125 dollars per pair. Neither are eligable for food stamps, so when you factor in medical costs, they are left with a big chunk of money gone. mbmbn ETA : and keep in mind, it is not only folks recieving a government check who use Commonwealth care, it is working people who generally make income below the poverty level and/or whose small place of business doesn't have private insurance. They also are payingout the nose for, what I consider, crappy insurance. If people below the poverty level are buying Commonwealth Care, that's a choice - anyone below 1.5 times the poverty level is exempt from the individual mandate.

maybemaybenot -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/29/2011 10:54:43 PM)
You're correct, my mistake. Correction : people who are making 1 dollar or more above the poverty level.

WyldHrt -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/29/2011 11:50:11 PM)
quote: What I should have stressed,and do firmly believe,is that for ideological reasons the frequency of these situations are blown out of proportion to the point where the gullible start swearing that this is the norm ....rather than the exception. Depends on what you mean by exception. When I was in EMT class (back in the stone age), it was common enough for the instructor to not only mention it, but spend quite a bit of time on the subject. I mentioned that we had a few 'frequent flyers', but those were not the only people to see the ambulance crews as taxi drivers. MBMBN mentioned long term care facilities doing this, and she was right, but we rolled on a large number of other calls that were just... well... BS. The most common excuse we were given was that you get right in if you come via ambulance, and don't have to sit in the waiting room with 'all those sick people' rolls eyes. There were other excuses, many of them equally annoying in a large area with limited fire and ambulance crews. This kind of thing is nothing new, but I have a hard time believing that it doesn't get worse when the service is 'free'. Call me a cynic [;)]

angelikaJ -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/30/2011 4:30:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot quote: ORIGINAL: angelikaJ There are rather generous allowances for families with children as well as the ability to opt into Mass Health for them. Also, I can tell you that I am on disabilty and so am on a fixed income. The guidelines for medicaid (aka Mass-health) have not changed. I am still eligible. Once I was on SSDI for 2 years I also became eligible for Medicare, and with my Mass-health eligibility they are picking up the premium. Oh, and every year I have to recertify my eligibity for Mass-Health and included in that re-cert application is my social security number and initially a copy of my driver's license was needed the first time. Yes, angelika Mass Health is a good plan, better than any private plan I know of. However, not every one who is on SSI Disability is eligible for it. Many, Many are not. They have to purchase Commonweath Care. And it is not cheap, when you factor in what they recieve in SSI each month. I have 2 friends who are on SSI. Both were nurses, one had a stroke and the other had back surgery that is botched. Their checks are less than 2K/mos and they both pay 249/mos and 275/mos. They both are on a lot of meds and they pay good rates for some of their meds and top tier rates for other meds, Neccesary items are not covered. The one with the stroke has very bad leg edema from the stroke. The special stockings she has to wear to help control this are not covered and cost $ 125 dollars per pair. Neither are eligable for food stamps, so when you factor in medical costs, they are left with a big chunk of money gone. mbmbn ETA : and keep in mind, it is not only folks recieving a government check who use Commonwealth care, it is working people who generally make income below the poverty level and/or whose small place of business doesn't have private insurance. They also are payingout the nose for, what I consider, crappy insurance. They are women for whom opting into medicare may be quite beneficial once their 2 years is up. They will have to outweigh the cost of opting in vs the cost of their medications. The stockings are an item that may be covered as there are many items available via medicare that are not available on Mass Health.

rulemylife -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/30/2011 5:21:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda What's the difference between someone who isn't insured taking an unnecessary ambulance ride to the hospital and never paying for it, and someone taking an unnecessary ambulance ride to the hospital and making the state pay for it? Sssshhhhh... as long as the bill's hidden... Where've you been?!!??! Stay!!!!! Don't go!!!!! It's up to you that I don't get bored to death again then [8D] . (Good to see you too :-).) Sounds like a bargain. You still like it when I parlez la Francaise, mon petit fleur du matin? Are we going to have to listen to all this Frenchy talk again? I'm going down to McDonald's and order some freedom fries. Just kidding, good to see you back Kittin.

