Mass. "Romneycare" not working

[Deleted]

State & Local
Survey: Access to Primary Care Lagging in Massachusetts
Published May 10, 2011
| Associated Press

More than half of all primary care physicians in Massachusetts are no longer accepting new patients, and the average waiting time to see specialists is lengthening, according to a new survey on patient health care access.
The report released on Monday by the Massachusetts Medical Society has serious implications for health care costs in the state, the doctors group said, because patients unable to see a primary care physician are likely to seek more expensive emergency room treatment.
"Massachusetts has made great strides in securing insurance coverage for its citizens," said the MMA's president, Dr. Alice Coombs, referring to the state's landmark 2006 universal health insurance law.
"But insurance coverage doesn't equal access to care," she said.
The telephone survey of 838 doctors conducted in February and March found that 51 percent of internists are not accepting new patients, up from 49 percent the previous year. Fifty-three percent of family physicians, the other major group of primary care doctors, were also not taking new patients.

Even for patients fortunate enough to have a primary care doctor, waits for appointments continued to be lengthy. The average wait for an appointment with an internist was 48 days, which was five days shorter than last year, but the average wait for family medicine was 36 days, a week longer than in the 2010 survey.
Patients were also waiting longer to see specialists. The average wait for gastroenterologists, obstetricians/gynecologists, orthopedic surgeons and cardiologists were all higher than a year ago, the report said.
An ongoing shortage of new primary care physicians entering the system was cited as the principal reason for why so many existing ones had simply stopped accepting new patients.
"There's only so many patients you can see in a day," said Dr. Lynda Young, a Worcester doctor and president-elect of the MMA.
Medical students are eschewing the grueling hours and lower pay that primary care often entails in favor of specialties that offered a more consistent work schedule and quicker path to repay medical school debt, experts say.
The problem can be particularly acute in rural areas.

MORE...


Read more: www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/10/survey-access-primary-care-lagging-massachusetts/#ixzz1Lynfjmu3

[Deleted]

Judges Hearing Arguments on Obama Law Appointed by Democrats
by Lee Ross | May 10, 2011

All three judges that will hear Tuesday's arguments on the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law were appointed by Democratic presidents, including two by Obama himself.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit made the announcement shortly before the trial started, even though the case has been scheduled for months. Judges Diana Motz, the senior member of the panel, was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994. Andre Davis and James Wynn were appointed by Obama.

The hearing in Richmond is the first appellate review of Obama's signature legislation passed last year, and combines two cases. The first case was brought by Liberty University, and the second case was brought by the government after losing to Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinell.

The judges were randomly selected by computer a couple of months ago. They have presumably been reading briefs in the case ever since. The full 14 member Fourth Circuit is evenly split between Republican and Democratic judges, but only three judges hear any given case.

The fact that the judges are Democratic appointees doesn't mean they'll decide to uphold the law in the end, but this has been one of the most bitterly partisan issues around the country in recent memory.


politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/10/judges-hearing-arguments-obama-law-appointed-democrats

[floridayankee]

Obamacare will be different......trust me.

[chiver78]

floridayankee, I love your smiley.

that said, there are a lot of things wrong with the current state of our health care. you can't fix it all at once though.

what's interesting to me in that article is the comment about the likelihood that ER visits will increase because people cannot wait to see their primary care physician. that's BS, because ERs have been backed up for years with people that are uninsured and didn't have a PCP to go see. it's not going to increase anything, it's just going to change some of the faces in the ER, IMHO.

[Deleted]

I disagree. If your kid has an ear infection, all they need is a prescription, doc can't see you for a month-- you WILL go to the ER. Anyone ever up all night with a sick kid knows that. ERs will be jammed with ear and sinus infections.
The article also pointed out that medical students are saying NO WAY to the low pay and long hours of family practice, can't blame them for that. Obama wants to have more focus on family MDs and less on more expensive specialties. How will that happen if MDs choose to not subject themselves to what will amount to a neverending flow of medicare/medicaid type pay and working conditions?? Will the USA then mandate to students what field they can go in to?? Kind of like China? This can't lead anywhere except MDs being gov't employees with set salaries. Who will go for that?

Oh, yeah, the ones being brainwashed to hate wealth, etc, in college right this minute.

[chiver78]

can I tell you about the years when my family had shitty health insurance and it was actually cheaper to go to the ER than to go see the PCP? we'd go to our pediatrician for the milestone physicals that were required by the school system, and the ER for everything else. I remember waiting 3-4 hours one night I went in with a serious concussion. my college roommate (also grew up in MA, also pretty poor as a kid) has a story about the night the ER sent her home with a broken arm. she had to go back the next day so they could re-break it to set it. I think she said she waited 6 hours before they sent her home.

if you weren't in cardiac arrest, have bone protruding through the skin, or be seizing in one form or another....you'd best make yourself comfortable.

ETA: apparently I need to proofread before I hit "post"

[Deleted]

Medical students are eschewing the grueling hours and lower pay that primary care often entails in favor of specialties that offered a more consistent work schedule and quicker path to repay medical school debt, experts say.

I don't know if there's a correlation or not but I'll bring it up:
With the dumbing down of America where we are graduating a lot of kids that can't read, I would think that might be part of the problem. Maybe those students that graduated that are truly smart have a huge amount of options as to fields to go into. If that's true that would mean less doctors now & in the future.

Also in a place like Massachusetts (highly populated) I'm betting that ER doctors get a very good workout seeing everybody (because there's a lot of people to see). In many cases I'm betting that the doctors move on to other areas where the pay might be a little less but the work hours are more exceptable.

As far as I know we don't have a shortage of doctors around here.

[Deleted]

chiver-- that sounds like ERs in AZ 24/7, because we are over run with illegals, and because of already long waits for primary care. I shudder to think of 30-40 million new people thrown on insurance that, like me, will opt out of medical care rather than go to a doc or ER.
Example-- if I had insurance, 6 weeks in to my broken elbow and pelvis, I would probably have seen the ortho guy a few times by now. But-- already with an ER bill to pay, I chose not to. Lucky for me it is working okay so far. But-- if I had the insurance just plain fear would probably have driven me to the ortho guy just to be told that I am doing well. See what I mean?

I'm not being anti-Obama here. I honestly believe that Obamacare is going to be unsustainable for this country.

[Deleted]

Agree, Tex. Once the whole country is like Mass, where will the doctors go to find better working conditions? There won't be anywhere to go. LOTS of good doctors have left AZ because malpractice insurance is so high here. I lost a good one, and the form letter he sent out to all his patients explained why he had to leave AZ. He was head of obstetrics at my fav hospital, and a great doctor. What will happen when it is universally bad for doctors all over the USA? I predict if Obamacare sticks we will not get to see doctors any more. Nurses will be the new doctors. Lots of very good and knowledgeable nurses out there, but what about the level of care that requires a doctor?

[deziloooooo]

Funny, Just called my dentis, cleaning , seeing manan at 2 , called one o my Dr's who I see to schedule a appt, always see him after my rep Doc does blood work , week later, results back so bring down to second Doc , don't have to do tests over, my little system to save Gov't $, do I get a Karma from anyone, any one, hellooo ?? mmm,{ingrates, sigh}

No problem in making appt and had lots of days to make appt.

Possible it's Florida, both sets of Doc's seem populer, {two brothers in one office, same specialty}, Definitly a cost for the education, a girl friends daughter just graduated med school. 5 years, Trinity college, Dublin, Ireland , going to Ohio for three year internship, pediatric, fellow ship one more year, pay this year $50,000, but owes $450,000 on school costs , so pricy, you betcha.

[ungenteel]

I love it when righties diss their most viable candidate

[Deleted]

Oh, this has hurt him, alright. BUT-- talk about tried in fire. It is now FACT that Romney knows better than anyone what does NOT work in healthcare. Could be a plus for him.

[chiver78]

May 10, 2011 21:37:11 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Oh, this has hurt him, alright. BUT-- talk about tried in fire. It is now FACT that Romney knows better than anyone what does NOT work in healthcare. Could be a plus for him.

fail, krickitt. you neglect to mention all the other ways he's already been documented as screwing over the people that elected him. he will not win MA, and you can be sure that unimpressed MA voters that cast a ballot in his favor before will not be quiet during the campaign.

