Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bay State Insurance Premiums Highest in Country
Boston Globe ^ | August 22, 2009 | Kay Lazar

Posted on 08/22/2009 4:14:00 AM PDT by Jim Noble

Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country, according to a new analysis that highlights the state’s challenge in trying to rein in medical costs after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone...

The report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care foundation, showed that the average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008, 40 percent higher than in 2003. Over the same period, premiums nationwide rose an average of 33 percent...

Last month, the commission suggested that private and public insurers scrap their method of paying doctors and hospitals negotiated fees for individual visits or procedures, and instead put providers on a “global budget,’’ paying a set amount intended to cover a patient’s medical care for an entire year...

The idea is so controversial and the suggested fix so time-consuming to achieve that the commission recommended phasing it in over five years...

But other efforts to control health spending are already moving ahead...

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: brutusromney; dnc4romney; fascistromney; healthcarereform; msm4romney; obamacare; rino; rinoromney; romney; romney4obama; romneycare; socialism; socializedmedicine; stenchromney; willard
Romneycare MUST lead to global budgeting. It's the only way it can work.
1 posted on 08/22/2009 4:14:00 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

how would that possibly work? “providers on a “global budget,’’ paying a set amount intended to cover a patient’s medical care for an entire year... “ A patients medical care,so the singular? They would allocate $2000 for one person and $3000 for another? I could be typing all day detailing the problems with that method.


2 posted on 08/22/2009 4:22:01 AM PDT by wiggen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WayzmX0WQvg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Carpetbagger shapeshifter Romney:
"My Death Panel is now the first. Now, you will all love me. Right?
Death to the handicapped and the old we choose.
Now, you all will love me long time, right?"


"Mass. Pushes Rationing to Control Universal Healthcare Costs (RomneyCare)
A 10-member Massachusetts state healthcare advisory board unanimously recommended
that the state begin rationing healthcare to keep the state’s marquee universal health care program afloat financially.

The July 16 recommendations, the Boston Globe explained, would result in a situation where “patients could find it harder to get procedures they want but are of questionable benefit if doctors are operating within a budget.
And they might find it more difficult to get care wherever they want, if primary doctors push to keep patients within their accountable care organization.”
The Globe stressed that the recommendations would “dramatically change how doctors and hospitals are paid, essentially putting providers on a budget as a way to control exploding healthcare costs and improve the quality of care.”
"Budget" is a more politically acceptable word for rationing.
The Globe also noted that “consumer advocates said patients are going to have to be educated about the new system.” Yes, apparently they will have to get used to having their healthcare rationed.


"1,000 cancer patients 'refused treatment'
Charities warned that patients with less common forms of cancer were being discriminated against, while others condemned the system as a “scandal”.
Patients and their doctors can appeal for the NHS to pay for drugs not currently licensed for that type of the disease.
But one in three applications were turned down in the last three years, leaving patients having to pay up £20,000 for the medication themselves."


"Mass. Pushes Rationing to Control Universal Healthcare Costs (RomneyCare)
A 10-member Massachusetts state healthcare advisory board unanimously recommended
that the state begin rationing healthcare to keep the state’s marquee universal health care program afloat financially.

The July 16 recommendations, the Boston Globe explained, would result in a situation where “patients could find it harder to get procedures they want but are of questionable benefit if doctors are operating within a budget.
And they might find it more difficult to get care wherever they want, if primary doctors push to keep patients within their accountable care organization.”
The Globe stressed that the recommendations would “dramatically change how doctors and hospitals are paid, essentially putting providers on a budget as a way to control exploding healthcare costs and improve the quality of care.”
"Budget" is a more politically acceptable word for rationing.
The Globe also noted that “consumer advocates said patients are going to have to be educated about the new system.” Yes, apparently they will have to get used to having their healthcare rationed.


"Massachusetts Universal Healthcare System Breaking Down Already
When Governor Mitt Romney instituted a universal healthcare plan for Massachusetts in 2006 he proclaimed it a conservative idea.
But has it worked? Has it been successful?
For a time, many thought it might but cracks in the system are already being seen.
These cracks are instructive as a lesson on how Obamacare will crash and burn just like Romneycare is now in the process of doing.

One of the early claims that helped push Romneycare through to law was the insistence by its supporters that Emergency Room visits would fall as more and more citizens became covered under healthcare insurance.
Since ER care is far more expensive than a doctor's care, it was thought that more people with insurance would ease the overcrowding of ERs as well as lower the overall costs of healthcare.
However, a flaw in this logic has been seen throughout the state. As more people became insured, more people demanded the care of doctors. These doctors became overloaded with patients and waiting lists for doctors got longer and longer.
As a result, ERs in Massachusetts have not seen a downturn in visits. On the contrary, it seems that ER visits are actually on the upswing in the Bay State. In fact, in 2007 they were higher than the national average by 20 percent...


