tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
A bankrupt system wont treat either of them taz, and government cant be in the business of enforcing a good diet and exercise.
And those are the only two causes of high BP?
quote:
provs link established that even with "free" healthcare people continued to use emergency rooms to treat their medical problems, or depended on emergency rooms even more than they did before.
Here is what the link stated...per 2010 numbers.
"The average employer-sponsored family health plan costs nearly $14,000. That's higher than anywhere else in the nation."
This is the truth...
"The report found that by 2009, premiums were highest in Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming, with family premiums in those states exceeding $14,000 a year."
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2010/Dec/New-State-by-State-Report.aspx
So you tell me.. which is accurate?
quote:
House Republican Leader John Boehner, the presumptive House speaker in the next Congress, issued a press release Sept. 7 that highlighted a Seattle Times story about “whopping” rate increases in Washington state and a report on rising premiums by the Kaiser Family Foundation as evidence rates will “skyrocket” because of the new federal law. But his examples are bogus.
Boehner, Sept. 7: [B]etween reports from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Seattle Times indicating that health care costs will skyrocket under ObamaCare, the Democrats’ claims that their government takeover of health care will make health insurance more affordable doesn’t pass the straight-faced test.
Not true. The Kaiser report gave absolutely no indication that “health care costs will skyrocket under ObamaCare.” It found that premiums for families with employer-sponsored health care plans rose a modest 3 percent in 2010, but workers’ share of the cost jumped 14 percent as companies shifted health care costs to employees during the recession. None of those increases had anything to do with the new federal law. The Kaiser report was the result of an annual survey of more than 3,000 companies that was conducted between January and May of 2010 — before the mandated changes in health care coverage went into effect on Sept. 23. In fact, these increases reported by employers took effect before the law was even signed. http://factcheck.org/2010/11/the-truth-about-health-insurance-premiums/
Now, lets look at some facts...
"The bad news for the Bay State: Health spending per capita has been higher than the nationwide average since at least 1992. Even after adjusting for income differences and federal grants received, the state spending per person was 15 percent higher than the U.S. average in 2004, according to the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy."
..........
"The latest number from the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy: 98.1 percent of Massachusetts residents had health insurance in 2010."
.........
"The state does better in covering children — 99.8 percent of kids are estimated to have insurance. (Nationally, the figure is 92.6 percent.)"
..........
"Huckabee was dead wrong when he said that the law "ended up having almost the polar opposite effect of what was intended." A major goal — if not the goal — was to reduce the number of uninsured. The state was very successful in that regard. We called and e-mailed the press office for Huckabee’s political action committee several times, asking for back-up for his claims. A spokesman told us he would get back to us, but we have not yet received a response. We will update this article if we do."
.........
"It certainly takes money to create a subsidy program and expand Medicaid coverage. But is the Massachusetts law “bankrupting” the state? The foundation says no. In May 2009 it put out a report called “The Myth of Uncontrolled Costs," which concluded that the net added cost to Massachusetts taxpayers was $353 million in 2010, or roughly 1.2 percent of the state budget. (The total cost of “reform spending,” beyond what Massachusetts was already paying for uncompensated care before the law, was $707 million, with federal dollars covering half of that.)"
........
"As for employer plans, the information is a little fuzzy. Premiums have gone up, but they had been going up in Massachusetts, since before the law was passed. Did the law cause an increase? One study published in 2010 in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy calculated that the health care law had pushed up employer-sponsored, single-coverage premiums by 6 percent over two years, based on the fact that the cost of Massachusetts premiums rose faster than premiums in the U.S. overall (by 2.2 percentage points), and that the cost of the state’s premiums hadn’t risen as much as the country’s in the two previous years. The study also calculated only a 1.5 percent increase for family plans. The authors noted that the study has limitations.
Gruber told us he doesn’t see the changes in Massachusetts employer premiums as statistically meaningful. “We cannot rule out that they found what they did purely by chance,” he says of that study, which used Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data.
The evidence is conflicting: Massachusetts premiums rose faster than premiums in the U.S. overall. But the same data show that 19 states had larger increases, including the nearby states of Vermont and New Hampshire, Gruber says. “Statistically, there is no evidence that MA is particularly different than the other states." "
http://factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/
So, again, which is factual?
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|
RE: Vermont Senate gives initial OK to single-payer hea... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread