Could somebody please explain the healthcare plan known as "Romneycare"

[OmahaBlueDog]

...and while it may or may not suck, I'm really looking for someone to explain the nuts and bolts of the thing

Thanks

[Edweird]

1. here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

[nash]

6. Thanks for this info

Thanks for that info. Actually, i also looking for that info. Good to use who try to find about body care.
Body Care Reviews

[virgogal]

8. Funny !

[OmahaBlueDog]

9. Welcome to DU

[geckosfeet]

2. Google "Massachusetts health insurance plan" or some variation thereof.

You will have plenty of nuts and bolts.

[Cleita]

3. Read this.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/

[ProSense]

4. Here:

In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care reform bills.

The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers. The legislature also rejected Governor Romney's proposal to permit even higher-deductible, lower benefit health plans.

On April 12, 2006 Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.<19> He vetoed 8 sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.<20> Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.<21><22> The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.<23>

more

Considering that the bill was significantly changed from Romney's proposal and enacted through veto overrides, it's completely inaccurate to credit Romney for it.

[OmahaBlueDog]

5. OK, I think I've got it

Basically, everyone purchases care (or is supposed to). There is a subsidy for low income families. There is a tax penalty for failing to participate. The results have been mixed, and there are still some non-covered folks.

[nightrain]

11. plus a mandate to purchase private insurance

[geckosfeet]

18. Costs the state and its citizens, but the insuance companies love it.

[sandnsea]

7. We have subsidized insurance in Oregon

Implemented by Democrats. Vermont does as well. In Oregon, companies submit their proposals to offer insurance through the state subsidy group. People choose which insurance they want and apply. Since there will be no pre-existing conditions, the insurance company will have a price and that will be that. In Oregon, once you have your insurance, you send your share of the premium to the state processing dept, they pay the insurance company the entire premium.

Then you go to the doctor as long as you aren't stupid enough to choose a high deductible since most of your premium is paid for anyway.

[Oregone]

10. Not mandated

I know. I spent years uncovered there when I graduated college and was unemployed (became self-employed).

[sandnsea]

12. Gosh. If it were - EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE IT

Jesus christ I swear how can people be so fucking dumb. It would be a good thing to have a mandate in Oregon, that way nobody would go without some kind of coverage. The state would be REQUIRED to raise the money somehow.

Guess what wise-ass - Canadian coverage is mandated too. It's mandated that money come out of your paycheck and a good chunk of the money goes to - gasp - US CORPORATE medical manufacturers and suppliers.

Thousands of Canadian drugs are imported from US CORPORATE manufacturers. We pay more and it subsidizes the cost of research for the rest of the world, including Canada.

The reason Congress opposes reimportation is because it would destroy Canada's prescription drug availability. There are 300 million of us - and how many of you?? We'd buy them all and then what would you do?

And liberals are supposed to be the smart ones. Yeah. Whatever.

[Oregone]

13. If I was forced to have bought it, I would of never saved up enough to immigrate

That might seem unfair to mention, but in my case it would have hindered my social mobility by scraping everything I had left and forcing me to pay for inadequate coverage. With my decision, I obtained *real* universal healthcare in an actually socially mobile country. I respect people's right to make such a decision, because the current unfair private insurance model in America is not worthy of forcing people into whatsoever.

BTW, Canada has a fair egalitarian system to mandate everyone participates in. This is not the case in Oregon. Its funny how idiots like to cherry pick some aspects of Canadian health care, but totally ignore others like its single-tier, non-deductible, non-copay, non-profit, 100% actuarial value model. And that money goes to socialized *insurance*, which pays for care, not directly to private, for-profit, unethical insurance companies.

You don't appear so smart with your angry snarky reply, to be absolutely honest. Either it is as if you are distorting reality or too dumb to know the difference.

[sandnsea]

14. It's still mandated

There are people in Canada who resent being mandated to pay for the health plan you like. Just because you like it doesn't make the mandate any less real. It's a mandate. Mine costs me and my husband $65 a month with a $500 deductible. How much does yours cost?

Coverage in Oregon includes prescription drug coverage and many plans include dental and optical too. Does Canadian health care?

Health care does not have to be provided on YOUR terms and only YOUR terms for it to be useful to people.

[Oregone]

15. But in contrast, its an egalitarian system.

If you are advocating single-payer, sure, draw some parallels, but you are trying to cherry pick intersections and completely ignore the big picture. Is the mandate the essential problem, or is it mandating an individual participate in a private, for-profit, inefficient, multi-tiered insurance market thats the problem?

