Free Markets, Free People

Massachusetts – The Shape Of Health Care To Come?

As the Magic Unicorn and Snake Oil Show moves on to the full Senate after passing out of the Senate Finance Committee on a majority vote, Massachusetts gives us a peek at what we can really expect, should this all pass, at a national level:

The state passed a prototype for ObamaCare in 2006 on the same cost-control theory as Senate Finance, only to see spending explode. So now Beacon Hill is contemplating far more drastic spending-control measures, such as a plan to “require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any hospital and specialist they want,” as the Boston Globe reported on Sunday. Paul Levy, the CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, told the Globe that “You can’t reap these savings without limiting patients’ choices in some way.”

Of course you can’t – savings come from what? Spending less money. That means those that are claiming you can have something for nothing are – surprise, surprise – lying to you. And you’d think adults of voting age would have realized that by now. But if not, then I suggest two words to you – see Massachusetts.

The government solution – they’ll decide for you because they believe their decision will cost less. And since you’ve put them in charge, what ‘choice’ have you (remember this national plan is all prefaced on the lie that you’ll benefit from “choice and competition”):

A 10-member commission is trying to impose a new “global payment” system on the top-notch Massachusetts health system. Doctors and hospitals would be forced to join large networks and be paid a set rate for each patient. The idea is to make providers live within a fixed budget and cut down on expensive treatments.

Now you can add four more words to your analysis which best reflect the above. See Canada. See UK.

Any guess where “top-notch” doctors will go if this plan is enacted? Two more words – somewhere else.

And the lie about “choice”? Well there’ll be a choice, but it won’t have anything to do with you:

But if patients are allowed to receive care outside of whatever network they end up in, this new jerryrigged cost-control would break down, or not produce the desired “savings.” You know who wins when the interests of government conflict with those of patients to choose a doctor or treatment.

So in addition to taxes on “Cadillac” plans, taxes on medical device industry (which will stunt innovation if not kill it outright) and taxes and jail time for those who “choose” not to buy insurance, the bulk of the so-called “savings” will be imposed by limiting choices for patients (both in who they see and what those they see can prescribe for treatment) and payments.

Does it really take a rocket-scientist to understand where that will all end up?  The only place you’re ever going to see unicorns and magic rainbows is on Saturday morning kid’s shows.  What is being cobbled together by our political leaders comes under the title of” Dr.” Obama’s Snake Oil Show and Magic Act, where smoke and mirrors are used to sell the rubes something that isn’t at all what he claims.

Certainly, and I’ll say this for the umpteenth time, there are “reforms” to the health care industry which would be both beneficial and cut costs.   But almost none of them are included in this package being touted as “the answer”.  It’s not the answer, it is a concoction that promises all of the worst of existing government run health care systems with very little of whatever benefits they might offer.

This needs to be stopped, scrapped and revisited.   If it isn’t, we and our economic well-being as well as our health will suffer as a result.



11 Responses to Massachusetts – The Shape Of Health Care To Come?

  • The real reason healthcare is so expensive, if you listen to what Reid, Pelosi and Obama attempt to imply, is that greedy insurance companies are pocketing all the money. Without them, healthcare would be wonderful and cheap.

    If that was true, all the non-profits that just about every state has would be wonderful too. And government intervention to supply an effectively non-profit driven offering would in itself be redundant.

  • As they say, economics does not lie. You simply cannot cover more participants at the existing level of care for less cost. It does not work. The numbers don’t add up. Any want must be rationed, either by price or access (or have the cost subsidized from another source: guess who?)

    Those who are supporting this monstrosity of a “reform” are either ignorant or venal.

  • “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same result”

    FORMER DEFINITION – “insanity”

    NEW DEFINITION – “liberalism”

    Every place that “free” health care is tried, the same thing happens: the system gets swamped, costs skyrocket, and the same idiots who developed the system in the first place are forced to start eliminating services, raising prices, and otherwise trying any desperate measure they can think of to keep their system on life support.

  • The reason any of these plans are still on the table is that people really do want to believe that we can cover more people while spending less. I don’t see any realistic scenario where any of the messes being offered up does anything except cost more and deliver less.

    No one wants to hear the details of any plan that would really lower costs while improving care, because those details require some sacrifice and they don’t consist of waving a magic wand or assuming that “the rich” can pay for everything we need from their rainy-day funds.

    When those pie-in-the-sky promises come crashing down to earth, with their attendant reductions in care, quality of care, and choice and their higher costs, these same people jump up and down expressing outrage and demanding that a scapegoat be produced. Don’t waste your time telling them the truth, because they do not want to hear it. They want a scalp.

    In other words, expect this idiotic charade to continue until the money really *does* run out.

  • So is it safe to assume that, as a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney stands a snowball’s chance at this point?

    • No. He could honestly say he learned from his mistake and use his experience to champion real reform.

  • I think you all are wrong on the assumption, that Obama and his friends do believe that without Insurance companies everything would be fine. They accept that insurance companies need money and that it is just not profitable to run an insurance company that give “equal” health-care to all people according to their need and not to what they can pay for.

    Hell, they’d let insurance companies run loose and feed them with taxpayer-money (like in france) to secure this kind of business-model. They’d rather run a state-sponsored deficit on health-care than to accept the notion, that everything has a price tag and that government shouldn’t and can’t remove it… And while uttering that, they believe that this is worth it, because they save people who can’t afford chronic diseases (children that have disabilities that cost thousands a year) or other costly injuries…

    The whole ideas around it are concepts for implementation of these ideas. They are not perfect (like cost-cutting and reducing of quality and such), but in their eyes, they will lead to their ultimate goal.

  • I lose money on the product, but make it up in volume.

  • Let the games begin.

    Cut Medicare with one bill to claim fiscal responsibility and then restore the funding with another bill and hope no one notices.

  • Has anyone considered what would happen to St. Jude’s hospital, or other donor-supported ventures, under ObamaCare? What about fundraising for hospitals and Ronald McDonald houses that strive to fill in the gaps?

    Once Obama slams into the pond, all the adults will pick up their toys and go home, that is what, and ObamaCare isn’t considering taking on the tough cases of people that can’t afford the $4k insurance, let alone the copays and treatment costs and even trips to visit their kid in the hospital.

    Donations would be confiscated, and sucked into the general fund for Congress (Reid and Pelosi) to spend.

    And that would be just the first, obvious destruction of present day ability to provide care for Americans that would be dismantled by ObamaCare.