Replies

I don't think I misunderstood at all what you were saying...I think you misunderstood the main point of the article. Look at the first four sentences:

Once they discover that she is Dr. Kate, the supplicants line up to approach at dinner parties and ballet recitals. Surely, they suggest to Dr. Katherine J. Atkinson, a family physician here, she might find a way to move them up her lengthy waiting list for new patients.

Those fortunate enough to make it soon learn they face another long wait: Dr. Atkinson’s next opening for a physical is not until early May — of 2009.

Now in Massachusetts, in an unintended consequence of universal coverage, the imbalance is being exacerbated by the state’s new law requiring residents to have health insurance.

Clearly the problem is NOT that the right person isn't administering the plan, the problem is that there are too many people requesting healthcare services and not enough healthcare providers to provide those services. We're talking about Massachusetts, not Texas, so your Austin Yellow Pages statistics don't have any bearing on the situation.

Many people just don't get health insurance, for a variety of reasons.

We're talking about Massachusetts...remember? It is mandated that every resident have health insurance - they can't choose not to get it, so I really don't see what point you're trying to make. Your statement isn't relevant to the topic under discussion.

My point is the State have a bureaucracy to manage health care and invariably appointing those who believe in social programs, for health care, running it. Never a conservative or libertarian ... that is a problem in government at every level in this country.

To my original point, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO'S IN CHARGE IN MASSACHUSETTS! If there aren't enough healthcare providers, there will be a healthcare shortage - period!

A better system is to have the patient and the doctor in charge, with government and lawyers out.

A better system? Once again, we're discussing the law in Massachusetts. Why are you talking about "a better system"? That is not relevant to the discussion.

I'll say it again, given Massachusetts healthcare laws, it doesn't matter who's in charge. It's a bad idea, and anyone with half a brain could have foreseen the shortage they are now experiencing, since it seems to happen everywhere universal coverage is tried.

I did read the article as well as several others (my Posts #10 and #11). This article does not exist in a vacuum to determine what did and is happening.

In Massachusetts that shortage of doctors and health care providers exists - you said it does and that will be a granted. However, in another the article states; "Nonetheless, the overall structure of private health insurance and the payment and delivery of medical care will remain intact, and costs will relentlessly increase" (in Post #11). Reading "...delivery remains in tact ...", makes me wonder ... was the shortage of doctors and health care providers the case in Massachusetts prior to the Legislature passing this health care reform? I don't know.

Also, in Massachusetts the 'Connector Board' opened up the statute language by their interpretation of it: "The Connector Board also bowed to pressure and reduced the monthly premiums on the subsidized-but-not-entirely-free healthcare plans. This will increase the program’s costs by $13 million"(in Post #11). Also cited rising cost, without this tampering, in paragraph above with the article (from Post #10).

Many people not getting health care is as true for any State in the Union, that includes Massachusetts. People in Massachusetts's "must carry a minimum level of health insurance, a requirement that will be enforced through the state tax return. Coverage may be through an employer, Medicaid, Medicare." (see Post #10) Is it a check box on your state tax return?

Coverage through and employer for the employee, in many plans has no cost to the employee, it is a cost of doing business for an employer and not an employee choice. Choice comes in when there is a cost to the employee in covering a spouse or family. So if you employer gives you coverage - you got it. Same with Medicare - you got it. Do these people get more through other means or only the minimum required by the statute? If they do they do, do have to report it, with additional check boxes on state tax return? Choices for some, yes. Any way, the main point is who is left without coverage as defined by the statute? Only those the law was intended to cover. Question, who is being covered?

The shortage of doctors, if existing before the passage of the law, definetly complected its implementation. Would not matter if have a person is covered or not covered. Doctor shortage would affect everyone. However, couple this shortage with the Connector Board opening up the pool of people covered and lowering the cost is exactly what placed in into a deficit position. I don't believe the Legislature passed the law if the Revenue Impact statement (if Massachusetts has such a thing) showed that it would cost the State exorbitantly in their tax revenues which actually fund State government. In this instance, in Massachusetts, it did matter who was in charge and those policy decision they made. In this case the statute was not the culprit, the sole culprit, rather those placed into positions of responsibility to see to the implementation and administration of some very complected problem(s). As well as the fact that any complications existing were not alleviated (by the Legislature or some State Agency) before it was passed.

This same health care environment exists in every State in that it is legislatively controlled or mandated in one way form or another. Massachusetts is peculiar in how the mandate is made by the Legislature. The form or vehicle the Legislature creates makes a difference ... but I don't believe it makes Massachusetts so unique that it must be treated in a void from other States. High costs and deficits are a result of Legislative mandate in all States and the those made by the Feds in providing health care. If policy costs are higher in one State than another, that is a different problem.

Shortages of doctors do exist in many places, I do not deny that. As I said I haven't seen that in Austin ... or the hue and cry isn't on the news coverage.

For you in Massachusetts maybe you need a 'new' Legislature with 'new' ideas to write a 'new' statute to replace the current one. Maybe the Legislature needs to get 'new' Connector Board Administrator and members, but I believe that's the Governors prerogatives. Will that happen, I don't know. Short of that Massachusetts citizens will continue to pay the deficits.

Massachusetts isn't unique. You can not address one issue and only one issue. The interrelationships with other issues must also be handled as they impact each other. I.E., the shortage of doctors/health care professionals, number of patients with own coverage, number of patents without coverage or mandated coverage, cost (premium) of insurance, benefits of insurance plan (purchased or mandated), State and Federal mandates ... and the list goes on. As for doctors, I don't believe Henry Ford's assembly line philosophy for making cars is valid for medical care ... but its gotten that way.