Why Doesn't Obama Use Romney Care as an Example?

[Skull Pilot]

After all MA already has its version of forced health insurance purcahses in place for over year.

Could it be that since the inception of Romney Care in MA that health care costs have risen and insurance premiums have seen the highest rise in the nation?

Mitt Romney's Big-Government Health Care Plan - Forbes.com

The program has weighed down the state budget. In the last two years alone, spending on free and subsidized insurance plans for low-income citizens of the Bay State has doubled from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion this year. "In tough times," as State Treasurer Timothy Cahill recently said, "[the program] just doesn't seem doable. We're all still waiting for the savings."

Report: Mass. health premiums continue to rise - Boston.com

A new study by the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy found that average monthly premiums increased 12.2 percent from 2006 to 2008, although premiums grew more slowly in 2008 than in 2007.

The growth in the cost of premiums during this period was caused almost entirely by growth in medical expenses. Non-medical expenses like administrative costs grew more slowly.

Massachusetts residents are also spending more to stay well. Between 2006 and 2008, private spending per insured individual for health care in Massachusetts grew by 15.5 percent.

The study also found that premiums for employers with 50 or fewer insured workers grew faster than premiums for mid-size or large employers with 500 or more covered employees.

Massachusetts' Obama-like Reforms Increase Health Costs, Wait Times | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary

Massachusetts reduced its uninsured population by two-thirds — yet the cost would be considered staggering, had state officials not done such a good job of hiding it. Finally, Massachusetts shows where "ObamaCare" would ultimately lead: Officials are already laying the groundwork for government rationing.

Though initially popular, enthusiasm for the Massachusetts reforms may be on the wane.

The most sweeping provision in the Massachusetts reforms — and the legislation before Congress — is an "individual mandate" that makes health insurance compulsory. Massachusetts shows that such a mandate would oust millions from their low-cost health plans and force them to pay higher premiums.

The necessity of specifying what satisfies the mandate gives politicians enormous power to dictate the content of every American's health plan — a power that health care providers inevitably capture and use to increase the required level of insurance.

In the three years since Massachusetts enacted its individual mandate, providers successfully lobbied to require 16 specific types of coverage under the mandate: prescription drugs, preventive care, diabetes self-management, drug-abuse treatment, early intervention for autism, hospice care, hormone replacement therapy, non-in-vitro fertility services, orthotics, prosthetics, telemedicine, testicular cancer, lay midwives, nurses, nurse practitioners and pediatric specialists.

Maybe I just answered my own question.

 

[Zoom-boing]

More importantly why don't the Republicans use Romney-care as an example of what will happen if Obama-care passes?

 

[California Girl]

More importantly why don't the Republicans use Romney-care as an example of what will happen if Obama-care passes?

Probably because the progressive Republicans would, in reality, like to see it passed. They're just not brave enough to vote it in.

 

[Zoom-boing]

More importantly why don't the Republicans use Romney-care as an example of what will happen if Obama-care passes?

Probably because the progressive Republicans would, in reality, like to see it passed. They're just not brave enough to vote it in.

Then the more conservative of the Republicans - there must be some - need to put this up front and show what will happen if Obama-care passes.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder why Obama has dismissed the GOP idea to encourage the states to implement state programs providing healthcare if that is what they want to do. In other words, field test on smaller scales some of the ideas the Democrats claim will absolutely work.

For instance one of the selling points of Obamacare is that his plan will bring down costs and lower insurance premiums. That has not been the case in Massachusetts.

 

[Care4all]

After all MA already has its version of forced health insurance purcahses in place for over year.

Could it be that since the inception of Romney Care in MA that health care costs have risen and insurance premiums have seen the highest rise in the nation?

Mitt Romney's Big-Government Health Care Plan - Forbes.com

The program has weighed down the state budget. In the last two years alone, spending on free and subsidized insurance plans for low-income citizens of the Bay State has doubled from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion this year. "In tough times," as State Treasurer Timothy Cahill recently said, "[the program] just doesn't seem doable. We're all still waiting for the savings."

