I have had the privilege of interviewing both President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney about health care reform. I say “privilege” because I found them both to be well-informed and deeply concerned about needed changes in American health care. And as many have observed, I also found the two key elements in each of their plans — mandated insurance and insurance exchanges to make choices easier — to be almost identical in concept.
However, given that the presidential campaign is very much about the role of the federal government in our lives, it is not surprising that there is a huge difference between them in terms of that role in health care — as was clear in the first of the presidential debates. Today, Romney tries to distance himself from the strong government role in his Massachusetts plan with a states’ rights mantra: His plan was good for his state then, but every state should develop its own plan. But when it comes to “life and death” sectors in our economy, it may be that states’ rights can be dangerous, even fatal.
Comments
So the end justifies the means, is that it? This argument sounds a little bit like "we need more money for schools otherwise kids will DIE." or "we need more money for police and fire otherwise people will DIE." Even if Dr. Johnson's premise is correct, how much will society and indviduals be hurt by socialized medicine? What about people "who will die" because of federal cost controls, because of the elimination of price competition? Because of our ballooning federal debt and tax rates which will only increase? No thanks.
I'd be interested in your citations.The truth always lies between the extreme views. Here's what I think,I think more people die without healthcare than with it.Try starting at that point when you think about this topic. This is a moral rather than an economic argument. I grow suspicious when commenters start talking about tax policy and the national debt in the middle of a debate about healthcare.
Interesting... your argument is that it's OK to let people die. That is abhorrant.
MA residents will soon learn healthcare cost cant be controlled on the state level. The idiots in the legislature implemented price controls without the ability to control the cost of things that go into healthcare. They don’t have the power to control the cost of drugs, medical devices etc which rise at rates higher than the price limits they set. This will mean that MA residents will not have access to these things or they will be forced to wait to obtain care.
This is how far the American public has sunk into a jaded morality in which money is the measurement of any given issue. Health care is not a political question but a moral question. We have bought into this mantra of money so strongly that doctors now view their profession as a "business". No longer called to care, they are called to incorporate. No longer should the wealth of the nation be expended upon the lives of others, no it must be channeled into the all mighty profit machine.
Through media, print, cable and internet, the public is innundated by the message all things flow from the bottom line. All things are measured by the bottom line. A nation that measures health care, the care and feeding of its people, its obligation to the poor, the elderly, by the bottom line is a nation that has sold its soul. I for one do not blame the politicians I lay the blame squarely upon an American public that has come to view itself as an isolated pack of dogs fighting over the scraps left on the floor by corporate America and its beloved bottom line.
Nice comment, very well put today! Thanks for that.
Agree that it's a values decision. But the irony is that it's also more efficient to have a 'type of socialized' system. I know people like profox think that's a treasonous statement - but there's all kind of evidence from other countries (and our own Medicare system) that it is more efficient to have a single paying system. So what we have instead is the insurance industry making money and the Americans paying for inferior coverage - but they feel good because they have the 'freedom' to be fleeced!
Dr Tim conflates two totally different elements of regulation, safety rules, which should be regulated at the federal level; and resource allocation, or economic rules, which are most effective when done at the state level. That is why his comparison of the airline safety rules is completely meaningless.
Obamacare is composed of thousands of pages of regulation, taxes and new agencies. It attempts to pack a "one size fits all" approach to health care. In the end, it empoweres government to ration care, and drives out of the health care market any ability to compete. This lowers supply and raises prices.
What is needed is a broad change to the way health care is allocated, but with states having the ability to customize it to their own unique needs.
Would that be so Mississippi could retain its lead as the worst health care in the nation and Mass. as one of the best. Is this love affair with the states one that leaves us with a health driven east coast and a who cares south.
"Health care market" what an oxymoron as if you are selling something in which people should have to make decisions regarding issues of which they have no knowledge. Yes indeed the health care mantra of the 21st century, "Can you afford it?" If not move along.
Health care needs are not so unique from state to state. The biggest common factor is that all states have people. Humans. And those human beings need to be cared for when they get sick. It's really not that complicated. You guys that have fallen for the notion of the rugged American individual have been hoodwinked. America is still exceptional, just not in a good way.
I am willing to express my "expert" opinion on many things. Self-declared authorities like Mr. Johnson who wrote this "opinion" piece exhibits my same lack of inhibition to express his "expert" opinion. Equating safety regulations with the supervision of medical care providers is like flying airplanes without a license or training to do so. That "blessed blanket" of federal super government that takes care of all of us simply does not fit everyone's bed. Super government, like superman, is a mythical figure. Hospitals and doctors have long self-policed medical care in practices and hospitals. The religious fervor of many believers in the blessing of a super-government that holds your hand for everything from crossing the street to deciding who should take that purpil pill Mr. Obama suggested was sometimes more appropriate for his Grandma,is like worshipping a stone. It just won't do the job.
What does "super government" have to do with health care? You would have us believe that "you", "we" as a people are not responsible for the actions of our society. That it is simply a question of "super government" or the "market place' when it comes to health care. No, this is a decision we as a public, as a people make. Do we make health care available? Do we bear the burden both morally and financially for the health of our people. You would lay this decision at the feet of politicians and government and as your own Pontius Pilate wash your hands of your neighbors health needs. I say if the body politic chooses money over the health of each one of us then the moral blame belongs not with government but with you.