Think.about.it.


"Mine costs me and my husband $65 a month with a $500 deductible. How much does yours cost?"

Mine costs $116 a month for my family of four, with no co-pays or deductibles.


"Does Canadian health care?"

My province has free catastrophic pharma insurance, with reasonable deductibles based on income levels. Aside from that, a comprehensive supplemental plan runs, for a family of four, about $100 a month. I don't have one, because I spend less than that out-of-pocket easily. If you are poor, dental, vision, and all that stuff is provided by the government. IOW, you do not go bankrupt from health costs in Canada


"Health care does not have to be provided on YOUR terms and only YOUR terms for it to be useful to people."

The government's involvement in health care should be about providing equal coverage to all. Again, not coverage that gets better the richer you are. Not tiers to separate out the classes. And not low actuarial plans that aren't useful at all to the poor that may need them the most.

[northernlights]

16. cripes I thought I already had you on ignore

sheesh....:eyes:

[eridani]

17. It really fucks over the chronically ill--healthy folks like it much better

Having Health Insurance Does Not Mean Having Health Care

Statement of Rachel Nardin, MD., President, Massachusetts Chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program, neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and assistant professor of neurology at Harvard

In April 2006, Massachusetts enacted a health care reform law with the stated goal of providing near-universal coverage of the Massachusetts population. Nearly three years into the reform we know a lot about what has worked and what hasn't. Examining this data critically is vitally important as the Obama administration considers elements of the Massachusetts' plan as a model for national health care reform.

On Feb. 19 we released a new study on the Massachusetts reform. This study details many problems with the reform effort. We are also releasing a letter from nearly 500 Massachusetts physicians to Senator Kennedy asking him not to push for a Massachusetts-style reform nationally. My colleagues and I see the effects of the Massachusetts reform on patients every day and know that this is not a healthy model for the nation.

The Massachusetts reform is an example of an “incremental” reform. It tried to fill in gaps in coverage, while leaving undisturbed existing public and private health insurance programs. It did this by expanding Medicaid, and offering a new subsidized coverage program for the poor and near-poor. It also mandated that middle-income uninsured people either purchase private insurance or pay a substantial fine ($1068 in 2009).

The reform has reduced the numbers of uninsured, although our report shows that the state's claim is untrue. This claim is based on a phone survey that reached few non-English speaking households and few who lacked landline phones—two groups with high rates of uninsurance. Other data also calls this claim into question. For instance, both the Massachusetts Department of Revenue and the March 2008 U.S. Census Bureau survey indicate that at least 5 percent of people in Massachusetts remain uninsured. Moreover, the use of free care services in Massachusetts has fallen by only a third, suggesting that the numbers of uninsured in Massachusetts may well be even higher than 5 percent.

Despite the reform, coverage remains unaffordable for many in our state. As a result, despite the threat of a fine, some residents remain uninsured. Others have bought the required insurance but are suffering financially. For a middle income, 56-year-old man, the cheapest policy available under the reform costs $4,872 annually in premiums alone. Moreover, it carries a $2,000 deductible and 20 percent co-payments after that, up to a maximum of $3000 annually. Buying such coverage means laying out nearly $7000 before expenses before the insurance pays a single medical bill. It is not surprising that many of the state's uninsured have declined such coverage.

The study we released on Feb. 19 also reminds us that having health insurance is not the same thing as having health care. Despite having coverage, many Massachusetts residents cannot afford care. In some cases, patients are actually worse off under the reform than they were under the state's old system of free care because their new insurance has far higher co-pays for medications and care. According to a recent Boston Globe/Blue Cross Foundation survey, 13% of people with insurance in our state were unable to pay for some health services that they had received and 13% could not afford to fill necessary prescriptions. The reform does not appear to have reduced the numbers of people who were unable to get care that they needed because of the cost.

I will close with the story of one Massachusetts patient who has suffered as a result of the reform. Kathryn is a young diabetic who needs twelve prescriptions a month to stay healthy. She told us “Under Free Care I saw doctors at Mass. General and Brigham and Women's hospital. I had no co-payments for medications, appointments, lab tests or hospitalization. Under my Commonwealth Care Plan my routine monthly medical costs include the $110 premium, $200 for medications, a $10 appointment with my primary care doctor, and $20 for a specialist appointment. That's $340 per month, provided I stay well.” Now that she's “insured,” Kathryn's medical expenses consume almost one-quarter of her take home pay, and she wonders whether she'll be able to continue taking her life saving medications.