Obama's Next Dilemma?,What If Patients Die Waiting For Treatment Or Doctor Shortage?

[rdean]

Obama's Next Dilemma?,What If Patients Die Waiting For Treatment Or Doctor Shortage?

You gotta admit, it's pretty funny Republicans "caring" about anyone.

Republicans blocked first responders from getting healthcare for 10 fucking years.

Firefighter: Glad System Finally Starting to Work

And Coburn has made a career out of trying to cut veterans benefits.

Yet Republicans "care" about getting people to a doctor? Really? Fer sure? Is that fer real?

 

[ron4342]

Several things come to mind about this thread that never get mentioned.
First is the fact that conservatives are constantly condemning liberals for falling for government propaganda while at the same time faithfully believing every lie spouted to them by the right wing rumor mill. If the conservatives were honest they will acknowledge there has been strong, non-stop effort to spread lies and misinformation about ACA right from the beginning. "Death panels," anyone. That is old. The other day Hannity had several couples on who told horror stories about ACA. A reporter checked out the couples and found that the stories were made up and that the couples in question had not had any contact with the ACA exchanges. The same with the woman who claimed her $54 dollar a month policy jumped to around $600 per month. Turns out she had never gone to an exchange to check and she had blindly believed what her insurance company told her. She finally ended up with much better insurance for around $280 per month plus she found out she was eligible for financial assistance. This is typical of what we see every day.
Second, the members of the right are predicting doom and pretty much the end of the world because of ACA. They predicted the same things for Social Security and for Medicare. Never happened! In fact, try and repeal Social Security and Medicare now and see how far you get.
Third, the right is constantly screaming how in other countries the nationalized health care plans are failing. Yet, NOT ONE country who is on nationalized health care has voted to end the program. It should be noted that many of these countries have been on nationalized health care for many years and it should also be noted that the majority of them are democracies. IF the health plans they have are so terrible, why has NOT ONE country voted to end it. NOT ONE!
Fourth, a smaller version of the ACA is currently being used in Massachusetts. In fact, the Massachusetts plan was the model for ACA. It has been in place for several years. Were there problems during the start-up? Absolutely, yet today the people of Massachusetts are so satisfied with their health care plan that 98% of the population are on the plan. If a plan similar to ACA can work in Massachusetts, ACA can work in the United States.
Fifth, romney brought the ACA type health care plan to Massachusetts but it is important to note that he got it from the Heritage Foundation which is an ultra right wing think tank. That's right, ACA was dreamed up by a right wing think tank that is now condemning their plan for one reason and one reason only! They are willing to let uninsured Americans get sick and die rather than to see Barrack Obama have a success. If bush or any other republican president had pushed this plan they would be standing on their roof tops screaming their praises for ACA and that is the truth.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

I am still laughing at all of the racists/bigot liberal commentators who bragged about all of the millions ,so anxious to log on on October 1st! just couldn't wait to buy a 700.00 a month policy! especially Jaun Williams (the Fox Network Dufass Clown).

 

[Oldstyle]

Several things come to mind about this thread that never get mentioned.
First is the fact that conservatives are constantly condemning liberals for falling for government propaganda while at the same time faithfully believing every lie spouted to them by the right wing rumor mill. If the conservatives were honest they will acknowledge there has been strong, non-stop effort to spread lies and misinformation about ACA right from the beginning. "Death panels," anyone. That is old. The other day Hannity had several couples on who told horror stories about ACA. A reporter checked out the couples and found that the stories were made up and that the couples in question had not had any contact with the ACA exchanges. The same with the woman who claimed her $54 dollar a month policy jumped to around $600 per month. Turns out she had never gone to an exchange to check and she had blindly believed what her insurance company told her. She finally ended up with much better insurance for around $280 per month plus she found out she was eligible for financial assistance. This is typical of what we see every day.
Second, the members of the right are predicting doom and pretty much the end of the world because of ACA. They predicted the same things for Social Security and for Medicare. Never happened! In fact, try and repeal Social Security and Medicare now and see how far you get.
Third, the right is constantly screaming how in other countries the nationalized health care plans are failing. Yet, NOT ONE country who is on nationalized health care has voted to end the program. It should be noted that many of these countries have been on nationalized health care for many years and it should also be noted that the majority of them are democracies. IF the health plans they have are so terrible, why has NOT ONE country voted to end it. NOT ONE!
Fourth, a smaller version of the ACA is currently being used in Massachusetts. In fact, the Massachusetts plan was the model for ACA. It has been in place for several years. Were there problems during the start-up? Absolutely, yet today the people of Massachusetts are so satisfied with their health care plan that 98% of the population are on the plan. If a plan similar to ACA can work in Massachusetts, ACA can work in the United States.
Fifth, romney brought the ACA type health care plan to Massachusetts but it is important to note that he got it from the Heritage Foundation which is an ultra right wing think tank. That's right, ACA was dreamed up by a right wing think tank that is now condemning their plan for one reason and one reason only! They are willing to let uninsured Americans get sick and die rather than to see Barrack Obama have a success. If bush or any other republican president had pushed this plan they would be standing on their roof tops screaming their praises for ACA and that is the truth.

