After months of negotiations, the federal health care waiver that keeps our health care law afloat has been finalized. We get 10.6 billion over three years. Everyone seems pretty happy about the result; at the very least, in the midst of our fiscal crisis, it's one thing that will indeed get fully funded. As the NYT reports, Massachusetts has become the state with the lowest uninsured rate in the country. That's good. Congratulations to Gov. Patrick, and to Sen. Kennedy, who doubtless had a major role in the negotiations with the feds.
That being said, the state is apparently not going to ask employers to kick in a little more for the law as well. This is a shame. The initial assessment on non-insuring employers was embarassingly tiny, and has produced miniscule revenue. The supposed “three-legged stool” of funding — business, individuals, government — is falling over to one side.
Why doesn't big business get out and push more vigorously on cost containment? I do not understand why the major industry lobbying groups seem more interested in protecting one of their own — or just stand aside — rather than leading a charge for lower health care prices. Don't they get soaked when we get soaked?
Because of declining reimbursement Cape Cod hospital has lay offs, Jordan Hospital has had lay offs and closed a wing, I’ve been told that Mass General is going to lay off 300 personnel. The Brigham is sweating it, and this is just the beginning. This is your cost containment: LAYOFFS!
Orange sauce with that canard?
<
p>You wanna know WHY medicare costs so much?
<
p>Because the businesses dump seniors health care onto the US Government, thereby externalizing the cost for them and making it our problem. A real health care system would spread the risk – 20 year old healthy people mixed in with the costs associated with 70 year old sick people. But our pools are divided, and the expensive people dumped into Medicare for the most part.
<
p>There are two fixes for this:
<
p>1) universal health care. Taxing everyone (individuals with the FICA/healthcare taxes, and also a small tax on corporations’ profits) so that we can have a truly universal, risk-spreading system. Imagine if the 50% of premiums you pay to BCBS and the 50% your employer pays (if you are lucky enough) gets replaced by a universal health care tax. It actually would probably be a MUCH smaller premium. At least, the Medicare model is able to provide health care with a LOT less “administration” costs that the private health care insurances do. That would cut costs to the individual AND fix the risk pool problem. Sure, there’s a bumper crop of seniors coming into the system and that means slightly higher costs for the time being, but it’s doable. The math is there, my friend.
<
p>2) Reduce the damn costs. And, no, not with tort reform, that’ll do jack-all. Lawsuits represent less than 1% of the cost increases for health care per year. Another canard. However, decreasing the cost for DRUGS (first, if we have universal coverage, negotiating down the prices as a large buyer unlike the govt was allowed to do with Medicare Part D because of the Republimorons). Ban them from advertising for one thing; it’s detrimental to our health (studies show that people are now demanding medicines they may not need and that we are overmedicated) and adds a lot to the cost of the drug when you go to buy it off the shelf. There are other cost savings too, like reducing the administrative overhead to Medicare levels as I said (private insurance it’s like 30% of their costs or something ridiculous)
Actually, the new fair share regs will lead to an increase in the business community’s contribution to health care reform in MA. The article you reference above refers to some changes the Governor made in the new regs to lessen the burden on small businesses and those companies that insure a high percentage of their employees, but the overall effect of the new regs will be to increase the contribution of employers to health care reform in the Commonwealth – in line with the increases over the past year from the other two “legs” of the funding stool.
<
p>These new regs, along with the huge victory on the federal waiver, will go a long way towards helping to fulfill the promise of the original health care legislation. Overall, lots of good news on the health care front in MA.
[the Globe article]
<
p>So, it sounds like
(a) the trigger to require payment is more sensitive — that is, more businesses will be required to pay the fine than previously, but
(b) the fine itself — $295 — remains the same.
<
p>End result: apparently, the state pulls in more money to fund this thing without charging the businesses more per worker. Sounds a bit better, though it’s not clear if the business “leg” of the stool got a little longer while the other two “legs” will have to get a lot longer.
<
p>P.S. Any idea if any other states are going to try what MA has done? I’d especially like it if a border state did it too, if only to help reduce the hazard created by this program inviting those who need insurance to move to MA while encouraging businesses to locate just over the border in another state…
Like $500-$700 per worker not covered for those delinquent businesses?
<
p>God, the amount per person or family that these premiums cost, that’s still a damn bargain. The $295/year is a total joke.
<
p>I have a friend who specializes in small businesses and individual plans for insurance, in some cases (for those paying their OWN premiums) he can save them up to $8,000 per year for a family plan. $8K!!! That’s the SAVINGS!
<
p>God.
BMG readers shouldn’t confuse “the MA Plan”, our current market-based private insurance expansion of coverage on the taxpayer tab, with real reform for more real people and real businesses; real reform would look much more like streamlined financed universal coverage a la “single payer” reform. To learn more about universal healthcare that really works visit http://masscare.org/what-is-si…