"Hospital patients 'left in agony'"
"Patients were allegedly left screaming in pain and drinking from flower vases on a nightmare hospital ward.
Between 400 and 1,200 more people died than would have been expected at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust over three years, a damning Healthcare Commission report said.
The watchdog's investigation found inadequately trained staff who were too few in number, junior doctors left alone in charge at night and patients left without food, drink or medication as their operations were repeatedly cancelled.
Patients were left in pain or forced to sit in soiled bedding for hours at a time and were not given their regular medication, the Commission heard.
Receptionists with no medical training were expected to assess patients coming in to A&E, some of whom needed urgent care.
Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS, said there had been a "gross and terrible breach" of patients' trust and a "complete failure of leadership".
The Healthcare Commission's chairman Sir Ian Kennedy said the investigation followed concerns about a higher than normal death rate at the Trust, which senior managers could not explain.
He said: "The resulting report is a shocking story. Our report tells a story of appalling standards of care and chaotic systems for looking after patients. These are words I have not previously used in any report.
"There were inadequacies in almost every stage of caring for patients. There was no doubt that patients will have suffered and some of them will have died as a result."
Julie Bailey, 47, was so concerned about the care being given to her 86-year-old mother Bella at Stafford Hospital that she and her relatives slept in a chair at her bedside for eight weeks.
She said: "We saw patients drinking out of..."


"Paramedics told: 'Let accident victims die if they want to' in new row over patient rights (UK)"
Health Service paramedics have been told not to resuscitate terminally-ill patients who register on a controversial new database to say they want to die.
It has been set up by the ambulance service in London for hundreds of people who have only a few months to live so that they may register their 'death wishes' in advance.
It is believed to be the first in the country, but other trusts around the country are expected to follow suit to comply with Government guidelines which state that patients' wishes should be taken into account, even at the point of death.
Patients' groups and doctors have welcomed the scheme, but it has met opposition from pro-life groups who say it violates the sanctity of life.
The system would come into play if a cancer patient, for example, was in serious pain and rang 999 for help to alleviate the suffering.
But if the paramedics arrived and the patient was close to death, he or she would not be resuscitated if such a request was registered on the database.
This would also be the case if a patient on the database was being transferred between hospitals, and had a heart attack.
Dominica Roberts from the Pro-Life Alliance said: 'This is very sad and very dangerous. It's another step along the slippery slope, at the bottom of which is euthanasia as we see in Holland. 'Paramedics should be there to save lives. They should not be there to let patients die. The medical profession should not agree with someone's belief that their life is worthless.'"


"National Health Preview - The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood."
"Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country.
It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.
In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.
As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget.
The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic.
The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less expensive if everyone were covered.
But reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues.
Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional.
Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers."


A Very Sick Health Plan; Bay State’s ‘Grand Experiment’ Fails [RomneyCare]
"The Daily News Record, Harrisonburg, Va. - 2009-03-31 "
"For folks increasingly leery of President Obama’s plan to radically overhaul America’s health-care system,
or 17 percent of the nation’s economy, all this could hardly have come at a better time —
that is, fiscal troubles aplenty within Repubican Mitt Romney’s brainchild, Massachusetts’ “grand experiment” in “universal” health care."

"Initiated on Mr. Romney’s gubernatorial watch in 2006, this “experiment” has fallen on hard times, and predictably so.
Even though the Bay State commenced its program with a far smaller percentage of uninsured residents than exists nationwide,
“RomneyCare” is threatening to bankrupt the state. Budgeted for Fiscal Year 2010 at $880 million,
or 7.3 percent more than a year ago, this plan, aimed at providing low- or no-cost health coverage to roughly 165,000 residents,
has caused Massachusetts’ overall expenditures on all health-related programs to jump an astounding 42 percent since 2006.

So what does Mr. Romney’s successor, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, propose as a remedy for these skyrocketing costs?
Well, whaddya think? The standard litany of prescriptions (no pun intended) — price controls and spending caps, for a start, and then, again predictably, waiting periods and limitations on coverage.
As in Europe and Canada, so too in Massachusetts. And, we feel certain, everyone from Mr. Romney to Mr. Patrick said, “It would never happen here.”
But then, such things are inevitable when best-laid plans, with all their monstrous costs, run smack-dab into fiscal reality.


"Dem Congresswoman Admits Obama Health Care Plan Will Destroy Private Health Insurance Industry"


"Romney’s mistreatments a sick man, as Gov. Mitt Romney meets a medical marijuana patient"


Thousands of patients with terminal cancer were dealt a blow last night after a decision was made to deny them life prolonging drugs.
The Government's rationing body said two drugs for advanced breast cancer and a rare form of stomach cancer were too expensive for the NHS.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is expected to confirm guidance in the next few weeks that will effectively ban their use.
The move comes despite a pledge by Nice to be more flexible in giving life-extending drugs
to terminally-ill cancer patients after a public outcry last year over 'death sentence' decisions."


"Patients Forced To Wait Hours In Ambulances Parked Outside A&E Departments
"An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has found that thousands of 999 patients are being left to wait in ambulances in car parks and holding bays, or in hospital corridors – in some cases for more than five hours – before they can even join the queue for urgent treatment.

Experts warn that hospitals are deliberately delaying when they accept patients – or are diverting them to different sites –
in order to meet Government targets to treat people within fours hours of admitting them."


