Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

eridani

(51,907 posts)
39. 59% to 50% is not "sharply down" to sane people
Thu Aug 29, 2013, 09:22 PM
Aug 2013
MANDATORY INSURANCE IS WORSE THAN NONE AT ALL
By Steffie Woolhandler and David U. Himmelstein
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/september/health_reform_failur.php
The Boston Globe
September 17, 2007


IN 1966 - just before Medicare and Medicaid were launched - 47 million Americans were uninsured. By 1975, the United States had reached an all time low of 21 million without coverage. Now, according to the Census Bureau’s latest figures, we’re back where we started, with 47 million uninsured in 2006 - up 2.2 million since 2005. But this time, most of the uninsured are neither poor nor elderly.

The middle class is being priced out of healthcare. Virtually all of this year’s increase was among families with incomes above $50,000; in fact, two-thirds of the newly uncovered were in the above-$75,000 group. And full-time workers accounted for 56 percent of the increase, with their children making up much of the rest.

The new Census numbers are particularly disheartening for anyone hoping for a Massachusetts miracle. In the Commonwealth, 651,000 residents are uninsured, 65 percent more than the figure used by state leaders in planning for health reform. Their numbers came from a telephone survey done in English and Spanish. But that misses people who lack a land-line phone - 43.9 percent of phoneless adults are uninsured, according to other studies.

It also skips over the 523,000 non-English speakers in Massachusetts whose native language isn’t Spanish (e.g. Portuguese, Chinese, or Haitian-Creole), another group with a high uninsurance rate. In contrast, the Census Bureau goes door-to-door for its survey and has translators for almost every language. It gets a more complete picture.

In sum, Massachusetts health reform planners have been wishing away a quarter of a million uninsured people. Recent Patrick administration claims that health reform is succeeding are based on cooked books. According to the state’s figures, almost half of the previously uninsured gained coverage under the health reform bill by July 1. But according to the Census Bureau, the new sign-ups amount to less than one-quarter of the uninsured. Moreover, it’s likely that much of that gain has already been wiped out by shrinking job-based coverage - a longstanding and nationwide trend.

Why has progress been so meager? Because most of the promised new coverage is of the “buy it yourself” variety, with scant help offered to the struggling middle class. According to the Census Bureau, only 28 percent of Massachusetts uninsured have incomes low enough to qualify for free coverage. Thirty-four percent more can get partial subsidies - but the premiums and co-payments remain a barrier for many in this near-poor group.

And 244,000 of Massachusetts uninsured get zero assistance - just a stiff fine if they don’t buy coverage. A couple in their late 50s faces a minimum premium of $8,638 annually, for a policy with no drug coverage at all and a $2,000 deductible per person before insurance even kicks in. Such skimpy yet costly coverage is, in many cases, worse than no coverage at all. Illness will still bring crippling medical bills - but the $8,638 annual premium will empty their bank accounts even before the bills start arriving. Little wonder that barely 2 percent of those required to buy such coverage have thus far signed up.

While the middle class sinks, the health reform law has buoyed our state’s wealthiest health institutions. Hospitals like Massachusetts General are reporting record profits and enjoying rate increases tucked into the reform package. Blue Cross and other insurers that lobbied hard for the law stand to gain billions from the reform, which shrinks their contribution to the state’s free care pool and will force hundreds of thousands to purchase their defective products. Meanwhile, new rules for the free care pool will drastically cut funding for the hundreds of thousands who remain uninsured, and for the safety-net hospitals and clinics that care for them. (Disclosure - we’ve practiced for the past 25 years at a public hospital that is currently undergoing massive budget cuts.)

Health reform built on private insurance isn’t working and can’t work; it costs too much and delivers too little. At present, bureaucracy consumes 31 percent of each healthcare dollar. The Connector - the new state agency created to broker coverage under the reform law - is adding another 4.5 percent to the already sky-high overhead charged by private insurers. Administrative costs at Blue Cross are nearly five times higher than Medicare’s and 11 times those in Canada’s single payer system. Single payer reform could save $7.7 billion annually on paperwork and insurance profits in Massachusetts, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to upgrade coverage for the rest of us.