[hello fromWarsaw]

So what does Obamacare have that Mass Care doesn't- limits on insurer profits? Low cost clinics? Guidelines that cut malpractice costs? Experts? ;D

[Deleted]

Aw, come on, war!! You can't have it both ways!! You guys discredit Romney because of Romneycare, so do some Pubs, now you want to say it is not like Obamacare?? Romneycare is Obamacare in action, and is a fail. Therefore-- I can say that Obama is in fantasy land about healthcare, while Romney is caught in the nightmare of what Obama wants for everyone right there in Mass.
As I see it, Romney not only has the business sense to turn the economy around, he also has the experience to put together a healthcare plan that will work. Romney/Obamacare is a fail, just like the social experiment of CA is a fail.

[hello fromWarsaw]

By Shawn Regan
[e-mail] The Eagle Tribune Sun May 01, 2011, 12:19 AM EDT


Depending on who you ask — or more precisely, their political motivation — the 2006 Massachusetts health care law called RomneyCare by some is either a mirror of the national health care program known as ObamaCare or something quite different.

The truth, according to those who worked on the Bay State law and other political observers, is that the two laws share the same foundation, but have significant differences in their details and evolution.

No doubt there is going to be a lot of talk about those similarities and differences as the field begins to shape up for next year's presidential race, especially as long as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads the GOP pack.

Those who would challenge Romney for the opportunity to face off against President Barack Obama in 2012 have quickly zeroed in on the former governor's signature legislation, comparing it to the national health care program that is so unpopular among Republicans and the spin-off tea party.

A recent poll of likely 2012 Massachusetts Republican presidential primary voters showed that 51 percent had an unfavorable opinion of the health care law signed by Romney.

Romney's ability to win the GOP nomination may come to down to how well he can explain the difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare and convince the American people that his program has been great for Massachusetts, but that ObamaCare will be awful for the country.

In simpler terms, he must have a compelling answer to this question: Why is government-mandated, government-controlled, one-size-fits-all health care good for Massachusetts, but bad for the nation?

Similarities, differences

Richard Padova, an unenrolled voter who teaches history and political science at Northern Essex Community College, said "it's a fact" that the controversial national health program was modeled after the Massachusetts law.

"Massachusetts inspired the national model," he said. "They have the same main pieces in common, such as that they require employers, individuals and the government to share responsibility for providing health insurance ... On the negative, health care costs are still increasing under the Massachusetts and national programs, so they share that as well."

Padova and others agree, however, that in details and in practice, there are important differences between the two laws.

Perhaps most obvious, Padova points out, is that the Massachusetts law is the product of a state's right to make its own laws and decisions on important issues like health care for its residents — so-called sovereignty rights guaranteed to states in the U.S. Constitution.

Another major difference, according to state Rep. Harriett Stanley, D-West Newbury, who worked on the Massachusetts law as a member of the House Health Care Committee in 2005, is that the Massachusetts law was a specific solution to the state's specific set of circumstances and challenges.

The Bay State law was also the result of bipartisan negotiation and agreement in the state Legislature, something that did not happen with the law passed by the president and Congressional Democrats.

And Stanley said there is a much higher burden on individuals to contribute to their health insurance under the Massachusetts law than there is in the national program.

"ObamaCare is RomneyCare light," she said. "It's based on the Romney model, but it's easier to get free care under Obama's plan than Romney's because the income guidelines are lower with ObamaCare, which means taxpayers pay more for ObamaCare."

Another major difference, Stanley said, is that the individual mandate requiring people to purchase health insurance through their employer or from the state is much tougher under RomneyCare than ObamaCare.

"Massachusetts requires residents for the most part to take their employer's insurance or pay a portion of the insurance the state will provide for them," she said. "The Massachusetts plan says everyone should have health insurance, but that they should not get it for free. That's a major difference between the two. RomneyCare has gotten a bad rap, but if people look beyond the cliches, they will see it's pretty brilliant."

Stanley said she has been disappointed to see other Republican presidential candidates attack Romney for his role in passing a law she says has been a huge success in her state. She points out that 98 percent of Massachusetts residents now have health insurance under the program, while it has stayed largely within cost projections developed in 2005, she said.

"It should be held as a shining example of how to help provide health care for people who can't afford it," she said.

