Posted on 05/26/2009 9:18:59 AM PDT by Graybeard58
Massachusetts took a stab at universal care by requiring every resident to buy health insurance, with the state subsidizing the premiums. The annual cost of Commonwealth Care, originally pegged at $245 million, will be $1.3 billion this year. Consequently, the state's health-care costs have spiked 42 percent in three years, and today, health- care spending is 33 percent above the national average.
Now The Boston Globe reports that even though Massachusetts has more doctors per capita than any state, waiting periods to see medical specialists for routine care have grown, again because of Commonwealth Care. The average wait for a specialist now is 50 days; for a family doctor, it's 63, while the average woman who thinks she's pregnant doesn't get to see an obstetrician-gynecologist until her second trimester. But for the busiest physicians, the wait can be as much as a year, simply because narcissistic socialist politicians fancied themselves better qualified to run the state's heath-care system than people with many years of training and experience. And despite the enormous effort and expense, Massachusetts still has failed to achieve universal coverage.
The longer waits, of course, are the consequence of hundreds of thousands of newly insured residents descending on the health-care system. As Dr. Gene Lindsey, president of Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates of Boston describes it: "We had a bus that was pretty full, and then we invited more people on the bus. Now people are standing in the aisles." For 50, 63, sometimes 365 days. More ominously, the independent consultants whose recent report quantified the longer waits said the development "may signal what could happen nationally in the event that access to health care is expanded" via Obamacare.
Could happen? Guaranteed to happen.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this list, let me know.
It has nothing to do with money and costs. It’s another means by which socialists can impose more regulations to steal people’s freedoms with the goal of replacing our Democratic Republic with socialism.
Isn’t this the sterling “RomneyCare” that Mitt wanted to bring to the nation as part of his “Conservative” plan to rescue us from nationalized health care?
Thought so...
I like to quote J.R. on this one:
The liberals made him do it.
Yep. No doubt. Sadly, when you join the liberals that makes you a liberal. Right Johnny? ;-)
Don’t remember who said this originally, but...
“If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”
Already has been happening for decades due to the absurd connection between "healthcare" and employment.
People feel compelled to use a "benefit" even if it is in reality more of a danger than a benefit, just so they can feel like they have "benefitted."
That would be P. J. O’Rourke.
Can only imagine what the cost will be when this sucker hits the larger States.
I’m sure the libtards already have the excuses lined up for what happened in MA, and how their new plan will be better.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the AMA is a monopolist organization that manipulates the market by purposefully limiting the number of people allowed to become doctors each year.
But it will be different if we do it bookmark.
Liberalism, is there a treatment yet?
Problem solved LOL
It was a logical system for many a small town in similar situations.
Today, the AMA and the lawyers would prefer to see someone die en route to a bigger town than to get the lifesaving care that a RN or a veterinarian could deliver.
Reason number 45295982983412594982 why the individual states are meant to be the incubators of political innovation.
Though, I can still honestly entertain the idea of state-wide health-care coverage (not necessarily that I will support it, but that I will not automatically discount every conceivable incarnation of such a policy, as I so discount such policies at the federal level).
IMO, for any scheme to fly, it would need to include the following elements:
(0) voluntary membership (no sign up, no pay - but no coverage)
(1) elimination of medical malpractice lawsuits for government-covered care (starve the medical-insurance-company + lawyer-parasite scam)
(2) small flat co-pay for every non-emergency treatment (maybe as low as $5 per visit, cash or debit only) to dissuade abuse.
(3) acceptance of alternative licensing practitioners as primary and secondary caregivers in clinics and hospitals (i.e. ending the monopoly of the medical guild system)
(4) no ties to a general funds purse (i.e. all funding must come from fees expressly collected for the purpose - and such monies cannot be raided to pay for other government expenses)
(5) eligibility contingent upon being up to date on state tax filings.
(6) no coverage for cosmetic treatments and optional mutilation procedures
(7) no coverage for illegals
(8) no direct interference with private plans, or mandates for private care clinics or hospitals to provide coverage
(9) incentives for private organizations (companies, clubs, charities, private providers, etc) to fully cover or subsidize health fees for the poor.
(10) Two levels of insurance should be available - one “comprehensive” and the other emergency only, available for different fees. Those who partake in neither government insurance plan should not be eligible for even emergency treatment unless they can otherwise pay for it (private insurance, out of pocket, etc).
RN’s, especially Nurse Practioners are undervalued by AMA and the lawyers. Some one on a thread years ago couldn’t understand why there weren’t continuing ed programs that allowed GNP’s and Physician’s Assistants to become MD’s if they chose to do that. It’s traditional medical school or nothing. If I had a choice between an freshly minted MD and a GNP with 10-15 years experience, the GNP could handle 90%+ of my ailments.
I normally see a PA at one of the specialist’s office. I actually like him better than the doctor.
Absolutely, esp. when the word gets around and another 20,000,000 people show up from Mexico and Central America, wanting to get on board.
Especially when "sanctuary" policies guarantee them no-hassle access.
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.