Kuttner's analysis of the Mass Health plan - Is it the right tent?

[Mass]

Kuttner summarizes here the questions that rise from the Romney's plan.

- There are no real healthcare policies for $ 2,400.00. It simply does not exist, except wil high limitations and deductible.

- Do we really think that supply and demand will apply here and that premium will be lower because more people get insured?

- Health insurance is not like auto insurance.

- It gives a free ride to employers who do not provide insurance: $250 a year! Who are they kidding. If I was an employer, I would stop buying an insurance and pay the fine!

- It will cost a lot more than planned and probably for less coverage.

In addition, I would add that the reform does not cover one important issue, to my knowledge: preexisting condition. What will happen if somebody is diagnosed with something serious during the year after they get insured? We know the insurance companies will try to get rid of the case. And for those people who are currently uninsured but with existing diseases as banal as high cholesterol or high blood pressure? Will the insurance company be able to refuse to take the costs into account? I have not seen anything at this point answering this question. Do you?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/08/limited_options/

Limited options

By Robert Kuttner | April 8, 2006

WITH THE new health plan that Governor Mitt Romney promises to sign into law, advocates of universal health coverage feel they finally have their nose under the tent. The question remains, however: Is this the right tent?


...But as long as private insurers remain dominant to take their cut -- for profit, marketing, the costs of cherry-picking healthy customers, second-guessing doctors, and spewing paperwork -- the savings of market reform will remain modest. True market-reform would be single-payer coverage like Medicare, which is far more efficient than anything private insurers offer.

...

The real free-riders are not improvident low-income individuals who fail to buy insurance that they can't afford, but negligent employers who let responsible businesses and taxpayers pick up the costs.

...




McDonough, on the other hand, worries that if resources prove inadequate to promises, the political equation will produce pressures to degrade the coverage rather than tax the free-riders. Meanwhile, the trend will continue of more employers dropping coverage or shifting costs to employees.

So is it the right tent? It was the only one available. Whether the camel's nose leads to true high-quality universal coverage, or to more out-of-pocket payments and more families going without care, depends on how the people hold the politicians accountable.

[yy4me]

1. I read this article in today's Boston Globe and thought:

This plan is just the same old situation as I have faced all along. I don't qualify for MassHealth, a little too much income. I'm not quite old enough for Medicare and I cannot afford to buy a decent non-group policy. As a retiree who has had to go back to work for reasons of insurance, I know how hard it is to find a policy that does not straddle you with huge deductibles, huge co-pays and lots of exclusions. You can get a no-name non-group policy in Mass for a little over $300.00 a month. Sure, with $3000 deductible per year, $250.00 copay for hospital etc. No prescription coverage. In all my research, I could not find an affordable non-group policy that was worth spending 5 cents on. Many companies will not even write Health Insurance in Massachusetts. Blue Cross wants about $800.00 a month for an individual policy...and even that has large deductibles. I bought one of these no-names for 6 months and was so uncomfortable with coverage that I found a job that will offer me the chance to pay into their group plan. I am no better or worse a risk than anyone else. I do not get the logic in the statement that "group plans" are comprised of healthier people. Its nuts. Just by being "not in a group" I am in a group, right? But, I digress. This health insurance boondoggle is stupid. Yes, it is the first step but when you receive $550.00/month Social Security and pay $300.00 a month for insurance, where is the benefit. The cost for the "average persons" insurance has to go down. We are willing to pay a reasonable rate for coverage but it has to be "reasonable", not only in its cost but in its coverage. I resent trying to pay to insure myself so that I will not loose all I have worked for my whole life while others will get it free. Come on politicians, ask a few non-group people about insurance. Not just the working poor. This sounds hard and unfeeling but it must be said. I still do not feel that health insurance should be tied to the employer. If you can pay for a reasonable policy, why should you have to be employed to do so. We should all be offered the same rates with options as to what is included. It is foolish for me(at 64) to pay for maternity benefits but certainly that should be an option for young people. I wonder how many "real people" the insurance companies and the state consulted when they came up with this?