Republicans tend to counter universal health care calls with nonsense zingers such as government run, socialistic care. Before John McCain picks Romney as VP, they might want to polish and clean up their language on that. First universal does not mean government run and nobody is suggesting that. Second, their very own Mitt Romney put in place a Universal Healthcare program in Mass that is actually mandated. Guess what? It working!
Nearly three-quarters of previously uninsured Massachusetts residents now have medical coverage under the state's landmark campaign to insure virtually all residents.
Since the Romney-backed program launched in June ‘06, 439,000 more people have enrolled in health insurance and nearly half signed up for private insurance not funded by taxpayers. 600,000 people were estimated not to have insurance in the state in 2006. We can safely say that less than 200,000 people have insurance in the state now. Imagine we make Mitt Romney's level improvement in healthcare nationawide.
The enforcing mechanism is pretty simple. At the end of the year, your insurance company gives you a form that you attach to your state tax return. If you don't, you pay a fine. If you don't have an employer paying health insurance for you, the state bundles you with many other citizens and you purchase health care at group cost (lower than individual premiums) from a private insurance. The third group, that is those who can't afford it, are funded by other taxpayers.
That's the part republicans can't stomach. Paying for those who can't afford it.
Bottom line:
The dramatic expansion has spurred a substantial drop in patients seeking routine care in hospital emergency rooms, where treatment is much more expensive. The reduction is already saving the state millions of dollars, the quarterly report said.
For example, from July through September 2007, the most recent period for which data is available, the number of visits to hospitals and community health centers by the uninsured declined by 37 percent, compared with the same period a year earlier, the report said. That drop translated to a $68 million savings in the pool of money the state sets aside to cover the uninsured.
Mitt Romney understands economics. McCain does not. That's why John McCain needs Mitt Romney. That's also why John McCain's health care plan makes no sese.
Still against universal healthcare?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 7
Another factor not mentioned is how many formerly privately insured dropped their policies to get the subsidized ones. No figures are mentioned there, the assumption is that these were previously uninsured. Never mind the private sector being forced to foot increased amounts of their employees insurance. Of course we have the crux of the entire policy that bothers people like me, force. Sign up or provide your own or else. You've go to love that sort of freedom.
You don't have a math problem but a logic one in this one. You are doing the math by attributing all the budget increase to healthcare. Budget increase/number of insured = cost of insuring new people. What logic is that?
Healthcare must be a non-profit operation.
Now there is an intiative (Small Government Act) on the ballot this fall that plans on cutting out the state income tax entirely (over $12.5 BILLION). The last time this was tried, it got 45% on the ballot despite opposition from as groups like unions spending 3-1 against it. State budget growth exceeds inflation each year, the state remains the only growing sector of employment in Massachusetts so this mandatory health care plan will be the budget buster. Patrick is trapped by Romney's inept attempt to give without having to pay. Something will have to give.
And Massachusetts is leaking people, over 300k in the last decade. They are fleeing excessive taxes (even when I was a kid we joked about Taxachusetts) and an environment that is killing business. This health care plan is not helping any by forcing those companies who stay in Mass to shoulder more and more of the cost of health care. The crunch is coming just like it is in Michigan and California
I don't care if they want to call it socialized, universal, or lick my rear health care. As long as everyone is able to get proper healthcare, and if in the course of receiving the proper health care a problem arises or is detected that they are able to get it addressed without having to be denied a transplant because they cant afford it, or even if the hospital and all staff were to waive their fee the patient is deemed unlikely to stay on anti-rejection meds due to money.
Not so terribly long ago my husband and I lost a really good friend who was in his 40's and had a serious heart problem, that was correctable by surgery, a surgery that has a very high success rate. But the insurance company had to squabble first over if he was covered, then if that was covered, then oh he is dead. So a wife, and children were suddenly without him in this world because some ---I want to say monkey but decided people in those jobs are pretty much following orderd - employee in a cubicle is following orders to say No first and then make the patient sort it out. This is screwed up!
He had a job, he had had it for years. He worked very hard at his job. He paid his taxes. He paid for the insurance. His wife worked too. Neither of them were in jobs that were glamorous, or high paying. But none the lesss they worked their tails off. So why did he have to die?
Cheney had the batteries in his pacemaker replaced not to long ago. I am willing to bet that no one had to pre-qualify him for the procedure first, and if they did I bet he got an instant ok for the procedure.
A few years back I worked at a clinic with three doctors. On my second day I found out that a long time patient of theirs (who was elderly) and that the doctor he saw at our office choose not to bill him, not to charge him. He had more health problems than money or insurance. He and his wife lived in a house that they owned outright, where they raised their kids. He had worked all his life from some young teen to over seventy. But other doctors were billing him, which is fair. Then they turned his account over to a collection agency. The end result was a seventy something year old man shot and killed himself because he know when she was back their would be bills.
Is this really ok? Is this the path we want to stay on? Does any major political party seriously want to hang on to every penny so tight that what would certainly be a trifle amount when divided amongst the masses, really want to put that before American Lives?
So I don't care if anyone, including the GOP, don't like the idea of paying for someone's medical care, I really don't care. I want to know that in THIS COUNTRY, this Country that for decades has been looked to as innovative, civilized, the leader in so many fields, and pretty much the world's police, like it or not, is willing to make sure those citizens in need are getting what they need.
Republicans are not going to cite this although it would win them many votes. This is a classic example of a republican (Romney) governing from the center and willing to try something that the people really wanted. From all I've read he suggested some great changes, the debate went on for a long time and people are so far pleased. Number of emergency room visits are down. That by itself is great.
Imagine the number of ER visists down 25% over two years nation wide.