Report: Mass. health premiums continue to rise - Boston.com

A new study by the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy found that average monthly premiums increased 12.2 percent from 2006 to 2008, although premiums grew more slowly in 2008 than in 2007.

The growth in the cost of premiums during this period was caused almost entirely by growth in medical expenses. Non-medical expenses like administrative costs grew more slowly.

Massachusetts residents are also spending more to stay well. Between 2006 and 2008, private spending per insured individual for health care in Massachusetts grew by 15.5 percent.

The study also found that premiums for employers with 50 or fewer insured workers grew faster than premiums for mid-size or large employers with 500 or more covered employees.

Massachusetts' Obama-like Reforms Increase Health Costs, Wait Times | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary

Massachusetts reduced its uninsured population by two-thirds — yet the cost would be considered staggering, had state officials not done such a good job of hiding it. Finally, Massachusetts shows where "ObamaCare" would ultimately lead: Officials are already laying the groundwork for government rationing.

Though initially popular, enthusiasm for the Massachusetts reforms may be on the wane.

The most sweeping provision in the Massachusetts reforms — and the legislation before Congress — is an "individual mandate" that makes health insurance compulsory. Massachusetts shows that such a mandate would oust millions from their low-cost health plans and force them to pay higher premiums.

The necessity of specifying what satisfies the mandate gives politicians enormous power to dictate the content of every American's health plan — a power that health care providers inevitably capture and use to increase the required level of insurance.

In the three years since Massachusetts enacted its individual mandate, providers successfully lobbied to require 16 specific types of coverage under the mandate: prescription drugs, preventive care, diabetes self-management, drug-abuse treatment, early intervention for autism, hospice care, hormone replacement therapy, non-in-vitro fertility services, orthotics, prosthetics, telemedicine, testicular cancer, lay midwives, nurses, nurse practitioners and pediatric specialists.

Maybe I just answered my own question.

I wonder if you took another comparable state to massachusetts that has not passed any health care reform, if their cost of health care for their citizens had gone up EVEN MORE than massachusett's insurance cost rise?

That would be good to know, if we are trying to determine whether a complete failure or not....

 

[JWBooth]

If they were smart enough to adopt Romney care as their model, it would negate Romney as a candidate, and suck the wind from the sails of that fraction of the GOP that has backed Romney and opposed Obamacare.

 

[uscitizen]

Why don't the Republicans use Romney-care as a reason why Romney should not be president?

 

[California Girl]

After all MA already has its version of forced health insurance purcahses in place for over year.

Could it be that since the inception of Romney Care in MA that health care costs have risen and insurance premiums have seen the highest rise in the nation?

Mitt Romney's Big-Government Health Care Plan - Forbes.com

The program has weighed down the state budget. In the last two years alone, spending on free and subsidized insurance plans for low-income citizens of the Bay State has doubled from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion this year. "In tough times," as State Treasurer Timothy Cahill recently said, "[the program] just doesn't seem doable. We're all still waiting for the savings."

Report: Mass. health premiums continue to rise - Boston.com



Massachusetts' Obama-like Reforms Increase Health Costs, Wait Times | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary

Massachusetts reduced its uninsured population by two-thirds — yet the cost would be considered staggering, had state officials not done such a good job of hiding it. Finally, Massachusetts shows where "ObamaCare" would ultimately lead: Officials are already laying the groundwork for government rationing.

Though initially popular, enthusiasm for the Massachusetts reforms may be on the wane.

The most sweeping provision in the Massachusetts reforms — and the legislation before Congress — is an "individual mandate" that makes health insurance compulsory. Massachusetts shows that such a mandate would oust millions from their low-cost health plans and force them to pay higher premiums.

The necessity of specifying what satisfies the mandate gives politicians enormous power to dictate the content of every American's health plan — a power that health care providers inevitably capture and use to increase the required level of insurance.

