Cahill bashes state -- and national -- health care reform law

[Cleita]

In light of our being on the cusp of passing a health care law that is similar to the Massachusetts health care plan that has been in effect since 2006, I believe these two articles give us a glimpse of what could happen to us nationally without a public option in the mix.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/cahill_bashes_s.html

Cahill bashes state -- and national -- health care reform law
March 16, 2010 01:07 PM
By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff

State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, an independent candidate for governor, today offered a wide-ranging and scathing criticism of the state’s universal health care law, saying it is bankrupting Massachusetts and will do the same nationally, if a similar plan is passed in Congress.

"If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years,” Cahill said in a press conference in his office.
Echoing criticism leveled by congressional Republicans in recent weeks, Cahill said, “It is time for the president, the Democratic leadership, to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan that does not threaten to bankrupt this country.”

Cahill, who bolted the Democratic Party in July, has been a long-time critic of the state’s health insurance law. He said he was calling today's press conference to respond to Governor Deval Patrick’s accusation last week that he and other gubernatorial candidates have been “missing in action” in tackling health care concerns. Read more at link.

Earlier in the week here was another opinion from Boston.com about this http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/

<snip>

First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.

Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.

Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.

Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.

Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. In my practice of child and adolescent psychiatry, a parent told me last week that she had a decrease in her job hours, could not afford the $30 copayment for treatment sessions for her adolescent, and decided to meet much less frequently. Read more at link.

<snip>

I keep wondering why everyone thinks that if a plan fails, that it will succeed if tried again? Of course it works fine for the insurance companies, so I know the die is cast and I guess we are going to have to let this drama play out until our elected officials get this right or we elect officials to replace the corporate corruption in our government.

[Cleita]

1. ...

[Cleita]

2. ...

[Edweird]

3. “The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.” Gloria Steinem