When do we start the inevitable conversation about limiting aggressive life sustaining treatment, including CPR in patients young and old who are dying or do not have and will never have the ability to recognize loved ones or interact with their environment? The development and use of technology has saved countless lives but all too frequently, it is costly,burdensome,and non-beneficial for persons in the final phase of life. Unless politicians, clinicians, hospital administrators and the public is willing to set limits on the use of expensive technology, the cost cutting measures discussed in this article will only limit access to preventative care and reduce the quality of care to those who could truly benefit.

The Partners Health Care certainly includes some of the most effective hospitals in the nation. However their financial practices bordering on monopolizing health care dollars must be condemned. The complaint about their loss of leverage in negotiations is exactly the point. They have wheedled 2 to 3 times unwarranted payments for their services. This distortion as opposed to a level playing field of remuneration for the same services is a major source of the rise in health insurance premiums. This happens on several levels. First these high prices are over done. Second the teams needed to come to these terms involves too many people and adds to the cost. Third it pushes other hospitals to get a bigger piece of the action and puts even more pressure to remove even more dollars from the system. It is the time for the people who actually pay for the insurance either out of their pocket or as part of their salary have the leverage to reign in these costs. That is where it belongs.

Globe article states that ".. the House legislation and other bills - intended to bring relief to consumers and employers struggling to pay high health insurance premiums... Note: the Globe tosses this claim by you with one word here "INTENDED". Have you people noticed how frequently Democratic Party sponsored laws that claim to be "Intended" to help the consumer in some fashion do NOT work out as "Intended"? And in many cases there is no effort made by the politicians made to actually PROVE, with facts and figures that their supposedly "Good Intentions" will actually bring about the results that are claimed. And the Globe here just tosses that issue aside ("just move along, folks, nothing to see here"), and wants you to blame those evil hospitals for their "Lobbying". In my view, their "good intentions" legislation results either from incompetence, or more likely, a desire to impose Single Payer, govt. only healthcare insurance on an unsuspecting public. And if the public thinks that self-described "consumer protection" organizations are always on the consumer's side, think again. These are the same organizations (e.g. AARP, Consumer Reports) that told you in 2008 that there was nothing to worry about if ObamaCare was passed. A lot of their funding or business is paid for by the government.

It's about time the legislature stood up to the Partners monopoly. Don't fall for the scare tactics of their well paid million dollar lobbyists. The citizens of Massachusetts are fed up with sky-high health premiums caused by the overpriced, overrated BWH and MGH!

And Catholic Hospitals and universities SUE federal government over Obama's mandate that they provide free birth control, a major news story which the Globe does NOT report.