In the three years since Massachusetts enacted its individual mandate, providers successfully lobbied to require 16 specific types of coverage under the mandate: prescription drugs, preventive care, diabetes self-management, drug-abuse treatment, early intervention for autism, hospice care, hormone replacement therapy, non-in-vitro fertility services, orthotics, prosthetics, telemedicine, testicular cancer, lay midwives, nurses, nurse practitioners and pediatric specialists.

Maybe I just answered my own question.

I wonder if you took another comparable state to massachusetts that has not passed any health care reform, if their cost of health care for their citizens had gone up EVEN MORE than massachusett's insurance cost rise?

That would be good to know, if we are trying to determine whether a complete failure or not....

That's a valid point, despite my desire to slam Obama's healthcare, I'd like to see some actual hard evidence - from a non-biased source.... which is, sadly, all but impossible these days.

 

[Care4all]

I wonder why Obama has dismissed the GOP idea to encourage the states to implement state programs providing healthcare if that is what they want to do. In other words, field test on smaller scales some of the ideas the Democrats claim will absolutely work.

For instance one of the selling points of Obamacare is that his plan will bring down costs and lower insurance premiums. That has not been the case in Massachusetts.

But WHY would this NEED a federal push....?

WHY didn't all the States take this upon themselves, as a handful did....there was nothing stopping them? I think the States failed their own citizens... while sitting idly by hoping for the Fed's to take care of this?

 

[uscitizen]

I wonder why Obama has dismissed the GOP idea to encourage the states to implement state programs providing healthcare if that is what they want to do. In other words, field test on smaller scales some of the ideas the Democrats claim will absolutely work.

For instance one of the selling points of Obamacare is that his plan will bring down costs and lower insurance premiums. That has not been the case in Massachusetts.

But WHY would this NEED a federal push....?

WHY didn't all the States take this upon themselves, as a handful did....there was nothing stopping them? I think the States failed their own citizens... while sitting idly by hoping for the Fed's to take care of this?

A very good point. Why are most blaming the feds for our troubles. Did not the states play a part as well?

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder if you took another comparable state to massachusetts that has not passed any health care reform, if their cost of health care for their citizens had gone up EVEN MORE than massachusett's insurance cost rise?

That would be good to know, if we are trying to determine whether a complete failure or not....

Well yes, it is good to assess the dynamics that happens in any experimental program. Unfortunately, the fact that it fails in accomplishing what it is advertised to accomplish never seems to be a good enough reason to discontinue it once it is signed into law.

Why should we intentionally settle for a policy or program that history teaches us will almost certainly fail to any degree at all? More especially why should we tolerate that when history teaches us that we could lose what isn't failing in the process?

You don't make the room brighter by changing the light bulb that isn't burned out.

My favorte quote of the year: "It isn't enough to not suck as much as the other side sucks."

 

[JWBooth]

Why don't the Republicans use Romney-care as a reason why Romney should not be president?

Frankly, I don't think the bastards are smart enough to think of it. Takes Romney AND Obama off the board.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I wonder why Obama has dismissed the GOP idea to encourage the states to implement state programs providing healthcare if that is what they want to do. In other words, field test on smaller scales some of the ideas the Democrats claim will absolutely work.

For instance one of the selling points of Obamacare is that his plan will bring down costs and lower insurance premiums. That has not been the case in Massachusetts.

But WHY would this NEED a federal push....?

WHY didn't all the States take this upon themselves, as a handful did....there was nothing stopping them? I think the States failed their own citizens... while sitting idly by hoping for the Fed's to take care of this?

Great minds think alike Care . I too feel its a states issue. Hell didn't the constitution set things up so that things like these were dealt with at a state and not federal level (rhetorical)?

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder why Obama has dismissed the GOP idea to encourage the states to implement state programs providing healthcare if that is what they want to do. In other words, field test on smaller scales some of the ideas the Democrats claim will absolutely work.

For instance one of the selling points of Obamacare is that his plan will bring down costs and lower insurance premiums. That has not been the case in Massachusetts.

