GuyClinch wrote:^^^ Agreed. What's worse IMHO is not only do they not really emphasize fiscal issues they seem to blindly side with big business even when finacially it might not be in the interest of the consumer.
While I agree Republicans have been way to eager to spend over the last few years it is not as if the Democrats are the spend less, small government option. Nor are the Democrats immune to giving money to "Big Business", witness the trillions of dollars that that have been handed out this year.
GuyClinch wrote:Many executives don't realize it but they end getting paid less because much of their potential salary goes to health care costs - especially those with cushy plans.
The Republicans have chosen to throw their lot in with insurance companies - simply because it is that private industry that would get hit. They might win on healthcare - don't get me wrong. But angling for their benefit and not the consumer is an issue.
I can't even call myself a republican anymore with their mix of big government, favoring business at every turn and social conservatism..
Pete
Massachusetts can be used as a test case for the new health care "plan". RomneyCare is not wildly different than what ObamaCare would be. So much so that Gov. Deval Patrick is a big supporter of it.
Opponents of reform claim that the Massachusetts experiment is too costly. They are wrong. State estimates and independent analysis from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation concur that health-care reform has only added moderate incremental costs to the state budget. As more of our residents have become insured, there has been a decrease in demand for costly emergency-room care. Even in the midst of the current economic downturn, our state budget was balanced.
As a Massachusetts resident I can speak from experience and tell you my premiums have gone up since RomneyCare took effect. Not only that but I was nearly fined by the state for not adequately documenting that I had insurance. As an aside, the new law added three pages to the Massachusetts tax return. How many will it add at the federal level.
But in the end Deval's assertion that the Mass. plan is not expensive is just wrong.
In Massachusetts, rising health-care costs, already among the highest in the country, threaten the insurance mandate's long-term viability. The state's costs to expand coverage have swelled nearly 70% to an expected $1.75 billion in fiscal 2010 from a base of $1.04 billion in 2006, about half of which is supported by federal funds, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonprofit policy research group.
Wall_Street_JournalAnd there is no end in sight.
The state’s major health insurers plan to raise premiums by about 10 percent next year, prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers.
Increases will range from 7 to 12 percent, capping a decade of consecutive double-digit premium increases, according to a Globe survey of the state’s top health insurers. Actual rates for 2010 will depend on the size of the employer and the type of coverage, with small businesses and individuals expected to be hit hardest. Overall, premiums are more than twice as high as they were 10 years ago.
The higher insurance costs undermine a key tenet of the state’s landmark health care law passed two years ago, as well as President Obama’s effort to overhaul health care. In addition to mandating insurance for most residents, the Massachusetts bill sought to rein in health care costs. With Washington looking to the Massachusetts experience, fears about higher costs have become a stumbling block to passing a national health care bill.
Boston_Globe