There is a very good reason why Barry, Harry and Nancy wanted to pass ACA legislation even though it is fatally flawed and will eventually implode because of how badly it was conceived. Your above post illustrates why they would do something illogical like that. Once you give people an entitlement it's almost impossible to take it away from them. The ACA is a joke and B, H & N have known that all along. They are OK with that however because they know that once they get enough people hooked on subsidies for healthcare that we'll be one step closer to a single payer system which is what they wanted in the first place.

 

[Oldstyle]

ObamaCare is simply a step towards something else...always has been...

 

[rdean]

ObamaCare is simply a step towards something else...always has been...

True. Reasonable people see it as the way to help the middle class from going bankrupt. For people living from paycheck to paycheck, it only takes one small hospital bill to go bankrupt and there are no "small" hospital bills.

And for right wing capitalists, what could be better than an exchange? It's their idea.

Only, when you add the name "Obama", they freak. Only it's not about race. It's about, uh, well, uh, I guess it must be race. What else could it be from a party that's 90% white? Of course they won't admit it. They won't even answer the question "Was Lincoln a confederate?". Because they are desperately trying to believe they are the party that ended slavery. And they know that they are confederates so Lincoln must have been a confederate except Lincoln fought the confederates so they better not think about it anymore.

 

[ron4342]

Several things come to mind about this thread that never get mentioned.
First is the fact that conservatives are constantly condemning liberals for falling for government propaganda while at the same time faithfully believing every lie spouted to them by the right wing rumor mill. If the conservatives were honest they will acknowledge there has been strong, non-stop effort to spread lies and misinformation about ACA right from the beginning. "Death panels," anyone. That is old. The other day Hannity had several couples on who told horror stories about ACA. A reporter checked out the couples and found that the stories were made up and that the couples in question had not had any contact with the ACA exchanges. The same with the woman who claimed her $54 dollar a month policy jumped to around $600 per month. Turns out she had never gone to an exchange to check and she had blindly believed what her insurance company told her. She finally ended up with much better insurance for around $280 per month plus she found out she was eligible for financial assistance. This is typical of what we see every day.
Second, the members of the right are predicting doom and pretty much the end of the world because of ACA. They predicted the same things for Social Security and for Medicare. Never happened! In fact, try and repeal Social Security and Medicare now and see how far you get.
Third, the right is constantly screaming how in other countries the nationalized health care plans are failing. Yet, NOT ONE country who is on nationalized health care has voted to end the program. It should be noted that many of these countries have been on nationalized health care for many years and it should also be noted that the majority of them are democracies. IF the health plans they have are so terrible, why has NOT ONE country voted to end it. NOT ONE!
Fourth, a smaller version of the ACA is currently being used in Massachusetts. In fact, the Massachusetts plan was the model for ACA. It has been in place for several years. Were there problems during the start-up? Absolutely, yet today the people of Massachusetts are so satisfied with their health care plan that 98% of the population are on the plan. If a plan similar to ACA can work in Massachusetts, ACA can work in the United States.
Fifth, romney brought the ACA type health care plan to Massachusetts but it is important to note that he got it from the Heritage Foundation which is an ultra right wing think tank. That's right, ACA was dreamed up by a right wing think tank that is now condemning their plan for one reason and one reason only! They are willing to let uninsured Americans get sick and die rather than to see Barrack Obama have a success. If bush or any other republican president had pushed this plan they would be standing on their roof tops screaming their praises for ACA and that is the truth.

