We Have It!!

odd how mitt never brings up the universal health care he gave to the people in his state... and how he talks down about obama care... i dont trust him

I would vote for alternative candidates - and DO - but in the recent governor's race the republican and the democrat took over 90% of the votes even though there was an Independent and a Green Party runner for whom to vote. Maybe YOU should run...or ME!!!

Thank you freeed for your kind words. My "mission", as I age, is to do whatever I can to help eliminate "politics as usual" and demand that our government employees (the term "government employees" should, by law, replace the term "representatives") work together to solve our problems vs. to stay in office or get elected.



We should vote for those who do the best job of explaining their position on new ideas and presenting their ideas to the public in an understandable manner -- with charts, and numbers, and graphs, and study results -- BEFORE they are voted on.



As anyone who has worked in business knows, a business case must be developed and presented in a convincing manner before any decision is made to approve it and implement it. The way it works in our government now should be outlawed.

I've seldom seen such complete analysis on ANY EP topic. Bravo!

A small correction - the Commonwealth has a public option for those who qualify. A person can be homeless and unemployed and still be covered. We have over 98% of our LEGAL citizens covered, highest in the USA.

Medicine is obviously very complex but the system itself has a lot of waste and fat to be trimmed; let me give 2 examples:

My associate went for a routine cardiogram but was FORCED to have a second one soon after because a different hospital refused to accept the 1st one's results.

I had blood work done at an unnamed clinic - a famous one - and the results were like World War III to be transferred from the "third floor" to "the second floor." The system, like ANY entrenched power structure, promotes itself as a priority to sensible spending.

While I cannot vouch for the veracity of the source of the following information, it provides a summary of the pros and cons of the Massachusetts universal healthcare program.



PART I: To those in favor of major healthcare reform, Massachusetts’ Mandatory Health Insurance represents a model of healthcare equity and universal coverage. To those opposed, it serves as a prime example of governmental intrusion and unwelcome mandatory participation.



Whichever side of the healthcare reform bill issue you’re on, there are positives and negatives to take away from the Massachusetts experience that can help shape a national plan:



Pros



Universal Coverage – Healthcare coverage is truly universal, requiring all Massachusetts residents to be covered.



Portability – Allows for the portability of health insurance coverage between jobs.



Transparent Costs & Quality – The law requires a consumer health website be set up to compare the cost and quality of healthcare services. The website assists consumers in making informed healthcare decisions.



Bipartisan Effort – Massachusetts legislators put politics aside for the common good.



Cons



Mandatory – Companies with 11 employees or more must provide coverage for their employees. If they do not, the state of Massachusetts charges employers $295 per month, per employee for mandated health coverage.



Pay For Performance – Medicare reimbursement is tied to quality and performance. Some say this approach harms the patient-doctor relationship by aligning the physician’s incentives more with reimbursement than care.



More Regulations – The system is complicated and requires additional levels of regulation and government involvement.



Enforcement – Massachusetts residents must provide proof of health insurance coverage on their tax forms or be penalized.



Early results show a decrease by more than 50% of adults without health insurance coverage, residents are paying less in out-of-pocket health expenses and low-income adults are now more likely to undergo regular check-ups and visit dentists.



The pros and cons of the Massachusetts healthcare model can be debated. But perhaps the most valuable lesson set by this progressive state is that significant national healthcare reform can be achieved if legislators are willing to work on a bipartisan basis.



The source: PoliticianScandal.com is a free political news and articles archive. Whether you’re an author who needs to pad your resume with reputable publishing or just looking for accurate information about a specific political topic, PoliticianScandal.com has what you need.



PART II: Another point of view - myfamilydoctor.com - "for" and "against" universal healthcare:



AGAINST - America is often criticized for its lack of a universal health-care system comparable to the Europeans and Canadians, even though Germany, the United Kingdom and even Canada are increasingly turning to the private sector in order to relieve the financial burden on government and solve serious delivery problems, most notably “rationing by queue,” the prolonged wait times for many services, including cancer treatment and cardiac surgery. Compared to the private sector, government programs are inefficient and the higher costs have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, or even medical research and development. This is a tradeoff that most Americans would not be willing to make.



FOR - How can there be a debate over whether universal health care is itself a desirable goal? A 2002 Institutes of Medicine study concluded that more than 18,000 Americans die every year because they’re uninsured. Some kind of health coverage for every citizen would mean fewer child deaths from asthma, fewer cancer deaths in minority communities and fewer veterans who depend on emergency rooms for their primary care. The real questions are how universal care would be paid for and who would decide levels of reimbursement.



The first myth concerns what universal health care is: a broad term that could mean anything from government financing (as in Medicare/Medicaid for all) to use of tax law to bring everyone into the private health-insurance system (as recently enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Governor Mitt Romney).