But WHY would this NEED a federal push....?

WHY didn't all the States take this upon themselves, as a handful did....there was nothing stopping them? I think the States failed their own citizens... while sitting idly by hoping for the Fed's to take care of this?

Great minds think alike Care . I too feel its a states issue. Hell didn't the constitution set things up so that things like these were dealt with at a state and not federal level (rhetorical)?

And, when in New Mexico, the governor pushed for universal healthcare for our State, there was such resistance that he dropped it. The states are already providing Medicaid to the extremely low income and indigent.

Even a people in a state as blue as New Mexico, people resist paying for people to have insurance who could afford their own insurance but choose not to buy it.

So, when the people of a state want universal healthcare, they'll support that. So long as they don't want it, it should be none of the Federal government's business.

 

[Care4all]

But WHY would this NEED a federal push....?

WHY didn't all the States take this upon themselves, as a handful did....there was nothing stopping them? I think the States failed their own citizens... while sitting idly by hoping for the Fed's to take care of this?

Great minds think alike Care . I too feel its a states issue. Hell didn't the constitution set things up so that things like these were dealt with at a state and not federal level (rhetorical)?

And, when in New Mexico, the governor pushed for universal healthcare for our State, there was such resistance that he dropped it. The states are already providing Medicaid to the extremely low income and indigent.

Even a people in a state as blue as New Mexico, people resist paying for people to have insurance who could afford their own insurance but choose not to buy it.

So, when the people of a state want universal healthcare, they'll support that. So long as they don't want it, it should be none of the Federal government's business.

Well, I don't know about the cost of insurance for health care in New Mexico....it could be cheap, but for an individual policy for health care in Maine for my husband and I, 2 healthy people, non smokers, taking absolutely no prescription for anything, with a $5000 deductible before the insurance pays for the whole thing, is $25,000 a year...yes A YEAR....in a state where we have some counties with the average male worker only making $18k a year and the average female working only making $16k a year....it is cost prohibitive for the average joe to be able to buy their own health insurance and without a 'group plan' rate and their employer's help....

But when you have a state that is filled with potato and blueberry farmers, fisherman, lobster-men, small ocean side hotel owners waiting for the summer tourists, and Loggers....anywhere from mid state on up....these fields of work do not offer any kind of health care benefits....they just can't afford to....the best company you could work for up here so that you get benefits is a paper-mill or perhaps as a health care worker... and they are jobs hard to come by....

My state only has 2 Insurers, insuring 88% of all the people that have health insurance....it is a Duopoly, with no competition....

And I believe maine went through some health care reform before we moved here...? Sheeeeesh...if what we have here now is health care reform, then I'll sell ya a brooklyn bridge.

In most states, health care costs are cost prohibitive...maybe not yours, but there is a huge problem...one that will send more businesses off shore so that they don't have to supply it anymore....one that will end up bringing companies down, unless they drop the coverage for their employees....then what, all of you will end up having to buy individual policies for the two at $25k a year plus the $5k out of pocket first.....? Only the very wealthiest can afford fees as such....even if the hubby and I were living off of $100k a year gross salaries, we could NOT afford the $25k A YEAR....along with all other expenses.

We have a problem with health care costs and the yearly double digit rise in their costs...states should have addressed this...somehow, (And I don't know the how) imo.

 

[Foxfyre]

Great minds think alike Care . I too feel its a states issue. Hell didn't the constitution set things up so that things like these were dealt with at a state and not federal level (rhetorical)?

And, when in New Mexico, the governor pushed for universal healthcare for our State, there was such resistance that he dropped it. The states are already providing Medicaid to the extremely low income and indigent.

Even a people in a state as blue as New Mexico, people resist paying for people to have insurance who could afford their own insurance but choose not to buy it.

So, when the people of a state want universal healthcare, they'll support that. So long as they don't want it, it should be none of the Federal government's business.

