Boston Globe - Health reform failure

[Mass]

Excellent editorial in the Boston Globe summarizing the results and the defaults of the MA health care plan.

Worth reading, particularly for all those who are ecstatic about the "Health care is a duty" plan that most of the candidates are proposing these days (Kucinich excepted)!


May be it is time these days to make the choice most other countries have chosen Health care is a right and to renounce penalizing by taxes people who simply cannot afford their health care.

Health reform failure



By Steffie Woolhandler and David U. Himmelstein | September 17, 2007

IN 1966 - just before Medicare and Medicaid were launched - 47 million Americans were uninsured. By 1975, the United States had reached an all time low of 21 million without coverage. Now, according to the Census Bureau's latest figures, we're back where we started, with 47 million uninsured in 2006 - up 2.2 million since 2005. But this time, most of the uninsured are neither poor nor elderly.

The middle class is being priced out of health care. Virtually all of this year's increase was among families with incomes above $50,000; in fact, two-thirds of the newly uncovered were in the above-$75,000 group. And full-time workers accounted for 56 percent of the increase, with their children making up much of the rest.

...

In sum, Massachusetts health reform planners have been wishing away a quarter of a million uninsured people. Recent Patrick administration claims that health reform is succeeding are based on cooked books. According to the state's figures, almost half of the previously uninsured gained coverage under the health reform bill by July 1. But according to the Census Bureau, the new sign-ups amount to less than one-quarter of the uninsured. Moreover, it's likely that much of that gain has already been wiped out by shrinking job-based coverage - a longstanding and nationwide trend.

Why has progress been so meager? Because most of the promised new coverage is of the "buy it yourself" variety, with scant help offered to the struggling middle class. According to the Census Bureau, only 28 percent of Massachusetts uninsured have incomes low enough to qualify for free coverage. Thirty-four percent more can get partial subsidies - but the premiums and co-payments remain a barrier for many in this near-poor group.

And 244,000 of Massachusetts uninsured get zero assistance - just a stiff fine if they don't buy coverage. A couple in their late 50s faces a minimum premium of $8,638 annually, for a policy with no drug coverage at all and a $2,000 deductible per person before insurance even kicks in. Such skimpy yet costly coverage is, in many cases, worse than no coverage at all. Illness will still bring crippling medical bills - but the $8,638 annual premium will empty their bank accounts even before the bills start arriving. Little wonder that barely 2 percent of those required to buy such coverage have thus far signed up.

...
Of course, single payer reform is anathema to the health insurance industry. But breaking their stranglehold on our health system and our politicians is the only way for health reform to get beyond square one.

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program and are primary care doctors at Cambridge Hospital.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php (website of the organization the columnists have funded)[br />
NOTE: Yes, Democratic candidates offer plans that seem better than what is existing, but it is far from enough.

[Crazy Dave]

1. Affordable and mandatory health care

Two very deceptive and misleading terms. Prices for mandatory health insurance, like car insurance, will not go down but go up if people are legally forced to have it. Since 2000 my home and auto insurance has risen about 60% each.

Affordable will only mean that the less you pay the less the insurance will cover and the higher the deductible.

Single Payer is the only acceptable option and the only option that will work.

[lurky]

2. I hate all these plans...

Because they are

a: A roundabout form of regressive taxation on the people who can least afford it.
b: Massive corporate welfare by requiring citizens to give money to these companies.

And do you really think that these mandated insurance policies will provide adequate coverage? Seriously?

[eridani]

3. Good explanation of why mandatory insurance can be worse than no insurance

Permanent mirror link here--: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/september/health_reform_failur.php

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. No one is going to be able to define "affordable"

And the example of the couple in their late fifties having to pay close to 9K a year WITH a 2,000 PER PERSON deductible with NO drug coverage is just incredibly horrible. This means that they can pay 13,000 a year PLUS the cost of medications before they get some relief from insurance. Thanks for nothing.

How many of us on this board would think 13,000 a year for 2 people is AFFORDABLE???!!!!!

If I WERE to attempt to define affordable, I would do it one of 2 ways:

1. As a percentage of NET income - capped at something like 3% - each years premium determined by the tax return of the year before.

2. The same rate that the Senate pays which I hear is outstanding and about 1/5 of what us average Joe and Mary Shit Americans are paying.

Actually, the first way is better.

If I lived in Massachusetts and someone was trying to FORCE me to buy the coverage described above - I would definitely be in the streets with a flaming torch and a pitchfork.

Good job, Mitt! Now, can everyone see why trying to keep the private insurers in the loop is a fool's game?

Single payer, Universal health care. End. Of. Story.