Comments on: Romney should be proud of Massachusetts health law Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Overcast451 Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:48:23 +0000 I think the real issue is that ‘We the people’ will get the ‘affordable’ part and the politicians will get the ‘high-quality’ part.

If it was *really* high quality, why won’t the politicians be using it also and why is there an ‘exception’ list with many companies, unions, and others ‘opting out’?

By: Farkel4 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:42:46 +0000 The basic tenant of the Patrick Society is that most of the animals are too stupid to make financial decisions for themselves… they need a kind and benevolent firm hand to show them how life should be.

Imagine how grand the species could be with the “Intelligent Design” of people like DP?

By: hmmmmmmmmmmmm Sun, 15 Apr 2012 01:25:07 +0000 (Massachusetts resident) Are you kidding me? In the past five years since the Romneycare started taking speed, my healthcare has gone up over 52% with half the coverage, where this past week they went up 12% and added deductibles before they even start coverage- I pay $6000 a year so that I can have a $2000 deductible. If I don’t have healthcare I get penalized! They are forcing a debt onto the people which has long been proven to be illegal for the government to do. The people who love this universal healthcare are all of the people who don’t have to pay for it! Obamacare will be no different, those of us supporting half the country will have to pay for everyone else who never accomplished anything and can’t afford to pay for it themselves or work for the life sucking unions. So sick of how the government is forcing us to pay for the lazy or corrupt! I should just quit my job and stop paying my mortgage- I’d get free housing, free food, free car, free phone, free spending money that I can spend on whatever I want (EBT cards being used for alcohol and illegal drugs) free education, free healthcare- I mean I’d probably be better off in this country not contributing than trying to do something with my life and help make this country great. You sheeple that support them and what they are doing should be ashamed of yourself and don’t deserve to call yourselves American.

By: majkmushrm Fri, 13 Apr 2012 20:29:28 +0000 A few observations:

1. We should be talking about healthcare, not health insurance.

2. Insurance is a bet. You bet you’re going to have a car accident; your insurance co. bets you won’t. That works fine for auto accidents, not so much for health care because if you bet against needing health care, you’re pretty much guaranteed to lose. And, contrary to @AlkalineState’s ideas, insurance companies have always been about making money by being sharp odds makers.

3. The current Balkanized insurance system benefits no one. The insurance companies are right about needing the base of clients. That’s not because they need healthy people to pay for the sick people so much as it is having a large enough sample space to do statistical and actuarial analyses to determine the number of people who will come down with (fill in the blank) so that they can determine their financial exposure. I have to buy my own insurance so my wife and I are a sample space of two. The insurance company is taking big risks with their bet on us. Before I retired, I worked for Boeing. 190,000 odd people are a pretty good sample space and you can gauge your risks fairly clearly. 390 odd million (the population of the US) is an even better sample space and one you will only get if you move to a single payer system – i.e. by having only one insurance company.

4. The people who are making out like bandits in all this (i.e. are making what an economist would call economic profits) aren’t the insurance companies. It’s the doctors and big Pharma. Big Pharma got a sweetheart deal out of the Republicans so that, for example, Medicare can’t compete the cost of medicines. Doctor’s pricing practices are atrocious. If your local garage charged to fix your car like a doctor charges to fix you, it’d be (a) illegal (you can’t charge different customers a different price for the same service), and (b) the price would be so astronomical that you couldn’t afford to get your car fixed (trust me, you only think the price is high now).

By: AlkalineState Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:36:35 +0000 Paintcan, ultimately we will have universal healthcare. This is because private insurance is a form of socialized healthcare anyway. We’re already used to it. Everybody puts their money into the pot, sickest guy wins. That’s the way it already is. But private insurance adds a layer of inefficiency because that insurance company needs to not only show a profit each quarter, its shareholders expect to see a GROWTH in profit each quarer. How is that possible for an insurance company, if they’re paying out like they should? Insurance was never meant to make money. It’s a pool of money that gets paid back out. That’s why the first health insurance outfits were originally set up by non-profit foundations, like hospitals used to be. (blue shield, Kaiser, etc.).

That has changed and now we see the fallout.

By: paintcan Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:40:22 +0000 My father should be the one to write this. When he retired almost 25 years ago, it became obvious to him that Massachusetts tended to discourage retirees and encouraged an influx of new blood to create a young and sophisticated work force. He was told as much at a seminar for retiring professionals. To put it bluntly – the attractions of working in the Metro Boston area, the younger, less cynical but inexperienced work force, and the prestige of the employment prospects in MA, may outweigh the cost of living issues there for most of them and they are more willing to accept the compromise in their choices and freedoms.

A lot of retirees go north to New Hampshire. My father took his higher senior health care costs out of state. Patrick may not be telling the whole story. MickeyJoey isn’t a crank.

Apparently the Romney Care act was never challenged in the USSC and I think it is as vulnerable to the decision of the court as the Affordable Care Act. I don’t recall hearing of any SC challenge to it.

@FlaminfLiberal – The countries with the highest taxation overall also seem to be the countries with the smallest differences between high and low incomes. I am thinking of the Scandinavian countries. It works because everyone seems to be similar in circumstances. Reagan wanted the US to return to the gilded age and he never mentioned the slums that also existed then. The lowest incomes were supposed to benefit from the activity at the top. It wasn’t mentioned that the wealth effect was really only long term debt and the whole structure was really a form of wishful thinking.

AlkalineState may approve of the doctors driving Mercedes with health care money but does the writer also approve of the insurance executive doing the same or going for even more upscale models?

By: AlkalineState Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:47:46 +0000 It was Reagan in 1986 who enacted the mandate that doctors must treat all emergency patients, ‘regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay.’ That mandate went into effect in 1986. It’s called EMTALA. Google it. Know it.

Curiously, Reagan provided no funding mechanism for this mandate. And in case you haven’t noticed, doctors still drive their Mercedes and own their condos in Aspen. That didn’t go away. I don’t blame them, they earn it.

So who has been paying for the uninsured when they have their heart attacks, babies, vaginal herpes, car wrecks? All of us pay. Through medicaid and through our insurance premiums. So unless you have a mandate to get the uninsured dead weight to pay into the pool, Reagan’s system is unustainable. No?

By: FlamingLiberal Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:51:17 +0000 Universal Healthcare is a given right; not an option. Therefore everyone must be required to get coverage whether you want it or not. There is no compromise.

We also need much, much MUCH higher taxes across the board…rich, poor, and all in between must pay out at least 45% of annual income in taxes so entitlement programs and healthcare subsidies for the poor can be sustained.

This isn’t rocket science. Higher taxes = more healthcare coverage and general revenue = happier, healthier citizens.

True Americans support higher/more taxes. Not to is uncivilized and un-American.

By: Susanbsbi Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:39:51 +0000 If given the change Obama care will be able to do the same thing.

By: moonhill Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:29:25 +0000 Romneycare is a 70 page bill, while Obamacare is nearly 3,000 pages. Obamacare is a monstrosity. Romneycare did not rob Medicare of half a trillion dollars as Obamacare has. Last, Romneycare does not violate the interstate commerce clause since it only affects Mass.