Well, I don't know about the cost of insurance for health care in New Mexico....it could be cheap, but for an individual policy for health care in Maine for my husband and I, 2 healthy people, non smokers, taking absolutely no prescription for anything, with a $5000 deductible before the insurance pays for the whole thing, is $25,000 a year...yes A YEAR....in a state where we have some counties with the average male worker only making $18k a year and the average female working only making $16k a year....it is cost prohibitive for the average joe to be able to buy their own health insurance and without a 'group plan' rate and their employer's help....

But when you have a state that is filled with potato and blueberry farmers, fisherman, lobster-men, small ocean side hotel owners waiting for the summer tourists, and Loggers....anywhere from mid state on up....these fields of work do not offer any kind of health care benefits....they just can't afford to....the best company you could work for up here so that you get benefits is a paper-mill or perhaps as a health care worker... and they are jobs hard to come by....

My state only has 2 Insurers, insuring 88% of all the people that have health insurance....it is a Duopoly, with no competition....

And I believe maine went through some health care reform before we moved here...? Sheeeeesh...if what we have here now is health care reform, then I'll sell ya a brooklyn bridge.

In most states, health care costs are cost prohibitive...maybe not yours, but there is a huge problem...one that will send more businesses off shore so that they don't have to supply it anymore....one that will end up bringing companies down, unless they drop the coverage for their employees....then what, all of you will end up having to buy individual policies for the two at $25k a year plus the $5k out of pocket first.....? Only the very wealthiest can afford fees as such....even if the hubby and I were living off of $100k a year gross salaries, we could NOT afford the $25k A YEAR....along with all other expenses.

We have a problem with health care costs and the yearly double digit rise in their costs...states should have addressed this...somehow, (And I don't know the how) imo.

I do understand your dilemma. I really do.

But let's assume the cost of insurance in New Mexico is less expensive than that. (And I believe it is because we don't have as much of a monopoly or duopoly as some states do.) What if you could buy your insurance from a New Mexico company?

What if the Federal government utilized anti-trust laws, which they certainly could legitimately do, and make it legal to buy across state lines everywhere? That alone would bring down the cost of insurance by a large percentage in many states. Why hasn't the Federal government done that? I think it is because they know it would show that there are ways to substantially lower costs without Federal control of the system. They aren't about to do anything at this point that weakens their argument that the feds need to control it.

What if the Federal government would use racketeering laws to initiate tort reform with an option for states to opt out if they wanted to. (I'm guessing no state legislature would have the balls to opt out even if they won't initiate it themselves.) The actual cost of litigation (2%) coupled with doctors and hospitals not having to order so much redundancy and unnecessary tests could bring down costs a whole bunch more. Again, the Federal government doesn't dare do something like that before they have control of the system. They know it might work.

What if the Federal government pushed to allow people to own their own policies that they could take anywhere rather than have the employers own the policies? The employers could still pay all or part of the premium if they wanted to or increase salaries and benefits instead if they wanted to do that? That would eliminate the problem of losing your insurance if you lost your job or changed jobs.

There are so many things that can be done to give us more freedom, more choice, more options, and lower costs before we have to initiate federal control of the healthcare system.

If freedom doesn't solve the problem, THEN they should look at something else. But not before.

 

[Care4all]

And, when in New Mexico, the governor pushed for universal healthcare for our State, there was such resistance that he dropped it. The states are already providing Medicaid to the extremely low income and indigent.

Even a people in a state as blue as New Mexico, people resist paying for people to have insurance who could afford their own insurance but choose not to buy it.

So, when the people of a state want universal healthcare, they'll support that. So long as they don't want it, it should be none of the Federal government's business.

Well, I don't know about the cost of insurance for health care in New Mexico....it could be cheap, but for an individual policy for health care in Maine for my husband and I, 2 healthy people, non smokers, taking absolutely no prescription for anything, with a $5000 deductible before the insurance pays for the whole thing, is $25,000 a year...yes A YEAR....in a state where we have some counties with the average male worker only making $18k a year and the average female working only making $16k a year....it is cost prohibitive for the average joe to be able to buy their own health insurance and without a 'group plan' rate and their employer's help....

