Republicans want Romney to say his MA health care reforms were a mistake

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Add Rudy Giuliani to the list of Republicans who are slamming Mitt Romney for his signature achievement -- universal healthcare in Massachusetts -- and its striking resemblance to President Obama's healthcare reform, with both of them based on an individual mandate to purchase private health insurance, plus subsidies for people with lower incomes.

"It's clear the Massachusetts health care plan was a mistake and Mitt should basically say that and explain how he would act differently now," Giuliani told the New Hampshire Union Leader's John DiStaso.

Romney has tried to deflect this issue by differentiating his state-level program from a wider federal government approach, as in a recent speech: "Our experiment wasn't perfect--some things worked, some didn't, and some things I'd change. One thing I would never do is to usurp the constitutional power of states with a one-size-fits-all federal takeover."

But that's not good enough for Rudy, either.

"And, a mandate is a mandate is a mandate is a mandate," Giuliani also told the Union Leader. "There shouldn't be a mandate at the national level. There shouldn't be a mandate at the state level. There shouldn't be a mandate at the city level. People should get to make their own choices about this and the most important thing to do is to decrease the government's role in health care and increase the private sector's role."

(Via The Hill.)

[JohnSmith2007 353]

He should because it was a mistake. The national plan that follows the state plan was also a mistake. The only real way to make medical costs go down is single payer. When will the dems get that through their thick skulls?

Massachusetts health care reform failed to stop medical bankruptcies

Published March 9th, 2011. in General Interest, Health, Life, Popular

A new Harvard study says the percentage of personal bankruptcies linked to medical bills or illness changed little, and the absolute number actually increased in Massachusetts, after the implementation of its landmark 2006 law requiring people to buy health insurance, a Harvard study says.

The new study, which appears in the American Journal of Medicine, found that between early 2007 and mid-2009, the share of all Massachusetts bankruptcies with a medical cause went from 59.3 percent to 52.9 percent, a non-significant decrease of 6.4 percentage points. Because there was a sharp rise in total bankruptcies during that period, the actual number of medical bankruptcy filings in the state rose from 7,504 in 2007 to 10,093 in 2009.

The findings have national implications because the Obama administration’s health law is largely patterned after the Massachusetts plan, including its individual mandate. One of the administration’s arguments in support of the new federal law was that it would significantly reduce medical bankruptcies nationwide. The findings in Massachusetts cast doubt on that claim.

Moreover, the president’s recent proposal to let states opt out of the national health reform threatens to further weaken the inadequate standards for coverage that were included in the 2010 reform law. The result may well be the growth of skimpier plans nationwide, leading to even higher rates of medical bankruptcy than in Massachusetts.

To explain why medical bankruptcies persist in Massachusetts, the authors of the new study write: “Health costs in the state have risen sharply since reform was enacted. Even before the changes in health care laws, most medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts – as in other states – afflicted middle-class families with health insurance. High premium costs and gaps in coverage – co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services – often left insured families liable for substantial out-of-pocket costs. None of that changed. For example, under Massachusetts’ reform, the least expensive individual coverage available to a 56-year-old Bostonian carries a premium of $5,616, a deductible of $2,000, and covers only 80 percent of the next $15,000 in costs for covered services.”

The study’s lead author, Dr. David Himmelstein, said, “Massachusetts’ health reform, like the national law modeled after it, takes many of the uninsured and makes them underinsured, typically giving them a skimpy, defective private policy that’s like an umbrella that melts in the rain: the protection’s not there when you need it.”

In the case of Massachusetts, “while we can’t completely rule out the possibility that the reform reduced medical bankruptcies, any reduction is certainly small,” he said. Himmelstein conducted the study as associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School; he currently is professor of public health at City University of New York.

In 2007, the last year for which national estimates are available, medical issues contributed to 62.1 percent of bankruptcies nationally, according to a 2009 study by the same group of researchers. That study, which was frequently cited by the president and congressional reform advocates, also found that 77.9 percent of those bankrupted were insured at the start of their illness, including 60.3 percent who had private coverage.

The authors note that Massachusetts has historically had fewer medical bankruptcies than the rest of the nation, presumably reflecting, among other things, the state’s more robust social safety net, including public hospitals and a system of free medical care for the poor that predated the recent reform. Massachusetts’ 51 percent increase in total bankruptcies between 2007 and 2009 was slower than the increase in the majority of other federal jurisdictions.

The state’s health law was passed in 2006 and was fully implemented by early 2008. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the share of state residents who were uninsured fell by 58 percent between 2006 and 2009, from 10.4 percent to 4.4 percent, and remains the lowest rate of any state.

Because bankruptcies lag many months behind a financial shock, the early 2007 and mid-2009 surveys provide a good “before and after” look at the effects of the health reform, the researchers said (Courtesy of EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS).

Reference: “Medical bankruptcy in Massachusetts: Has health reform made a difference?” David U. Himmelstein, M.D., Deborah Thorne, Ph.D., and Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H. American Journal of Medicine, March 2011 (print edition).

http://ihealthbulletin.com/blog/2011/03/09/massachusetts-health-care-reform-failed-medical-bankruptcies/

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

He should because it was a mistake. The national plan that follows the state plan was also a mistake. The only real way to make medical costs go down is single payer. When will the dems get that through their thick skulls?