There is a very good reason why Barry, Harry and Nancy wanted to pass ACA legislation even though it is fatally flawed and will eventually implode because of how badly it was conceived. Your above post illustrates why they would do something illogical like that. Once you give people an entitlement it's almost impossible to take it away from them. The ACA is a joke and B, H & N have known that all along. They are OK with that however because they know that once they get enough people hooked on subsidies for healthcare that we'll be one step closer to a single payer system which is what they wanted in the first place.

Hummmm... It doesn't seem to be imploding. Why should it implode when it is based on the Massachusetts plan which has wide support and has not imploded. In fact, it seems to be gaining approval in the polls.

Approval of Affordable Care Act Inches Up

More Democrats now approve of the law, while most Republicans still disapprove

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- Despite the highly publicized technical issues that have plagued the government's health insurance exchange website that went live on Oct. 1, Americans' views of the Affordable Care Act are slightly more positive now than they were in August. Forty-five percent now approve of the law, while 50% disapprove, for a net approval score of -5. In June and August, net approval was slightly lower, at -8.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165548/approval-affordable-care-act-inches.aspx

 

[Politico]

People already die waiting for treatment.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

How can a nation owing over 17 Trillion even maintain a health-care system. Shouldn't Obama knock down the debt before attempting to insure 250 Million People with money that doesn't exsist unless we print it? this is like an average man buying a 40,000 corvette, already 700,000 in debt and has 3000.00 in the bank.

 

[Barbarap]

How does the ACA make healthcare more affordable for someone in the Middle Class? Seriously, Barb...what are you basing that claim on? That the progressives that wrote the law "promised" you that it would? In case you haven't been paying attention...the "promises" that were given in regards to the ACA don't turn out to be worth very much. The ACA is going to substantially increase healthcare costs for the Middle Class while seriously degrading the level of care received by them. It HAS to! This notion that it would lower costs has always been fiction...fiction that was used to sell ObamaCare to a skeptical nation.

Go back and read some of the links I provided earlier.

If you can't see that paying for a system that is more cost efficient with better outcomes is a good thing, then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

By the way, the research I have done on individual plans and circumstances indicates that most people will not have to pay more than what they do now for insurance. (Based on information from the state I live in) True, those who currently have substandard plans might have to pay more.... But they will be getting more.

The overall level of care won't be degraded with the ACA. Again, you might want to refer to some of the links I provided earlier.

Barb, kindly list some examples of where government has done something in a more cost efficient manner than the private sector. THAT, my liberal friend is something as rare as a unicorn or the Cubs winning the World Series! This system will not be more cost efficient with better outcomes. It will be a train wreck. It's badly written. I'm sorry but it's just bad legislation that was cobbled together to pass something. They are going to have to force young and healthy people onto the exchanges because both are going to unwilling to shell out for a plan that they can get onto at any time because of the pre-existing conditions clause.

I refer you back to the many links I provided.
Other countries provide health care for less cost with better outcomes.

 

[Barbarap]

And of course the overall care will get degraded! It can't help but be! You're adding millions to a system that already has a shortage of doctors while at the same time telling those doctors that you will be paying them less for the services they provide. What do you think the outcome of that is going to be? Doctors ALREADY limit the number of Medicare patients they're willing to see. Do you really think that's not going to become even more common? Come on...use some common sense!

Again, read the links I provided. The experts can explain much better than I.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I hate to burst your bubble on how this law is going to bring down costs, Barb but you are DREAMING if you think anything in the ACA is going to bring prescription prices in the US down to what they are elsewhere.

As for the ACA being "more cost effective with better outcomes" for the Middle Class? That's a pipe dream! The ACA simply shifts the costs of healthcare from those who can't afford it to those that supposedly can. The Middle Class didn't quite grasp that however because they've been consistently lied to about the ACA all along.

You still can't grasp this simple FACT.... The middle class ALREADY carries the burden.
Doesn't it make more sense for that burden to be more cost effective and reap better outcomes??

