A report in yesterday’s Boston Globe talked of the plans of major Massachusetts health insurers to raise rates by ten percent next year. In a system that is already teetering because of unaffordable costs a ten percent increase will create major stress on employers, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and municipalities. It will also call into question the ability of Massachusetts to continue fully funding the health care reforms enacted under Governor Mitt Romney.
These increases have become the norm, and call into question the strategy of full coverage taking place before real cost containment. I support full coverage, but if true cost containment is not ever a part of health care reform then any other reforms are likely doomed to failure. Management and Labor will fight anew, arguing over which should shoulder the additional burden, when in fact neither can afford perpetual double digit increases. It is, as I have pointed out repeatedly, not sustainable for this country. For those that say that the current system is fine, do the numbers. Health care is consuming an ever greater percentage of our nations economic output, and will leave us a financial basket case if no action is taken, and taken soon. It is really not about ideology. It is about living within our means, and being honest with people about the financial limits that we face. Those limits mean we have to make difficult choices, and those choices will likely require vast political courage. Not as of yet in evidence.
Read the Globe story here.
Bill Manzi.com 
Your Honor,
And the Massachusetts model is being called the model for the federal Health Care. Wow.
I noticed you ran and hid behind Gov Mitt Romney as being the architect of a disastrous monster. There were many democrat who voted for it.
Actually, the concept of healthcare being centralized in a government entity is a looser no matter Democrat or Republican.
Government run health care is a looser.
You still use the Globe-Democrat (half the news fit to print). Sometimes there is only one source for all the news-Fox News. Just ask Fred and Jim.
Summary: MassCare crashing.
Government HealthCare- 53% don’t like it.
You finally noticed that these programs ALWAYS grow in cost requiring frequent ‘REFORM’ meaning higher taxes.
Any real ideas?
Jules
LikeLike
Jules,
The Massachusetts model has had some real success, covering 97% of our population. Problem still lies with cost control, or the lack thereof. As far as Globe goes the 10% figure is a number put out by the industry. I am sure Fox, or any other outlet, will report the same number. It is not in question. Nor is it in question that health insurance costs have doubled in ten years. That is empirical data. So my friend I think that the current system is unsustainable on the basis of cost alone. I do not stand here arguing for “government run” health care as an ideological point. I am simply saying that the current model is bankrupting us, and we need to implement cost side reforms NOW. Those reforms will take courage, from both sides of the aisle. Not looking good on that front right now.
Bill
LikeLike
Your Honor,
The Globe-Democrat was just a poke in your eye.
Let me let you in on something; a half success
is not a success.
Let us summarize issues here:
The comon issue with Masscare vs private care is, as you say, cost control. It will be the issue on a national scale. The ONLY way the desk jockeys in Washington can cut costs is to raise taxes (a democrat syndrome) or rationing. They will try things like cutting re-reimbursement to health care givers. You will see early retirements.
As far as courage of our elected representatives is concerned I agree there is none. Only task for them is to get reelected.
Consequently Government Health Care is a failure.
Now I believe if the government were to eliminate impediments to competition between Insurance companies and other critical issues such as portability, insuring all are wish to acquire insurance can, no dropping insurance, etc.
Comment on this please.
Jules
LikeLike
Jules,
As long as there are some federal standards involved that prevent cherry picking and denial of coverage I am inclined to agree with you on allowing companies to cross lines. Happy to respond to any question, but you don’t ever appear to want to discuss the massive cost inflation in the current system and how it is bankrupting the country. I just cannot understand how folks can look at those numbers and say everything is ok. It is, from my vantage point, already a disaster, and getting worse. Can you comment on your view on whether this system, on its current course, is sustainable?
Bill
LikeLike
Ok, Your Honor, let’s discuss the massive inflation.
1 question before we begin;
name me one federal program
that has not spiraled up in cost.
Jules
Ps are you impressed with the way the Democrats are CRAFTING HR 3200. Senator Baucuses plan is in outline form. In other words there is no finished plan.
Jules
LikeLike
Jules,
Without question many federal entitlement programs have spiraled up in cost. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are three prime examples of federal programs that are on non-sustainable courses financially. Medicare and Medicaid however are in the financial trouble because of the escalation of private sector medical costs. The government is buying services from the private sector, where cost inflation is out of control. This is not, contrary to what many say, about ideology. It is about numbers, pure and simple. We cannot stay this course because it will lead to economic ruin.
Bill
LikeLike
Your Honor,
1. There is NO government entitlement program that has not gone out of control.
2. Why would you think that this disaster-in-the-making would fair any better? It gets worse as the dollar is falling. The unfunded debt for SS and Medicaire/Medicade is 60 trillion dollars thanks to our spendthrift congress (bipartisan comment).
Interestingly you support a HeathCare plan that does not yet exist.
Jules
LikeLike
Jules,
I have not said I support anything but true health care reform that controls cost. I am in favor of full coverage, but believe it doomed to ultimate failure without meaningful cost controls. But meaningful cost controls are currently difficult to sell in a democracy, since they would necessarily impose pain on a large segment of the population. My main argument has been that whatever your view the CURRENT system is bankrupting us and needs to be changed. And I see you looking at this through a deeply partisan pair of glasses, but I am not. I believe the Republicans have some proposals that ought to be included in any cost reform of the existing system, including tort reform, and the ability (within federalized guidelines) to buy health insurance across state lines. So my friend as an elected official who sees the numbers that are drowning local and state governments throughout America I say I am for something that reduces cost, and then we should move to full coverage. I want what works, and I have no interest in partisan sniping.
Bill
LikeLike
Your Honor,
We are in full agreement. I have reviewed proposals by Republicans and Blue Dog democrats and see the same thing you do. This party of NO truly angers me.
However, the Nancy Pelosi and the large liberal congress are not interested in this type of compromise. They want a single payer system period and that is partisan.
As a result there is no Health Care bill in existence, a shameful lack of congresional management. Her and Harry Reid have to go.
How about posting the number of the bill finaly agreed upon. We can pick it up from there.
Jules
LikeLike