Mass. law no 'budget buster'

Stanley and Michael Widmer, president of the conservative Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said those who are attempting to portray the Massachusetts health care law as a "budget buster" are manufacturing a myth.

"RomneyCare isn't the budget buster is being portrayed as," Widmer said. "It's Medicaid which is the budget buster, which provides mostly free coverage to the poor, disabled and nursing home residents for their long-term care."

Both Stanley and NECC's Padova believe Romney will ultimately overcome the perceived RomneyCare hurdle in his bid for the GOP nomination, although Padova predicts the governor will lose to Obama in the final.

"Personally, I feel frustrated it's being seen as an obstacle for Romney," Stanley said. "But he is a corporate and Olympics turnaround specialist, so I'm confident he can educate people to the differences between his plan and the president's plan and turn it into a positive."

Padova predicts the health care issue will be a greater challenge for Romney to overcome than his affiliation with the Mormon religion, which dogged his campaign when he ran for president in 2008.

"Romney's rivals are jumping on the RomneyCare issue because they see Romney as the front-runner," he said. "It's going to persist more than the Mormon issue, but he just needs to keep hammering on the differences."

Fred VanMagness of Lyric Consulting, an Andover-based political consulting firm, agrees there's no denying the RomneyCare-ObamaCare issue is going to play a pivotal role in the presidential race.

"Health care is going to be a major issue for Republicans and Democrats, as everyone tries to figure the effects of the national health care law on the country and the national debt," VanMagness said. "The challenge for Romney is to explain to the American people exactly what he did and why he did it. He needs to show that the Massachusetts law is working and he needs to highlight the differences in the two laws."

VanMagness said Romney should also stress that the Massachusetts law is a testament to state sovereignty, and that all states should be allowed to come up with their own ideas for providing health care and not have to adhere to a one-size-fits-all federal model.

"States differ vastly in the nature of their populations in their ages and in their histories of regulating their health care industries," he said. "What's good for Massachusetts isn't necessarily good for other states, and vice versa."

[Deleted]

Hey, war!! I have to go to bed. Want to laugh at some crazy guys expense?? Go to Drudge Report and see the video named **warning-graphic**. Good night.
;D

[Deleted]

I don't know. I've always backed Romney, but I am not sure now. Depends who you read, I guess. Don't know if we have anyone here from Mass. I like Herman Kain right now. Tomorrow, who knows? You're keeping an open mind, also, right?
;D

[cereb]

"The Massachusetts health-care system has encountered some criticism in the five years since it was put into place. Medical costs rose more quickly than projected in its initial years, and there have been some complaints about physician shortages. But it has succeeded in ensuring that nearly the entire population has some kind of health coverage, and polls indicate that it enjoys strong support".


www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-to-confront-his-critics-in-a-speech-on-health-care/2011/05/10/AFKnQkkG_story_1.html






Fail? Only to those who don't live or work anywhere near Massachusetts and have an Obama ax to grind.

[floridayankee]

May 11, 2011 2:26:09 GMT -5 cereb said:

Fail? Only to those who don't live or work anywhere near Massachusetts and have an Obama ax to grind.

No, it's a fail because it did not lower health care costs as expected. After all, isn't the rapidly rising cost for health care in America everyone's main gripe about the current system? If cost is not an issue then one should have no problem paying cash for their own care.....problem solved.

[cme1201]

May 10, 2011 21:34:40 GMT -5 ungenteel said:

I love it when righties diss their most viable candidate

Without seeing a full field of presidential candidates, how can you state that he is their "most viable candidate"

[EVT1]

So the bills are being paid, people are covered, they just need more PCP's and specialists? Sounds like a provider problem, Medschool problem, student problem.

And as usual our resident poster in the most need of healthcare reform happily leads the crusade against it every chance. No wonder this country is so screwed up.

[jkapp]

May 11, 2011 7:50:14 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

So the bills are being paid, people are covered, they just need more PCP's and specialists? Sounds like a provider problem, Medschool problem, student problem.

And as usual our resident poster in the most need of healthcare reform happily leads the crusade against it every chance. No wonder this country is so screwed up.

No it's also rising in cost far more than expected, which means the whole "get everyone on insurance and costs will go down" is bunk. Medicare and Medicaid are still out there and f&*^ing up the healthcare costs for everyone AS ALWAYS....