But when you have a state that is filled with potato and blueberry farmers, fisherman, lobster-men, small ocean side hotel owners waiting for the summer tourists, and Loggers....anywhere from mid state on up....these fields of work do not offer any kind of health care benefits....they just can't afford to....the best company you could work for up here so that you get benefits is a paper-mill or perhaps as a health care worker... and they are jobs hard to come by....

My state only has 2 Insurers, insuring 88% of all the people that have health insurance....it is a Duopoly, with no competition....

And I believe maine went through some health care reform before we moved here...? Sheeeeesh...if what we have here now is health care reform, then I'll sell ya a brooklyn bridge.

In most states, health care costs are cost prohibitive...maybe not yours, but there is a huge problem...one that will send more businesses off shore so that they don't have to supply it anymore....one that will end up bringing companies down, unless they drop the coverage for their employees....then what, all of you will end up having to buy individual policies for the two at $25k a year plus the $5k out of pocket first.....? Only the very wealthiest can afford fees as such....even if the hubby and I were living off of $100k a year gross salaries, we could NOT afford the $25k A YEAR....along with all other expenses.

We have a problem with health care costs and the yearly double digit rise in their costs...states should have addressed this...somehow, (And I don't know the how) imo.

I do understand your dilemma. I really do.

But let's assume the cost of insurance in New Mexico is less expensive than that. (And I believe it is because we don't have as much of a monopoly or duopoly as some states do.) What if you could buy your insurance from a New Mexico company?

What if the Federal government utilized anti-trust laws, which they certainly could legitimately do, and make it legal to buy across state lines everywhere? That alone would bring down the cost of insurance by a large percentage in many states. Why hasn't the Federal government done that? I think it is because they know it would show that there are ways to substantially lower costs without Federal control of the system. They aren't about to do anything at this point that weakens their argument that the feds need to control it.

What if the Federal government would use racketeering laws to initiate tort reform with an option for states to opt out if they wanted to. (I'm guessing no state legislature would have the balls to opt out even if they won't initiate it themselves.) The actual cost of litigation (2%) coupled with doctors and hospitals not having to order so much redundancy and unnecessary tests could bring down costs a whole bunch more. Again, the Federal government doesn't dare do something like that before they have control of the system. They know it might work.

What if the Federal government pushed to allow people to own their own policies that they could take anywhere rather than have the employers own the policies? The employers could still pay all or part of the premium if they wanted to or increase salaries and benefits instead if they wanted to do that? That would eliminate the problem of losing your insurance if you lost your job or changed jobs.

There are so many things that can be done to give us more freedom, more choice, more options, and lower costs before we have to initiate federal control of the healthcare system.

If freedom doesn't solve the problem, THEN they should look at something else. But not before.

I agree on some of the reforms mentioned...

allowing me to cross state lines to purchase health care insurance from another state in order to find a cheaper policy...this would increase competition....however if you are a true State's right's believer, then the federal government should not be mandating this change, but the state itself should reform their own laws preventing it, no?

I agree that we should own our own policies, we should be able to pick them out ourselves...for what is good for our needs...somewhat like medicare supplemental insurance where the recipients can pick what supplemental insurance is good for them...one that covers more of the drug costs, as an example...

And the employer could still provide for paying for on average 70% of the cost of it...this would at least give us a hands on to our on choices....but it still really won't put enough pressure on us to bargain for health care, as would occur if our employers never got involved in the first place, supplementing our health care costs....and WE had to pay for our own health services, on our own...if we were all on our own, there would have been market resistence to higher prices LONG AGO and we would not be in this boat....(we can't turn back now though )

Our insurance going with us is good, but we already have that with COBRA for 18 months...even with the guaranteed group rate of your employer, without employer contribution it is too EXPENSIVE for most....4 years ago, when my husband was unemployed, it was $700 a month for the 2 of us and that is alot of money for a family unemployed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, I don't know about the cost of insurance for health care in New Mexico....it could be cheap, but for an individual policy for health care in Maine for my husband and I, 2 healthy people, non smokers, taking absolutely no prescription for anything, with a $5000 deductible before the insurance pays for the whole thing, is $25,000 a year...yes A YEAR....in a state where we have some counties with the average male worker only making $18k a year and the average female working only making $16k a year....it is cost prohibitive for the average joe to be able to buy their own health insurance and without a 'group plan' rate and their employer's help....

