News flash: CEOs like universal health insurance – but don’t want to pay for it.

email

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t think it was possible to have so many lies, falacies and spin in one article.

    “In an interview after the show was taped in NECN’s studio, Haldeman said employer mandates put the burden on narrow segments of society — businesses and their customers — without regard for ability to pay. The income tax, he said, is not only broad-based but progressive, in that those with higher incomes pay more.”

    Sure, like you won’t pass the “savings” on to consumers. Let’s try this one more time; businesses do not pay taxes. Those who purchase their services pay the taxes through higher prices.

    Income tax: MA already has an income tax. Adding to it is not going to encourage employers (or employees for that matter) to move to the state or stay in the state.

    “Romney wants to require individuals to have health insurance and has proposed covering the uninsured by taking the roughly $1 billion the state currently spends on free care and reallocating it to a subsidized health insurance product, for which everyone would pay based on what they could afford.”

    Here’s another news flash. This $1 billion dollars set aside for the MA Uncompensated Care Pool (“Free Care”) is currently paid out to HOSPITALS ONLY. Not one cent of this money is ever paid for physician services. Thus that $1 billion will be blown through in a month’s worth of “subsidized care” and you’ll be right back where you started.

    “Employer groups have criticized proposals to require companies to provide company-paid health insurance, or pay higher taxes, as adding to some of the highest labor, energy, and real estate costs in the country.”

    There’s a reason why it’s called Taxachusetts.

    “The key issue remains how to pay for expanding healthcare coverage. Ultimately, Massachusetts chief executives said, the federal government would have to play a major role.”

    Excuse me? Explain to me how it’s my responsibility to pay for your healthcare. It’s commonly reported that 45 or so million American’s don’t currently have health insurance. How many of them don’t want/need it?

    Here’s the bottom line (with facts):
    1) Universal Healthcare would be akin to putting everyone in the state on MassHealth
    2) Massachusetts pop: 6.5 million
    3) MassHealth Enrollment: ~900,000
    4) MassHealth expenses as a percentage of state annual budget: 25%.

    A sixth grader can tell you that that math doesn’t add up.

    Make no mistake, “shared responsibility” is the PC term for socialism. It didn’t work in Jamestown, it didn’t work in Moscow and it sure as hell will not work in Boston.

  • Anonymous

    50% of health care expenditures are already paid for by the government. It’s not like this is a radical concept.

    CJD

  • Anonymous

    I’m not quite convinced the fed involvement is that high. Regardless, it’s beside the point. It makes no difference if it’s a new concept or 1,000 years old, it’s still not my responsibility to pay for your healthcare. Just because it’s been around for a while doesn’t make it right.

  • Anonymous

    I’ll try and find the link to that statistic for you. But think about it, it’s not that unrealistic. Medicare, Medicaid, Federal employees, the VA.

    Do you really think that we’re just going to allow those without healthcare to die? We’re going to pick up the tab one way or another.

    Incidentally, Taxachussets pays far more in fed taxes than it takes in. They subsidize red states like Alaska.

    You’re an advocate for more immunity for healthcare providers and healthcare product makers. Do you really think the public is going to give you immunity without
    wanting something in return?
    CJD

  • Anonymous

    ” It didn’t work in Jamestown, it didn’t work in Moscow and it sure as hell will not work in Boston”

    Having worked in Canada, there’s no way Universal Health Care would work in the U.S. How would we continue to spend most of our healt care dollars on Defensive Medicine? Thank you.

  • Anonymous

    Universal healthcare doesn’t work in Canada. The wait times at government health facilities are astronomical. Hip replacement? 22 weeks average wait time. One of the provinces courts recently struck down a government ban on private health insurance. The opinion cited that the presence of a government health facility did not equal access to healthcare.

    We read stories all over the place right now about doctors who have to close there practices because they can’t afford the expenses, largely blamed on malpractice insurance costs, direct or indirect. Now crank up your personal and business income taxes to about 50% and see how much that helps the situation.

    “Do you really think that we’re just going to allow those without healthcare to die? We’re going to pick up the tab one way or another.”

    Isn’t that was evolution is all about? Or do you suggest that humanity is the sum total of all that “natural selection” has to offer. (For the record I’m not advocating this point).

    “Incidentally, Taxachussets pays far more in fed taxes than it takes in. They subsidize red states like Alaska.”

    I always assumed that Alaska was mostly white (you know, snow?). For the sake of argument I’ll assume this is some sort of political jab aimed at repbulicans. You’re absolutely right, Alaska should fund it’s own projects, like the “Bridge to Nowhere.” I’m of the opinion that ALL pork projects should be eliminated. They serve no purpose other than to trade votes at the expense of the ideaology a particular public servant was elected for in the first place.

    “You’re an advocate for more immunity for healthcare providers and healthcare product makers.”

    Only when they’ve done nothing wrong. I’m not sure how immunity came into a discussion on universal healthcare, but I’ll go with it anyway. Merck (Vioxx) got railroaded because they were stupid, not because there was an inherint danger in the product itself (no more than any other chemical pharmaceutical), and now thousands of people who could have been helped (with virtually no side effects)will have to go without.
    Medical malpractice suits and product liability suites are often decided on the basis of emotion rather than logic and justice and fact.

    I don’t advocate immunity, but I would like to see some common sense. In a medical malpractice case a “jury of your peers” would seem to me to be 12 actual physicians or other people with enough brain power to tell the difference between sensibility and negligence. Not the stupidist 12 people that council could agree on.

    All of the government wealth redistribution plans (including state sponsored health care) take in vast quantities of money and spit out mostly garbage.
    Medicare is raising premiums and deductibles while at the same time cutting physician reimbursement, thanks to a so-called “Sustainable Growth Rate.” Sustainable for who exactly? Physicians are funding this out of their own pockets now and the patients are absorbing more of the direct costs than ever.
    State Medicaid programs are trying to find ways to dump more of the costs of the program onto enrollees who, presumably, were indigent in the first place, which is why there were on the program.

    … but now I’m rambling.

  • Anonymous

    We are talking concepts here, not grammar.

  • Anonymous

    Not the stupidist 12 people that council could agree on.”

    Oh, the irony.
    Why? Didn’t somebody say that when you are going to court you place you fate in the hands of 12 people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty. Forgot who was it…
    I was always told whenever I was called for jury duty that I have no chance of being picked because I am “overeducated”, and that the lawyers like less educated people because they think they can manipulate them better. Also because the lawyers on both sides believe in their “manipulation” ability. Not sure if it is true but it seems to be a prevailing opinion.

  • Anonymous

    You didn’t hear that from lawyers who try civil cases. Anyone who has ever been in a trial ad class knows that one of the first things they teach is not to think you’re smarter than the jury.

    Reread his sentence, you’ll see the irony.

    CJD