[Deleted]

Owe you a karma, jkapp.

[deziloooooo]

May 11, 2011 6:30:33 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

May 11, 2011 2:26:09 GMT -5 cereb said:

Fail? Only to those who don't live or work anywhere near Massachusetts and have an Obama ax to grind.

No, it's a fail because it did not lower health care costs as expected. After all, isn't the rapidly rising cost for health care in America everyone main gripe about the current system? If cost is not an issue then one should have no problem paying cash for their own care.....problem solved.

Health care cost are going to continue to rise, not go down.

The point is, under these programs, possible the costs are going up about the same but more people covered, see Mass, 98% of the populace covered in some form, or the costs are going up at a lesser amount, but to expect costs to go down , not going to happen and that was brought out in the many congressional hearings that were held before the "obamacar ,. was passed.

If no Obama care just status quo you would be having hearings and the populace screaming as they do know over Gasoline price increases, as medical costs just took over the nation, as said all experts, both sides, who testified in those hearings.

[deziloooooo]

on this post..

"if I had the insurance just plain fear would probably have driven me to the ortho guy just to be told that I am doing well. See what I mean? "

Possible, but also possible find out there is a problem in the healing and by treating now will guarantee a good heal and not major problems down the road.

For me, to have peace of mine and continuouse care and observation and able to discover problems before they hit, I'll go that route. The winging of it is not my kind of medical care that I want for my self or loved ones.

[Opti]

""ObamaCare is RomneyCare light," she said. "It's based on the Romney model, but it's easier to get free care under Obama's plan than Romney's because the income guidelines are lower with ObamaCare, which means taxpayers pay more for ObamaCare."

Another major difference, Stanley said, is that the individual mandate requiring people to purchase health insurance through their employer or from the state is much tougher under RomneyCare than ObamaCare.

"Massachusetts requires residents for the most part to take their employer's insurance or pay a portion of the insurance the state will provide for them," she said. "The Massachusetts plan says everyone should have health insurance, but that they should not get it for free. That's a major difference between the two. RomneyCare has gotten a bad rap, but if people look beyond the cliches, they will see it's pretty brilliant."
"

I have to say this portion of the article confuses me. I read up on MA's law when the many federal bills were proposed. I believe the MA law does fully fund health insurance for those under a certain income just like the federal law that was passed.

but it's easier to get free care under Obama's plan than Romney's because the income guidelines are lower with ObamaCare, which means taxpayers pay more for ObamaCare."


WTE? If the income guidelines are lower shouldn't fewer people qualify?

[Deleted]

I'm not going to write Romney off over Romneycare. I've always liked him.

www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-11-Romney-on-fixing-health-care_n.htm

Romney: As first act, out with ObamaCare
By Mitt Romney

Health care is more than just one-sixth of the American economy. It is a source of well-being for individuals and families. We are blessed with much that is good in American health care. But we have taken a turn for the worse with ObamaCare, with its high taxes and vastly expanded federal control over our lives. I believe the better course is to empower the states to determine their own health care futures.

First, the good news: Health care in the United States has made remarkable advances in our lifetimes. Dramatic improvements in medical technology have expanded both the length and quality of life. And the U.S. health care system continues to provide consumers with many choices.
But our health care system has several well-known problems: high and rising costs, significant numbers of Americans without insurance, and glaring gaps in quality and efficiency.
We can fix these problems. Unfortunately, with the passage of ObamaCare last year, the president and the Congress took a wrong turn. ObamaCare will lead to more spending, greater federal involvement in health care and negative effects on U.S. economic activity. The president definitely forgot the admonition to "do no harm."
My plan is to harness the power of markets to drive positive change in health insurance and health care. And we can do so with state flexibility (unlike ObamaCare's top-down federal approach), no new taxes (as opposed to hundreds of billions of dollars of new taxes under ObamaCare), and better consumer choice (as opposed to bureaucratic, government choice under ObamaCare). This change of direction offers our best hope of preserving both innovation and value.
If I am elected president, I will issue on my first day in office an executive order paving the way for waivers from ObamaCare for all 50 states. Subsequently, I will call on Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare.....

MORE...

[deziloooooo]

mmmm, has to be elected first and knowing how much the far right and religious right like the man, mmmm