But when you have a state that is filled with potato and blueberry farmers, fisherman, lobster-men, small ocean side hotel owners waiting for the summer tourists, and Loggers....anywhere from mid state on up....these fields of work do not offer any kind of health care benefits....they just can't afford to....the best company you could work for up here so that you get benefits is a paper-mill or perhaps as a health care worker... and they are jobs hard to come by....

My state only has 2 Insurers, insuring 88% of all the people that have health insurance....it is a Duopoly, with no competition....

And I believe maine went through some health care reform before we moved here...? Sheeeeesh...if what we have here now is health care reform, then I'll sell ya a brooklyn bridge.

In most states, health care costs are cost prohibitive...maybe not yours, but there is a huge problem...one that will send more businesses off shore so that they don't have to supply it anymore....one that will end up bringing companies down, unless they drop the coverage for their employees....then what, all of you will end up having to buy individual policies for the two at $25k a year plus the $5k out of pocket first.....? Only the very wealthiest can afford fees as such....even if the hubby and I were living off of $100k a year gross salaries, we could NOT afford the $25k A YEAR....along with all other expenses.

We have a problem with health care costs and the yearly double digit rise in their costs...states should have addressed this...somehow, (And I don't know the how) imo.

I do understand your dilemma. I really do.

But let's assume the cost of insurance in New Mexico is less expensive than that. (And I believe it is because we don't have as much of a monopoly or duopoly as some states do.) What if you could buy your insurance from a New Mexico company?

What if the Federal government utilized anti-trust laws, which they certainly could legitimately do, and make it legal to buy across state lines everywhere? That alone would bring down the cost of insurance by a large percentage in many states. Why hasn't the Federal government done that? I think it is because they know it would show that there are ways to substantially lower costs without Federal control of the system. They aren't about to do anything at this point that weakens their argument that the feds need to control it.

What if the Federal government would use racketeering laws to initiate tort reform with an option for states to opt out if they wanted to. (I'm guessing no state legislature would have the balls to opt out even if they won't initiate it themselves.) The actual cost of litigation (2%) coupled with doctors and hospitals not having to order so much redundancy and unnecessary tests could bring down costs a whole bunch more. Again, the Federal government doesn't dare do something like that before they have control of the system. They know it might work.

What if the Federal government pushed to allow people to own their own policies that they could take anywhere rather than have the employers own the policies? The employers could still pay all or part of the premium if they wanted to or increase salaries and benefits instead if they wanted to do that? That would eliminate the problem of losing your insurance if you lost your job or changed jobs.

There are so many things that can be done to give us more freedom, more choice, more options, and lower costs before we have to initiate federal control of the healthcare system.

If freedom doesn't solve the problem, THEN they should look at something else. But not before.

I agree on some of the reforms mentioned...

allowing me to cross state lines to purchase health care insurance from another state in order to find a cheaper policy...this would increase competition....however if you are a true State's right's believer, then the federal government should not be mandating this change, but the state itself should reform their own laws preventing it, no?

Yes that is the paradox and the tension between states rights advocates which you appear to be and I absolutely am and the duty given to the Federal government to promote the general welfare which would include enforcement of antitrust laws.

There is reason to allow a utility company, for instance, to have a regulated monopoly in a city or county if anything other than that monopoly would reduce service/access for the citizens and/or would be cost prohibitive to provide the service at all. But unless that is the case, monopolies are illegal under Federal antitrust laws.

"The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself."