Health insurance companies spend heavily to condemn something called “socialized medicine,” recognizing that any single-payer plan would likely result in heavy losses for their industry. But no major organizations or national political figures have advocated creating a system like Great Britain’s, where the government owns all the facilities and employs all the doctors and nurses.



Two other myths about universal care are that doctors oppose it and that quality of care would suffer. But a plurality of physicians, particularly primary-care doctors, supports national health insurance. And there is now strong evidence that, even in developed countries with addiction problems like ours, universal coverage correlates with improved quality of health across the socioeconomic spectrum.



MY CONCLUSION: It is VERY DESIRABLE in theory but, like all things that are desirable, It comes down to "cost" (affordability), which is tied to "how" to implement it.

Wow! I wish I live up there. My employer doesn't provide health insurance and I don't make enough to get it on my own. It ticks me off that our congress men and women get free health care for sitting around on their butts all day while the lower income people who have to work in physically demanding jobs get nothing to help us when we get sick. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

FYI: Germany has a reputation for having one of the best health care systems in the world, providing its residents with comprehensive health insurance coverage. However, (from howtogermany.com) the costs of the German health care system are immense and rising due to demographics as well as long-term unemployment rates. And, their system holds costs down by rationing care. Approx. 15% of the German people (the rich) do not have this system and their care is better. So they have a 2-class system.



The US is the only major country in the world that does not have Universal Health Care. But, every country that has Universal Health Care can no longer afford it. These countries are raising taxes, making individuals pay more, and reducing services.

gentianblue - I'm not an expert but if a person is HOMELESS one presumes they don't make anything, so I don't think making too little is an issue. As far as making too much, the copays and monthly premiums increase with income. I make copays but am income poor enough to not have to pay monthly premiums. Below me are no monthly premium AND no copay participants [very minimal for meds, nothing for doctors], so called Free Care patients. So why were the people you know of denied Commonwealth Care? Maybe they get coverage through their jobs, which I THINK disqualifies them [I'm self employed part-time]. MAYBE they can't get a PCP, but I had one already so could keep him and I'm lucky since he's not taking new patients, but it's hard to believe SOME PCP cannot be found for those people. If they insist on seeing some doctor not on the list, it's their fault. Is the Social Worker representing citizens or illegal aliens?

Update [Oct 26, 2010] about illegals:TV news has it that $2,000,000 a year is spent in the Commonwealth on ER visits by illegals and 6000 illegals a year receive inpatient care. How's that for Massachusetts government's failure to protect it's CITIZENS?

flyingstone - it's a new system, so we'll see how well it works long term. I know this and don't care WHOSE toes upon which I step: illegal aliens are drowning the medical system, epecialyl around Mexico where a lot of hospitals do go bankrupt. So far none here, but....ahem....we DO have some of the best, ergo strongest financially, in the world. Not sure about what your balancing meant, but if your income drops, so do your costs. I'm near the bottom now and have every specialist anyone could want for $10 copays - podiatrist, cardiologist, diabetes specialist, opthomologist.

Canada also seems to work fine, as Australia does - thanks enna30 - and a documentary compared differing better systems worldwide, including Japan and Germany. USA is in the Dark Ages due to Big Pharma and Big Insurance.

enna30 the health care here is so dysfunctional. Men and women are really stuck because of this problem. I think there would be more business started by people, people could leave horrible marriages, and most of us would not be terrified of ill health that would take all the money that we have ever made and leave us indigent. So many live without any insurance at all. It is very humiliating to have everything about your life known to even see if you can have health care for the poor. Even then a lot of doctors will not see you because they won't be paid as much as they desire. I wanted a good doctor for my knee and I waited half a year for my operation but it was worth it--this doctor is so good he will see you even if you have seen another orthopedic doctor--I don't know of any other doctor who would do this--if you have seen another doctor they won't see you.

The Australian system works very well. There are always going to be exceptions to the rule (i.e. glitches, or people abusing the system) but no-one in this country needs to seriously fear ill health. Waiting lists for surgery are too long and are always on the political agenda - but they do eventually get done.



I comment on the "I live in a sexless marriage" forum and I am deeply saddened by the number of Americans who say they cannot leave seriously dysfunctional marriages because they would have no health care . . . That is a tragedy IMO.

Tell me--does this take care of the medical bankruptcy problem? If you can't work for awhile does it adjust the pay out to meet the need? Also is this plan working in your state or are you hearing a lot of criticism? I think universal health care would be the most humane type of insurance--nothing is perfect but it does come closer to giving people a chance of a decent life.

Massachussetts has so many things right. I hope the rest of the nation will catch up eventually