Of course, single payer reform is anathema to the health insurance industry. But breaking their stranglehold on our health system and our politicians is the only way for health reform to get beyond square one.

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program and are primary care doctors at Cambridge Hospital.

Physicians for a National Health Program
29 E Madison Suite 602, Chicago, IL 60602
Phone (312) 782-6006 | Fax: (312) 782-6007 | email: info@pnhp.org

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

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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Anything misused can maim and kill people customerserviceguy Aug 2013 #1
Car accident in Nov., appendicitis in Feb Lars39 Aug 2013 #2
The premiums are so dramatically lower than the premiums on standard plans Ms. Toad Aug 2013 #4
People aren't going to bank the difference. CANDO Aug 2013 #7
So you would pay Ms. Toad Aug 2013 #8
It all depends on the plans offered and the comparative details. CANDO Aug 2013 #15
My numbers come from both direct shopping Ms. Toad Aug 2013 #36
Many won't bank the difference customerserviceguy Aug 2013 #72
I had an $8,000 deductible. Out $16,000+. Went bankrupt. Lars39 Aug 2013 #11
It actually doesn't Ms. Toad Aug 2013 #14
Aren't the HSA's supposed to be used yearly? CANDO Aug 2013 #6
FSAs are annual. Ms. Toad Aug 2013 #10
Exactly customerserviceguy Aug 2013 #70
Placing bets on whether or not serious health care expenses will fuck you over-- eridani Aug 2013 #17
So, someone who has used an HSA customerserviceguy Aug 2013 #71
If they win, someone else loses eridani Sep 2013 #76
Again, there you go customerserviceguy Sep 2013 #79
Yes--I want to take it to put it into the general pool which would fund health care for ALL eridani Sep 2013 #81
At least you admitted it customerserviceguy Sep 2013 #92
I want to take your money to build roads and schools too eridani Sep 2013 #94
Current law alllows the deductibles in these plans to be just over $6000 annually (single coverage) dflprincess Aug 2013 #52
It all sounds so confusing Art_from_Ark Aug 2013 #66
I don't know what the deductibles are for every plan customerserviceguy Aug 2013 #74
K&R - and bookmarked jpak Aug 2013 #3
That's why I prefer HMO, so all the costs are fixed and usually lower than PPO cbdo2007 Aug 2013 #5
Not the ones I'm familiar with. Ms. Toad Aug 2013 #9
I have a high deductible insurance plan penultimate Aug 2013 #12
Pray you don't get sick toward the end of the year. CANDO Aug 2013 #16
Yeah, that would suck... penultimate Aug 2013 #21
Can you explain more? BlueCheese Aug 2013 #29
Yeah, the plan waives the deductible for office visits. penultimate Aug 2013 #30
I was paying $650/mo for a $5,000 deductible leftyladyfrommo Aug 2013 #13
I have a high deductible plan with a health savings account...I love it. DisgustipatedinCA Aug 2013 #18
I hope you 85% folks realize what you are doing here eridani Aug 2013 #19
"You are colluding in bankruptcy and murder..." Quantess Aug 2013 #20
Right. Just fuck expensively sick people eridani Aug 2013 #23
Single payer is the best way to go. Quantess Aug 2013 #25
There may be a single payer activist group in your state eridani Aug 2013 #26
The 85% who pay insurance premiums that will mostly cover OTHER people are colluding pnwmom Aug 2013 #35
What the 85% are doing is mostly making insurance companies rich eridani Aug 2013 #37
Are you aware that medical bankruptcies are sharply down since Romneycare was enacted pnwmom Aug 2013 #38
59% to 50% is not "sharply down" to sane people eridani Aug 2013 #39
Your article was from 6 years ago -- 2007 was the year Romneycare PASSED. pnwmom Aug 2013 #40
Is 2012 recent enough for you? eridani Aug 2013 #42
The problem with that study and others is that medical costs are usually only a part pnwmom Aug 2013 #44
You'e kidding, right? Of course there is a "medical care plan eridani Aug 2013 #46
You don't get it. If you lose your job you can STILL go bankrupt even if you have Medicare. pnwmom Aug 2013 #48
Then it won't be a health care bankruptcy, will it eridani Aug 2013 #49
Most health care bankruptcies are from a combination of factors, pnwmom Aug 2013 #50
Single payer solves the second problem, right? n/t eridani Aug 2013 #51
IF, medical insurance was not tied to employment ... slipslidingaway Aug 2013 #56
But unemployment is also tied to bankruptcies, obviously. pnwmom Aug 2013 #57
But, should you need to be employed to have access to HC ... slipslidingaway Aug 2013 #59
No you shouldn't. And under Obamacare you will be able to get Medicaid pnwmom Aug 2013 #61
Only if you live in a state accepting Medicaid money and agreeing to the expansion eridani Aug 2013 #62
It's not the Democrats' fault that some Repub governors are evil. pnwmom Aug 2013 #65
What happens when you sign up and your circumstances change? eridani Aug 2013 #68
Then you re-sign up. I'm sure you're not the first person who thought of that question -- it's pnwmom Aug 2013 #69
Once you are on Medicare, you STAY on Medicare. Your eligibility doesn't change eridani Sep 2013 #83
Yes, I would prefer Medicare! But the ACA is what we have now, pnwmom Sep 2013 #85
Yes--let's give that ACA provision for state single payer a chance. eridani Sep 2013 #86
Are there any groups pushing for that in Washington? I'd be happy to support them. n/t pnwmom Sep 2013 #87
Yes, there are eridani Sep 2013 #88
Thanks! Maybe you should try to get the word out about the work being done by these orgs pnwmom Sep 2013 #89
This whole argument of "let's just wait and see how the exchanges work" eridani Sep 2013 #90
If this fails that will be the end of any more experiments for decades. Forget single payer. pnwmom Sep 2013 #91
Agreed. If other states get on board with single payer, the chances of it spreading improve n/t eridani Sep 2013 #93
Yep. hunter Aug 2013 #45
Sometimes the choice is between a HDHP and not affording coverage at all. Lex Aug 2013 #22
It's "coverage" only if you are in the lucky 85% eridani Aug 2013 #24
I'm not following you with that penultimate Aug 2013 #31
Please re-read post #11 eridani Aug 2013 #32
Well, first a chronic illness or accident eats away your net worth... hunter Aug 2013 #47
^^^^^ n/t slipslidingaway Aug 2013 #54
. libodem Aug 2013 #27
touted as "getting the incentives right", they in fact get the incentives all wrong. unblock Aug 2013 #28
very very good post Supersedeas Aug 2013 #41
Living the dream right now FreeJoe Aug 2013 #33
^^this^^ n/t eridani Aug 2013 #34
this is exactly what i was talking about in post #28. unblock Aug 2013 #43
Yet the high deductible plan saved you 1,000. Travis_0004 Aug 2013 #53
No, they aren't for everybody. They are a bonus point system for the healthy and eridani Aug 2013 #64
Shouldn't I pay less? Travis_0004 Aug 2013 #67
You've framed the decision incorrectly customerserviceguy Aug 2013 #75
Like to take a guess as to what the average monthly malpractice premium is in-- eridani Sep 2013 #77
Oh, I know it's a pittance compared to what they pay here customerserviceguy Sep 2013 #78
The way they handle the issue is to give EVERYONE health care as a human right eridani Sep 2013 #80
I really want to know when the Dems will Allow an open discussion ... slipslidingaway Aug 2013 #55
At the national level, never eridani Aug 2013 #63
And so do policies with annual and lifetime limits, pnwmom Aug 2013 #58
Oh BS, thankfully we did not have a lifetime limit on our policy and ... slipslidingaway Aug 2013 #60
That's what our healthcare system does. It's a heinous system. nt Zorra Aug 2013 #73
It is a simple continuation of the Class War against poor people. Trillo Sep 2013 #82
Bronze Plan leads to a Pine Box. kenny blankenship Sep 2013 #84
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»High deductible heath pla...»Reply #39