And that is why I think antitrust laws could be applied when there is no meritorious reason to afford a private insurance company any kind of monopoly within a state and it puts other companies at a disadvantage.

That is the primary reason I don't want the Federal government running its own public option plan.

 

[uscitizen]

And, when in New Mexico, the governor pushed for universal healthcare for our State, there was such resistance that he dropped it. The states are already providing Medicaid to the extremely low income and indigent.

Even a people in a state as blue as New Mexico, people resist paying for people to have insurance who could afford their own insurance but choose not to buy it.

So, when the people of a state want universal healthcare, they'll support that. So long as they don't want it, it should be none of the Federal government's business.

Well, I don't know about the cost of insurance for health care in New Mexico....it could be cheap, but for an individual policy for health care in Maine for my husband and I, 2 healthy people, non smokers, taking absolutely no prescription for anything, with a $5000 deductible before the insurance pays for the whole thing, is $25,000 a year...yes A YEAR....in a state where we have some counties with the average male worker only making $18k a year and the average female working only making $16k a year....it is cost prohibitive for the average joe to be able to buy their own health insurance and without a 'group plan' rate and their employer's help....

But when you have a state that is filled with potato and blueberry farmers, fisherman, lobster-men, small ocean side hotel owners waiting for the summer tourists, and Loggers....anywhere from mid state on up....these fields of work do not offer any kind of health care benefits....they just can't afford to....the best company you could work for up here so that you get benefits is a paper-mill or perhaps as a health care worker... and they are jobs hard to come by....

My state only has 2 Insurers, insuring 88% of all the people that have health insurance....it is a Duopoly, with no competition....

And I believe maine went through some health care reform before we moved here...? Sheeeeesh...if what we have here now is health care reform, then I'll sell ya a brooklyn bridge.

In most states, health care costs are cost prohibitive...maybe not yours, but there is a huge problem...one that will send more businesses off shore so that they don't have to supply it anymore....one that will end up bringing companies down, unless they drop the coverage for their employees....then what, all of you will end up having to buy individual policies for the two at $25k a year plus the $5k out of pocket first.....? Only the very wealthiest can afford fees as such....even if the hubby and I were living off of $100k a year gross salaries, we could NOT afford the $25k A YEAR....along with all other expenses.

We have a problem with health care costs and the yearly double digit rise in their costs...states should have addressed this...somehow, (And I don't know the how) imo.

I do understand your dilemma. I really do.

But let's assume the cost of insurance in New Mexico is less expensive than that. (And I believe it is because we don't have as much of a monopoly or duopoly as some states do.) What if you could buy your insurance from a New Mexico company?

What if the Federal government utilized anti-trust laws, which they certainly could legitimately do, and make it legal to buy across state lines everywhere? That alone would bring down the cost of insurance by a large percentage in many states. Why hasn't the Federal government done that? I think it is because they know it would show that there are ways to substantially lower costs without Federal control of the system. They aren't about to do anything at this point that weakens their argument that the feds need to control it.

What if the Federal government would use racketeering laws to initiate tort reform with an option for states to opt out if they wanted to. (I'm guessing no state legislature would have the balls to opt out even if they won't initiate it themselves.) The actual cost of litigation (2%) coupled with doctors and hospitals not having to order so much redundancy and unnecessary tests could bring down costs a whole bunch more. Again, the Federal government doesn't dare do something like that before they have control of the system. They know it might work.

What if the Federal government pushed to allow people to own their own policies that they could take anywhere rather than have the employers own the policies? The employers could still pay all or part of the premium if they wanted to or increase salaries and benefits instead if they wanted to do that? That would eliminate the problem of losing your insurance if you lost your job or changed jobs.

There are so many things that can be done to give us more freedom, more choice, more options, and lower costs before we have to initiate federal control of the healthcare system.

If freedom doesn't solve the problem, THEN they should look at something else. But not before.

Ahh yes tort reform brings freedom from responsibility to the medical community and freedom from legal redress for wrongs for the victims. And all for a single digit percentage savings in health care costs.