Some have cited Massachusetts as an example of what Obama’s health care approach will be like.
Charlie Baker points to many of the circumstances unique to Massachusetts, such as “a declining population, a tight labor market, high per capita income, and relatively rich plan designs in its public and private health insurance programs,” which are characteristics that may not be applicable to other states.
But what really was the tipping point pushing the legislation to pass? It was the decision to ignore health costs, and indeed, “Massachusetts . . . decided not to hold coverage hostage to the difficult decisions about cost. “
Will the federal government have that same luxury? It’s unlikely in the current economic environment. As Mr. Baker points out, ignoring costs “simply takes a terrible situation and makes it even worse.”
Related posts:
- Did the Massachusetts health plan just get bailed out?
- Why this private health insurance CEO is against a public plan
- Senate health reform plan analysis
- My take: Physician salaries, the Massachusetts trap
- Massachusetts health reform: "The Big Dig of the next generation"
- How the primary care doctor shortage threatens Obama’s health reform plan
- CBO cost analysis of the Baucus health reform plan
{ 1 comment }
I disagree. I think in this current everything is a crises mentality healthcare reform will be labeled as such and cost will be ignored. After all our government owns the printing press. Massive costly reform will be instituted with out regard to cost. He’ll the government put themselves on the hook for 5 trillion dollars to support idiots. Why do you think they won’t bail out healthcare as well. Worry about the cost later
Comments on this entry are closed.