popeye1250 -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/30/2011 12:17:16 PM)
I should also mention that the Inspector General of Massachusetts, Gregg Sullivan was on Howie Carr's show and was mentioning some of the problem areas so "speculation" and "stereotypes" wearn't talked about.

flcouple2009 -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/30/2011 12:23:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot And the fact remains, as was in the OP... fraud and corruption is running rampant. The Commonweath of Massachusetts can't even contain the abuse of the system, let alone the runaway cost of the system. mbmbn No, the real question is right here “When the state set up the free-care pool, it was supposed to have the most cutting-edge anti-fraud system to go along with it, but it’s not up and running, and because of that, many millions of dollars are being wasted.” WTF happened?

popeye1250 -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/30/2011 12:29:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot And the fact remains, as was in the OP... fraud and corruption is running rampant. The Commonweath of Massachusetts can't even contain the abuse of the system, let alone the runaway cost of the system. mbmbn No, the real question is right here “When the state set up the free-care pool, it was supposed to have the most cutting-edge anti-fraud system to go along with it, but it’s not up and running, and because of that, many millions of dollars are being wasted.” WTF happened? FLCPL, what happened? Well, in Massachusetts you have some of the most highly educated, most intelligent people and the best schools on the planet. (*Just ask them!)

joether -> RE: "Free" Healthcare in Massachusetts (3/30/2011 1:12:34 PM)
Most of you folks dont know this, but I'm pretty sure popeye and maybemaybenot DO (which should show the level of honesty on display here for conservatives). 'The Boston Herald' is sort of like the old 'World Weekly News' for the greater Boston, MA Region. Its a tabloid with a sprinkle of 'journalism' mixed in. Very often the information presented is incomplete and/or not factually correct. It should be no surprise to the educated types that folks that read 'The Boston Herald' really do watch FOX News for their information. That should help most of you in understanding popeye's 'source'. Mass Health is a better plan then a US Citizen will find in the other 49 states place US territories. About 98% of the citizens are covered under one plan or another, with THE PEOPLE, administering it (not some greedy corporation). Costing the state a whopping 1% of its total budget, its hardly 'a drain on resources'. There are facts, and then there's political agenda. When have popeye or maybemaybenot NOT shown a conservative agenda when attacking something that REALLY is good for most Americans? Yes, there is waste. Unfortunately, 'waste' in goverment is subjective. What one person calls waste is another's 'good use of goverment funds'. Often times, the waste I've heard told by conservatives regarding Mass Health, has turned up to be a big stretch of the paranoid mind. If you want to debate 'waste' in the health industry, then lets agree to what the defination of 'waste'. That way, we can debate on information knowing what would be defined as 'waste' and what is simply 'political agenda'. Since to anyone watching the nation's politics for the past few years know: conservatives dont want health care for US Citizens. Or more exactly, conservatives dont like US Citizens who F-up in life or due to circumstances get F-up, to have access to quality health care. Not surprisingly, these are also the sort of people that didn't want to help Haiti, Japan, or even New Orleans after Katrina. Bottom line: this group of conservatives, want and crave to see other US Citizens suffering in life. Rather then go to the 'high journalistic quality' of the Boston Herald, why didn't the person who believed waste was taking place take it to their representative? That was the reason for Mass Health's creation: to give quality care to Mass residents, and make sure NO ONE slipped between the cracks. The overhead for Mass Health is pretty damn low compared to corporations. Likewise, the common US Citizens is more in control of their health care through Mass Health then a coporate administrator that doesnt know them nor care about their existance. And if Mass Health doesn't cover it, one of two things can happen: A) The person gets health coverage through a private health company that will offer the medical issue, and pays for it. B) They contact their representative and see's if an exception can be made. As unbelievable as it will sound to conservatives: liberal really ARE more compassionate towards their fellow humans/citizens. They generally have a good idea what suffering is like, and would rather others not go through with it (particularly children).

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875