Massachusetts health care reform failed to stop medical bankruptcies

Published March 9th, 2011. in General Interest, Health, Life, Popular

A new Harvard study says the percentage of personal bankruptcies linked to medical bills or illness changed little, and the absolute number actually increased in Massachusetts, after the implementation of its landmark 2006 law requiring people to buy health insurance, a Harvard study says.

The new study, which appears in the American Journal of Medicine, found that between early 2007 and mid-2009, the share of all Massachusetts bankruptcies with a medical cause went from 59.3 percent to 52.9 percent, a non-significant decrease of 6.4 percentage points. Because there was a sharp rise in total bankruptcies during that period, the actual number of medical bankruptcy filings in the state rose from 7,504 in 2007 to 10,093 in 2009.

The findings have national implications because the Obama administration’s health law is largely patterned after the Massachusetts plan, including its individual mandate. One of the administration’s arguments in support of the new federal law was that it would significantly reduce medical bankruptcies nationwide. The findings in Massachusetts cast doubt on that claim.

Moreover, the president’s recent proposal to let states opt out of the national health reform threatens to further weaken the inadequate standards for coverage that were included in the 2010 reform law. The result may well be the growth of skimpier plans nationwide, leading to even higher rates of medical bankruptcy than in Massachusetts.

To explain why medical bankruptcies persist in Massachusetts, the authors of the new study write: “Health costs in the state have risen sharply since reform was enacted. Even before the changes in health care laws, most medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts – as in other states – afflicted middle-class families with health insurance. High premium costs and gaps in coverage – co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services – often left insured families liable for substantial out-of-pocket costs. None of that changed. For example, under Massachusetts’ reform, the least expensive individual coverage available to a 56-year-old Bostonian carries a premium of $5,616, a deductible of $2,000, and covers only 80 percent of the next $15,000 in costs for covered services.”

The study’s lead author, Dr. David Himmelstein, said, “Massachusetts’ health reform, like the national law modeled after it, takes many of the uninsured and makes them underinsured, typically giving them a skimpy, defective private policy that’s like an umbrella that melts in the rain: the protection’s not there when you need it.”

In the case of Massachusetts, “while we can’t completely rule out the possibility that the reform reduced medical bankruptcies, any reduction is certainly small,” he said. Himmelstein conducted the study as associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School; he currently is professor of public health at City University of New York.

In 2007, the last year for which national estimates are available, medical issues contributed to 62.1 percent of bankruptcies nationally, according to a 2009 study by the same group of researchers. That study, which was frequently cited by the president and congressional reform advocates, also found that 77.9 percent of those bankrupted were insured at the start of their illness, including 60.3 percent who had private coverage.

The authors note that Massachusetts has historically had fewer medical bankruptcies than the rest of the nation, presumably reflecting, among other things, the state’s more robust social safety net, including public hospitals and a system of free medical care for the poor that predated the recent reform. Massachusetts’ 51 percent increase in total bankruptcies between 2007 and 2009 was slower than the increase in the majority of other federal jurisdictions.

The state’s health law was passed in 2006 and was fully implemented by early 2008. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the share of state residents who were uninsured fell by 58 percent between 2006 and 2009, from 10.4 percent to 4.4 percent, and remains the lowest rate of any state.

Because bankruptcies lag many months behind a financial shock, the early 2007 and mid-2009 surveys provide a good “before and after” look at the effects of the health reform, the researchers said (Courtesy of EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS).

Reference: “Medical bankruptcy in Massachusetts: Has health reform made a difference?” David U. Himmelstein, M.D., Deborah Thorne, Ph.D., and Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H. American Journal of Medicine, March 2011 (print edition).

http://ihealthbulletin.com/blog/2011/03/09/massachusetts-health-care-reform-failed-medical-bankruptcies/

I thought most Dems really did want single payer?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I thought most Dems really did want single payer?

If they did then why did we get the mess we got? They had solid majorities in both houses and the WH. The BS excuse that the reps could stop the dems is just excuses. They could have passed anything they wanted. Apparently they wanted to make things worse rather than better.

[^_^ 5,021]

If they did then why did we get the mess we got? They had solid majorities in both houses and the WH. The BS excuse that the reps could stop the dems is just excuses. They could have passed anything they wanted. Apparently they wanted to make things worse rather than better.

There was no Dem unity on single payer. A large number of so-called conservadems ensured single payer was never even a possibility. I'm talking about people like Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Lieberman.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

There was no Dem unity on single payer. A large number of so-called conservadems ensured single payer was never even a possibility. I'm talking about people like Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Lieberman.

Funny how the reps can stand united when they want something but the dems all want "accommodations" when they want someting.

[^_^ 5,021]

Funny how the reps can stand united when they want something but the dems all want "accommodations" when they want someting.

Both parties tend to break apart when in power. Witness Bush's failure to enact the social security and immigration bills he wanted.