DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2013/april/09/massachusetts-health-care-costs.aspx
http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8311.pdf
These two articles don't paint as rosy a picture, Joether.
If your looking for the perfect health care idea; your going to be looking for a REALLY long time. Even I can point out that Mass Health has its share of problems. Parts of it have to be rewritten to handle issues with the ACA before 2014. That by itself take a bit of thinking on exactly how to make the rules mess together. Another (and the 2nd link points this out) that the health care costs are not unique to Massachusetts. Meaning that the other 49 states have a huge amount of problems regarding health care coverage, access, and usage. Some states in the Union have/are going in the direction of Massachusetts even before the ACA was going through the House & Senate back in 2009.
The 2nd article tries to explain all the sub-parts of Mass Health. It does a fair job of giving the reader the basic core concepts. Unfortunately the document was not made to give an in-depth analysis of all the parts. Keep that in mind when reading it.
From personal observation, the recession which started sometime in and around 2007 effected the state more than others in the country. With pass recessions, crime due to medical circumstances was always a problem. Someone needed medication, got desperate and invaded a store for supplies. This recession has not seen very much of that. How much do you suppose that has saved business owners in the state? Or stopped individuals remaining productive citizens rather than imprisoned inmates?
The first article really fails to explain very much of anything, DS. It doesn't explain where its facts originate from. Or how they measured those figures/facts. While a curious and shorter read to the 2nd article, it also is absence much in the way of useful information.
The first article points out:quote:
Seven years after its groundbreaking health reforms, which became the model for the Affordable Care Act, Massachusetts boasts an uninsured rate of less than 2 percent, compared to a national average of 16 percent. But the cost of health care in the state, the highest in the country before the reform law was passed, remains so.
IOW, the cost of health care in the MA is still the highest in the country. In 7 years, it hasn't reduced costs to the point where MA health care costs are lower than any other State in the Union.
The second article concludes:quote:
After six years of implementing an ambitious health reform initiative, Massachusetts has clearly demonstrated the potential for reducing the number of uninsured through strong stakeholder commitment and by embracing a model of shared responsibility. With the lowest rate of uninsured in the country, the Massachusetts experience became the model for federal health reform. However, major challenges still lie ahead for a state struggling to contain the growth of health care costs. As those within Massachusetts continue to debate the most appropriate way to slow health care spending, other states moving forward with the implementation of federal reform, can draw on some of the state’s early successes and challenges.
Both of these things paint a picture that isn't as rosy as the one you painted. Both articles point out that the number of uninsured has dropped dramatically and MA leads all States in the Union in having the lowest %-age of uninsured. That's not a shocker, by any stretch. Threaten a person with financial sanctions for not having insurance and assist lower income indiv/fam's pay for insurance, and, lo and behold, fewer people have insurance. Whodathunkit?
But, the cost of care hasn't dropped to the point that MA doesn't have the highest costs of any State. IOW, this was nothing but a shift of costs onto MA taxpayers, not an actual cost-lowering strategy. Does MA have such an incredibly high budget that 1.8% of its budget can drive national health expenditures (public and private) to 17+% National GDP (It would have to since MA's health care costs are highest of any State in the Union)?
I never said you were wrong. I only said that the articles don't paint as rosy a picture. I brought them to your attention because I wanted to get your opinion on them. One comes directly from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the other is an "editorially-independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit private operating foundation, based in Menlo Park, Calif., dedicated to producing and communicating the best possible analysis and information on health issues." (About KHN)
KFF is very friendly towards Obamacare, so it's not like these are from an opponent of national health care.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
Romneycare vs. Obamacare: Lessons for today's 'shutdown... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
RE: Romneycare vs. Obamacare: Lessons for today's 'shut... - 
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