Comments like this set me up to permanently skip over any comment from this person in the future. Doctor (not Mister) Johnson is not inanely blowing off steam, which is basically the description profox gives of him/herself. That is the most accurate and insightful part of the comment. Otherwise the thoughts are rambling and inappropriate. Conversations about something as complicated as healthcare cannot be intelligently furthered with this type of poor judgment.
Why do so many seriously ill people from all over the world fly here for medical care at Massachusetts General Hospital? Why are our Canadian neighbors slipping over the border to get surgeries that have them on waiting lists in their own country? Why is American Medicine the best in the world today? Is all the "wasteful" spending cited in this article reaky wasted or is it part of the superior care available to Americans and nowhere else in the world. Are we going to save money with appointed death panels that will cut the expenses needed to "unnessarily" prolong the life of older citizens? Today, companies are shipping their outdated equipment to Great Britain while we enjoy the latest innovations here in our medical system currently being criticized. If you truly believe all our brothers overseas enjoy the best in medical care why are you not going there when your life depends on the newest and best that we have in America today?
"profox" asks, "Why do so many seriously ill people from all over the world fly here for medical care at Massachusetts General Hospital?"
Because the rich get the best medical treatment in the world here in the US. Is that our glorious value system at work, "bring me your sick, your rich."
You, I might enjoy the latest innovations, but not all. You, I may have great health insurance. Is that all that is important? If it is then how do you respond to Mitt saying, "We send them to the ER." Then you and I still carry the freight. What is your option, no death panels, merely death.
Is it a legitimate moral question to ask should the old have their lives extended for hours perhaps days at the expense of the young. I am old and I don't think so. I am old and have made the decision on my own, but not all have the intellectual or emotional wherewithall to do the same. Certainly we can debate the question.
Being a physician I have to tell you profox that wherever you got your information, it is unadulterated hog wash. Medical care in other countries vies with out own. There is no massive, or even many over the border Canadian patients. Canadians like their system to the tune of 87% with more primary care physicians proportionally than us. Their Medicare is completely endorsed and protected by the Canadian Medical Association. Eighty seven per cent of their people like their insurance plan. We do not even break 70% here. The "death panel" is a bogus concoction of right wing ideologues. Our medical research is excellent but the other European governments also boast excellent researchers. All this aside the argument is to lower costs and include everyone. Romney's intentions was to preserve his big insurer buddies at the peril of the sick.
This comment has been removed.
Bravo, Dr. Tim! Gov. Romney tries to run away from his signature accomplishment in MA that we know he wanted to take to the rest of the country when he ran for President. He should have done that, and he might have gotten more Independent votes. We need the National system we have started. The Affordable Health Care Act is certainly flawed, but it is a good start and one that can be built upon.
I am always amused as I sit in the VA waiting room listening to my fellow soldiers express their disdain for "socialized" medicine as we sit in a fine example of the same. While they show their "socialized" Medicare card. That is the new America, ignorant, unwaware and terrified someone else will get the same benefits that they receive. That they, I deserve it, but not the other guy. That is becoming your new America and it is indeed dismaying.
VA has been fabulous for my Dad! They've given excellent, coordinated care. Can't praise them enough, what they do for our veterans!
This comment has been removed.
Dr. Johnson was a bit generous in assessing Mitt Romney's motives in initiating a health insurance scheme for this state. He borrowed his ideas from the Heritage Foundation that saw mandates as a way to fatten insurers' pockets. He was not interested in decreasing bureaucracy or lowering premium costs. It was all about more business for the insurance companies. Unfortunately President Obama's plan has to use heavy regulations to control premium creep. A central insurer would have to take price setting away from insurers, include everyone, and put hospitals on budgets to finally see savings. More streamlined overhead operations would then recover some 400 billion a year as Doctor Johnson alludes to above. Some call this single payer but what it is, is common sense economics. It preserves private care at its most personal level while delivering it at the lowest costs. In Canada not all care is covered and low cost policies easily cover this. So insurers would stay in business but their role appropriately diminished.
This comment has been removed.
O.K., so the former Massachusetts DEMOCRAT Speaker of the House is in jail because of his role in purchasing computers for a state department? Also, the previous DEMOCRAT Speaker of the House, perjured himself, but somehow managed to escape jail-time. The list goes on . . . for the Democrat politicians in this state who are either in jail or waiting for court dates.
But Mr. Johnson - do you think all state legislators are like the DEMOCRAT politicians we have in Massachusetts?
Ummmmm . . . . . . what? Are you sure you're commenting on the correct article? This one is about healthcare options, not political corruption.
Single payer is the best possible outcome. To paraphrase what Churchill said about democracy: it's the worst kind of health care, except for all the others.
Good article, I agree. Actually, states are obsolete, having been set up at a time when the time to traverse distances was measured in weeks, or months. Instant communications and fast travel now render the number of layers of government inefficient and problematic.
This comment has been removed.
Honestly, it amazes me how confused and parochial many of these commenters are. If it was a well developed plan, it would not be 2,000+ pages long, with "Panels" galore of Federal employees regulating our health needs. Comments from some people here seem abnormal and morbid. How long we all live ultimately rests in God's hands, but I, for one, would like to live a value-add, productive life for as long as I can. Since we all should know that the only thing that the US Gov't does well is wage war, we should not expect them to rationally wage life...ie...decide our medical futures. Hell, the US Gov't has spent three weeks lying to us about how our Ambassador and three other brave men were slaughtered in Libya. CNN and Fox knew the truth within 96 hours. But you fools out there want them to save you? Go ahead and trust them I'll trust my local Dr who is not beholden to a "Panel" of my peers.