Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Our Gov schools Congress on health care

By

You know what? I'm damn glad this guy got re-elected. Be proud, Massachusetts.

WASHINGTON — The loaded title of the congressional hearing was “The Consequences of ObamaCare.’’ And the introduction before testimony included this caustic comment from a GOP congresswoman: “Looking forward to what you have to say about a failed program in your state, MassachusettsCare.’’

But for Deval Patrick, the only Democratic governor asked to discuss implications of the national health care overhaul yesterday before the Republican-run House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the moment was more of an opportunity than an inquisition.

…the governor said those working to undermine the law should expect stiff opposition.

“You should prepare for the fight of your lives, because this is worth defending,’’ Patrick said. “And you know what? Here’s what the real issue is: It’s not about . . . a particular policy, it’s about what kind of country we want to live in.’’

 

“Failed program” = 98% of the population covered. La dee da, Rep. Blackburn of Tennessee, where 15% are uninsured, including 9% of children. 

And this Governor continues to lead with a strong payment reform proposal to deal with escalating health care costs — which, by the way, are the major threat to the federal budget as well. This is indeed a necessity for our law to avoid failure.

Could it be more obvious that the national Republicans have no idea, no leadership, and absolutely no vision on health care?

And isn't it good to have those things here at home?

Let there be more such hearings in DC. Let there be more opportunities to show what's possible. And let there be more full-throated advocacy like Gov. Patrick's.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. It’s too bad President Obama can’t manage the same balance of passion and eloquence that Governor Patrick delivers on a regular basis.  While he’s in Washington maybe the Governor can give the White House some pointers on priorities and how to communicate them.  We are spoiled here in Massachusetts.

  3. but I would guess “success” is subjective. First of all, it wasn’t as heavy a lift for MA to implement RomneyCare since we started the program in 2006 with 90.2% of MA residents having medical insurance. So right away we had an advantage to get to the current 98.1% (which is a great place to be, no question).

    <

    p>The second question is how much did it cost to insure those extra 7.9% of M residents? $880 million budgeted for 2010 plus what premiums the individuals had to pay.

    <

    p>So the question is “Is success simply how many people are covered… or does cost become a bigger bellwether since many states will have to foot the bill, not for 7.9% but for 14%, 16% or over 25% for Texas?”

    <

    p>Older chart from 2009

    <

    p>

    <

    p>or for map people… again from 2009 data…

    <

    p>But I do agree that being #1 in this category is a great thing, as long as it doesn’t break the budget going forward. (the curve seems to be flattening out nicely).

    <

    p>

    • Romney’s plan was a coverage plan, not a cost reduction plan.  It has been remarkably successful at meeting its universal coverage goals.  So while “success” may be subjective generally, on the question of whether the MA health reform law was a success, all that matters is whether coverage increased.

      <

      p>

      So the question is “Is success simply how many people are covered… or does cost become a bigger bellwether since many states will have to foot the bill, not for 7.9% but for 14%, 16% or over 25% for Texas?”  

      <

      p>It’s just the first part.

      <

      p>The costs concerns are obviously important, but focusing on those distracts from the real purpose of the law. If it had been a cost control law, it would be a failure. Everyone in MA knew that costs were going to remain an issue, and that’s why Gov. Patrick introduced a cost containment bill last week.  

      <

      p>What Republicans are trying to do now is say that PPACA will be a failure because it was based on the MA law, and that failed to rein in costs.  That view misreads the purpose of the MA law and PPACA because ours was not a cost control bill, and a main focus of PPACA is to control costs.  But, as usual, soundbites are easier to make when one doesn’t have to worry about facts.  

      • a lot more cost-control provisions in the PPACA than in the MA law — for instance:

        <

        p>http://www.ascopost.com/articl…

           * Cutting overpayment to Medicare Advantage ($136 billion)
           * Reduction of payment update factor ($196 billion)
           * Administrative simplification ($20 billion)
           * Use of generic biologics ($7 billion)
           * Enforcement of fraud and abuse laws ($3 billion)
           * Payment change for complex imaging procedures ($1.2 billion)

        <

        p>There’s good question as to whether it’s enough ….

      • I wasn’t paying attention back when it was passed.

        <

        p>And yeah everyone now saying it’s failing b/c it didn’t control costs…and I have heard and you are saying again “it wasn’t about cost control”–can you refer me to some archival writing on that from pre Romneycare? Or something?  

        • I don’t have any pre-2006 stuff, but here’s something more recent from Romney’s HHS secretary.  

          <

          p>http://www.politico.com/news/s…

          <

          p>

          Simply put, the Massachusetts law was an experiment to expand health insurance coverage to almost every resident of the Commonwealth, by redirecting existing health care spending and without raising taxes. It was not an attempt to control costs.

          As someone deeply involved in drafting the law, our operating principle was to deal with the issue of access first, and then try to control costs. But the first big step was to get everyone under the insurance umbrella.

Archives