"Cancer survivor confronts the health secretary on 62-day wait (UK Socialized Medicine)
WAITING times for cancer treatment need to be cut, the Scottish Government was told yesterday.
..Cancer experts later said that patients elsewhere in Europe would be "outraged" by having to wait two months to start treatment, with most being seen within two weeks.

The current target of 62 days from urgent referral by a doctor to starting treatment has still not been met in Scotland, despite that originally being the target figure for 2005."


"Hospital patient so shocked at dirty ward she climbed out of bed to clean it herself
After 12 years cleaning care homes and private houses, no one is better qualified than Tereza Tosbell to say whether a room is spotless.
So hospital bosses should take heed of her opinion after she spent four days on a 'filthy' ward.
The mother-of-one said during her stay there was a single, brief visit from a cleaner who left dusty curtains, dirty bedframes and a messy floor.
Disgusted at the conditions, she grabbed the antibacterial fluid dispenser at the end of her bed and some hand towels from the bathroom.
She then set about cleaning her four-bed ward, at one point dropping to her hands and knees to sanitise the floor as she dragged her drip trolley behind her.
'It was shameful to see how sloppy the cleaners were while I was there. I was not prepared to put up with such conditions,'
said Miss Tosbell, a 48-year-old divorcee who was admitted to Colchester General Hospital in Essex with an abscess in her neck.."


"Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE (UK Socialized Medicine)
Thousands of kidney cancer patients are likely to lose out on life-prolonging drugs.
The NHS rationing body, NICE, has confirmed a ban on three out of four new treatments.
.. 'Families will be denied time together and doctors will be unable to give patients the best treatment.'."


"Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage (UK Socialized Medicine)
A three-year-old girl awaiting heart surgery has had her operation cancelled three times this month because of a shortage of beds.

... A hospital spokesman said that procedures would be reviewed, but the case highlights a growing problem of cancelled operations in the NHS.
More than 57,000 surgeries were postponed for non-clinical reasons, including a lack of beds, last year – 10 per cent more than the previous year."

3 posted on 08/22/2009 4:23:20 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Those who go below the surface do so at their peril" - Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Romney, Obama, RINOs, Democrats. Who would of thought they set out to destroy health care, Doctors, hospitals, insurance companies?

The road to Socialist hell is paved with liberal intentions.

4 posted on 08/22/2009 4:36:13 AM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
One reason that for the high costs in Massachusetts is the consolidation of providers.

Partner's and Beth Israel have gobbled up everything in sight.

They behave like monopolies.

5 posted on 08/22/2009 4:41:00 AM PDT by ninonitti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ninonitti
One reason that for the high costs in Massachusetts is the consolidation of providers.

The story of how Partners evaded the antitrust laws to establish their present control of fees is astonishing - but it probably could have only happened in Massachusetts.

6 posted on 08/22/2009 4:57:19 AM PDT by Jim Noble (I hope Sarah will start a 2nd party soon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
The story of how Partners evaded the antitrust laws to establish their present control of fees is astonishing - but it probably could have only happened in Massachusetts.

Harvard Mafia

7 posted on 08/22/2009 5:02:39 AM PDT by ninonitti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Peter Schiff and others are correct.

We have too much insurance, not too little. Insurance should be reserved for catastrophic events and not routine, or chronic situations.

I realized this a few years ago. When I quit my job as I relocated. I went to see my familiar doctor for a checkup before I completely pulled up stakes and moved cross country. When I mentioned to his assistant that I intended to PAY for my visit, minus insurance, she was befuddled. After making a couple of calls to make doubly sure, she said my $ 100 visit (insured) would cost me $ 60 if I really did pay in cash/check (as I said I would). Reason? No filing of insurance to any company or gov’t office.

To test this, call your own provider and ask her or him the price of the visit if you pay by check or cash.


8 posted on 08/22/2009 5:05:26 AM PDT by Daisyjane69 (Michael Reagan: "Welcome back, Dad, even if you're wearing a dress and bearing children this time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

If the people want true insurance, where the risk is spread across the entire community, instead of a system which allows premium collecting outfits, as opposed to true insurance companies, to cherry pick the no risk/low risk insureds and refuse coverage to the rest, then it costs a great deal of money. The fact of the matter is, as some on FR have learned, if you can’t afford or can’t get coverage at any price and get sick, the government often ends up paying something on one’s medical bills, and the rest of us get the bill, or one loses everything and goes bankrupt, or if one has little then the government pays something and the rest gets paid by those of us who still have insurance.

We see this all the time in our law practice. This isn’t even remotely a simple issue and it certainly isn’t one which lends itself to sloganeering. We recently had a couple in the office who were planning to move to Florida. The wife has a medical condition. She is covered here but we were concerned that she might not get coverage down there. They checked and sure enough, no coverage for her condition. We have another client, a true hypocrite, who is the loudest mouth in town against the various health insurance proposals in the House. He also has no insurance because he can’t afford it and gets his treatment paid for by the government.


9 posted on 08/22/2009 5:16:10 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson