Ahem, excuse me, Residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, your attention...

[cedar savage]

What's the lowdown on the new universal health care plan?

Edited to give the Commonwealth the respect it deserves.

[ 04-05-2006, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: cedar savage ]

[Norman Bernstein]

You might note that the slur 'taxachusetts' is actually bulls#%t. Relative to income, Tax levels in Massachusetts are #31 out of 50 states, or LOWER than the national average. The moniker 'Taxachusetts' is just a cheap and sleazy 'dis' used by dishonest Republicans.

[ 04-05-2006, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[cedar savage]

Residents of the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts are the coiners of the phrase and the reason I used it. Bit touchy today, are we?

[Norman Bernstein]

Residents of the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts are the coiners of the phrase and the reason I used it. Bit touchy today, are we? No, cedar... 'residents' didn't coin the phrase.... disingenuous idealogues who cared not a whit for the actual truth coined it, in order to score political points. It's pretty much the same as the phrase 'death tax', or the phrase 'partial birth abortion', both invented by partisans to try to evoke an emotional response instead of a rational one.

And I'm ALWAYS touchy when it comes to bandying about lies, as opposed to the truth.

[cedar savage]

So what's the skinny on the health care plan? Is it a model that can be exported to other states or the national level?

[Alan D. Hyde]

"Taxachusetts" has been used by plenty of Bay-Staters, too, Norman.

Some of whom moved out of state years ago, and commute back to their jobs in Massachusetts.

We've had family in Massachusetts since 1620 (Pike's, French's & Merrill's in the Salisbury area), but most--- including my maternal grandparents while in their late 80's (in the 1980's) have left, and moved to lower-taxed and less expensive (more regulations make for higher prices) states.

In my several moves back and forth from Maine, I've been forced to avoid even driving through Massachusetts because of their unreasonable and confiscatory firearms laws.

The Pilgrims came to Plymouth for liberty. With your mandatory health insurance law on top of everything else, there will be far less of it left in Massachusetts...

Alan

[ 04-05-2006, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[troutman]

Last time I looked the Gov was a REEP. This is pro business if you peel the onion. Mitt is a handsone guy but no flamin liberal. Got to have auto insurance in Pa and NJ for the last 25 years. One of those American ironies.

Funny how when people want good jobs making good money Mass and New Jersey look pretty good.

[ 04-05-2006, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: troutman ]

[Norman Bernstein]

"Taxachusetts" has been used by plenty of Bay-Staters, too, Norman.
Only the ones who didn't mind lying to make a fallacious political point, Alan.

[Norman Bernstein]

So what's the skinny on the health care plan? Is it a model that can be exported to other states or the national level? It's basically an element of the Romney Presidential campaign... which started, incidentally, when he TOOK office (and to think I actually VOTED for the jerk :( )

It's largely a gimmick, which will probably be declared unconstitutional by the MA Supreme Judicial Court. It does absolutely nothing to control actual health care costs, other than to scavenge some money from people who are wealthy enough not to qualify for Medicaid, and who use emergency rooms for primary care (about the only really good thing in the proposal).

The real intention, I think, is to position Romney as a reformer on health care, without him actually having to take responsibility for the after-effects.... which will be left to the NEXT governor of Massachusetts... who might possibly be yet another Republican who really doesn't actually WANT the job, making it the fourth in a row!

[troutman]

Norm, you voted for a guy, found out he wasn't what you thought and you actually admit it was a mistake?????? you can't be an American. Quebecois???

[Alan D. Hyde]

You're WAY out-of-line, Norman.

"Lying" is fighting words, and would--- in some jurisdictions--- entirely lawfully justify someone decking you until recent years.

Those comparative tax studies come out annually, and can vary widely as to results not only from year-to-year, but, depending on how they are weighted and calculated, from source-to-source.

Alan

Norman, see---

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May- June-2002/scene_rosen_mayjun2002.msp (http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2002/scene_rosen_mayjun2002.msp)

[ 04-05-2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[Norman Bernstein]

Those comparative tax studies come out annually, and can vary widely as to results not only from year-to-year, but, depending on how they are weighted and calculated, from source-to-source.
FYI:

Ok, maybe the word 'lie' is a bit too strong. What's the next strongest word I can use?

When measured in absolute dollars, Massachusetts, at last accounting, was number 7 in the country for local and state taxation levels... which would indeed imply 'Taxachusetts'.... unless you factor income into the equation, in which case it was #31, or under the median for all 50 states.

I don't know about you, but if I'm making a LOT more money than I would be making in the hills of West Virginia, for example, but I'm not paying anywhere near proportionally more in taxes, I'd have to say my taxes were actually 'low'.... wouldn't you?

The people who coined the phrase 'Taxachusetts' weren't dumb... they KNEW that relative income made the absolute dollar comparison figure meaningless.... but they scored political points, didn't they?

[Donn]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:

Ok, maybe the word 'lie' is a bit too strong. What's the next strongest word I can use?
Hyperbole? For political point-making? Something with which I'm quite sure you are completely unfamiliar. :D

[Norman Bernstein]

Hyperbole? For political point-making? I don't think 'hyperbole' covers willful and intentional deception... which is what I'm talkin' about here.

[Donn]

hy·per·bo·le Pronunciation Key (h-pûrb-l)
n.

A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

[pcford]

The Pilgrims came to Plymouth for liberty. With your mandatory health insurance law on top of everything else, they'll be far less of it left in Massachusetts...

Alan No facts to back up his contention regarding taxation. Guess Alan "makes his own reality" like the neo-cons.

[Norman Bernstein]

A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton. That definition doesn't include, refer to, or imply willful and deliberate deceptions.

[troutman]

Tax studies my foot. People I know in MD and PA talk about retiring to Delaware to beat taxes. They get cancer and they're up 95 to Philly or down to DC. How about finding out what state pays the least per pupil and prisoner and relocate there? Probably great big mouth bass fishing. You want to hear the Boston Symphony or the Philadelphians it costs money.

[ 04-05-2006, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: troutman ]

[Norman Bernstein]

No facts to back up his contention regarding taxation. Guess Alan "makes his own reality" like the neo-cons. Ok, if anyone is really interested in the bottom line on the Massachusrtts health care thing, here's what it means:

For an individual who isn't poor, isn't covered by his employer's health insurance, and doesn't buy any: $295/yr. Consider it a tax to support emergency room care.

For a company with more than 10 employees who doesn't offer healh insurance: $1000 fine... I think.

Neither of those things hardly qualifies as a serious dent to 'liberty'.

[Alan D. Hyde]

We spend about $500 monthly on health insurance premiums--- voluntarily, because we find it prudent to do so.

On the other hand, if we were old order Amish, that number might well be $0.

Either may be justified, depending upon one's point-of-view. In a free country, the decision is one that citizens should be free to make--- for themselves.

Alan

Here is the great sharp hook concealed inside the bait of socialism--- if the state is to PAY for everything, then, must they not DECIDE everything as well???

[ 04-05-2006, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[Donn]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton. That definition doesn't include, refer to, or imply willful and deliberate deceptions.</font>[/QUOTE]You have a strange grasp of vocabulary, Norman. If you don't consider exaggeration for effect to be willful or deliberate, do you think it accidental?

[Norman Bernstein]

You have a strange grasp of vocabulary, Norman. If you don't consider exaggeration for effect to be willful or deliberate, do you think it accidental? If I really liked a recent film I saw, and told you it was 'fantasitc', or 'the best film I've ever seen', I might be engaging in hyperbole.

If I thought the film really sucked the big one, but nonethlesss told you it was fantastic, fabulous, terrific, just so you'd have to suffer through some piece of dreck and waste your $10, then THAT would be willful and deliberate. It would NOT be hyperbole.

:D :D :D

[Norman Bernstein]

We spend about $500 monthly on health insurance premiums--- voluntarily, because we find it prudent to do so.

Nonethless, if you collapsed into cardiac arrest, I suspect your wife would drive you to the nearest emergency room.

Admittedly, your insurance would likely pay for it, but part of the cost of just BEING an emergency room is the obligation to accept anyone in need of care, even before it is determined that the care was emergent or not. As such, it needs to be paid for... and, at least in Massachusetts, insurance billings don't cover the costs of maintaining an emergency room. Part of the price that needs to be paid to make that emergency room available to YOU, is to make it available to everyone.

Of course, you could always decline to go there.

[ 04-05-2006, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[PatCox]

Single payor mandatory health insurance is the only answer, and its definitely pro-business as it would cut their health care costs in half.

Just give everyone a Medicare card. Take the total medical spending in the US, reduce it by 40% to account for efficiency and skimming by the current crowd of insurance middlemen, and institute an employment tax, 50% worker, 50% employer, to raise that amount.

Everyone will pay less, everyone will be better off. Its not socialized medicine, most people will have more freedom to choose providers than than they do now.

Only the "government can't do anything right" social luddites can object. But facts is facts, medicare is more efficient than any private insuror, and the VA system even more so.

[Norman Bernstein]

Pat, you've just sent every hardcore conservative into apoplexy!! I can see Alan Hyde writhing on the floor, clutching at his chest, right now!

However, I think you're approximately right.

As much as I do really value free enterprise and open competition, and believe in private business, health care is one of the few areas for which an exception must be considered. It's absurd to think that dozens of foreign countries have health care costs half of those in the U.S. while at the same time having objectively better results.

I DON'T fully agree with some single-payer systems; Canada's system, for example, which prohibits private medical care in most circumstances, is wrong and unfairly impinges on our freedoms.

However, surely there can be a middle ground. Currently, Medicare is THREE TIMES more efficient than the average HMO at delivering care (4% overhead, compared with 12% for the average HMO). There must be a way to tap into that efficiency... eliminating the middlemen who skim far too much from the system that doesn't result in actual health care.

[Keith Wilson]

Pat, you forget the massive unemployment costs of all those folks who now work for insurance companies, and all those who work for hospitals, doctors, and and HMOs whose only work is to deal with all the different insurance companies and try to get paid. They'd have to find honest work! Can't you see them now, begging on the street corners? Have you no compassion?!?

[ 04-05-2006, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[George Roberts]

This mornings Wall Street Journal has an op-ed piece explaining how employers will game the system.

Using the published numbers of $295, $0, and $6000:

$295/year is the cost of not providing insurance.
$0 is the deductible for the insurance.
$6000/year is the average per person health care expenditure.

Employers can buy $0 deductible $6000/year coverage for $295/year by paying the state.

The state takes a loss of $5700/year for each person unless it can find a real stupid insurance company.

The article goes on to suggest that the insured will want even more than the $6000 in haelth care once it becomes free.

I think I posted something about gaming the system.

---

Weeks ago the Wall Street Journal had an op-ed piece suggesting that each adult be given $833/month ($10k/year) as a replacement for all government assistance programs.

I would make it $1000/month ($12k/year).

[Norman Bernstein]

If you're suggesting, George, that the new Mass. plan is ill-concieved and non-sensical, I am in complete agreement with you. The Mass plan has only one purpose: to give Mitt Romney some credentials as a 'moderate reformer', in a way in which he won't have to take responsibility or blame for the actual effects of the system.

And to think I actually VOTED for the jerk, because I thought he was actually a moderate :(