I don't think the ACA is perfect, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

You haven't provided ANY of these supposed "FACTS" that the overall cost of providing Heath care drops simply because it's run by the government through a national Heath Care system. It simply is not true, as the burden of cost is still a major issue in Canada and Great Britain. The only thing you accomplish is raising the burden of such expenses to our national debt that must be addressed through higher taxes. You are simply allowing yourself to be fooled in this worldly "delusion" of yours if you think the middle class will never have to face these burdens of a growing national debt through increased taxes or coping with rationed care.

 

[rdean]

I hate to burst your bubble on how this law is going to bring down costs, Barb but you are DREAMING if you think anything in the ACA is going to bring prescription prices in the US down to what they are elsewhere.

As for the ACA being "more cost effective with better outcomes" for the Middle Class? That's a pipe dream! The ACA simply shifts the costs of healthcare from those who can't afford it to those that supposedly can. The Middle Class didn't quite grasp that however because they've been consistently lied to about the ACA all along.

You still can't grasp this simple FACT.... The middle class ALREADY carries the burden.
Doesn't it make more sense for that burden to be more cost effective and reap better outcomes??

I don't think the ACA is perfect, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

You haven't provided ANY of these supposed "FACTS" that the overall cost of providing Heath care drops simply because it's run by the government through a national Heath Care system. It simply is not true, as the burden of cost is still a major issue in Canada and Great Britain. The only thing you accomplish is raising the burden of such expenses to our national debt that must be addressed through higher taxes. You are simply allowing yourself to be fooled in this worldly "delusion" of yours if you think the middle class will never have to face these burdens of a growing national debt through increased taxes or coping with rationed care.

Quit drinking the swill and do some "serious" research. Remember, Massachusetts was going bankrupt. Why? Because people were using the emergency room for primary health care. The ER costs ten to hundreds of times the cost of visiting a doctor at a clinic. Not to mention finding a problem early before they become expensive and a burden. Add in medical bills being the number one cause of bankruptcy and your premise based on a lack of anything close to reason falls completely apart.

When are these right wingers going to learn? The reason the Heritage Foundation embraced Obamacare were "several". Just adding Obama's name to it is no reason to end it.

 

[Oldstyle]

You still can't grasp this simple FACT.... The middle class ALREADY carries the burden.
Doesn't it make more sense for that burden to be more cost effective and reap better outcomes??

I don't think the ACA is perfect, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

You haven't provided ANY of these supposed "FACTS" that the overall cost of providing Heath care drops simply because it's run by the government through a national Heath Care system. It simply is not true, as the burden of cost is still a major issue in Canada and Great Britain. The only thing you accomplish is raising the burden of such expenses to our national debt that must be addressed through higher taxes. You are simply allowing yourself to be fooled in this worldly "delusion" of yours if you think the middle class will never have to face these burdens of a growing national debt through increased taxes or coping with rationed care.

Quit drinking the swill and do some "serious" research. Remember, Massachusetts was going bankrupt. Why? Because people were using the emergency room for primary health care. The ER costs ten to hundreds of times the cost of visiting a doctor at a clinic. Not to mention finding a problem early before they become expensive and a burden. Add in medical bills being the number one cause of bankruptcy and your premise based on a lack of anything close to reason falls completely apart.

When are these right wingers going to learn? The reason the Heritage Foundation embraced Obamacare were "several". Just adding Obama's name to it is no reason to end it.

As per usual, Deanie...you know nothing about what you're talking about. Massachusetts is my home State and it was not going bankrupt because people were using the ER for primary care. One of the things idiots like yourself are clueless about is the relatively small number of people in Massachusetts that were uninsured BEFORE Commonwealth Care was passed. There are other States that have 3 times the number of uninsured. The cost of such a program is going to vary substantially because of that. Commonwealth Care added about 1% to the Massachusetts budget. The truth is that Massachusetts had a balanced budget before Romney proposed Commonwealth Care and was not in trouble financially. The same is NOT true for the US.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There isn't a single thing that you have posted that changes the fact that other countries provide health care for less cost with better outcomes.

you mean like Britain.......?

Go back and read the link in post 30.

you seem to think the OECD report is the ultimate infallible truth....get a clue....it's not....read this link:

US health care: A reality check on cross-country comparisons - Health - AEI

 

[rdean]

You haven't provided ANY of these supposed "FACTS" that the overall cost of providing Heath care drops simply because it's run by the government through a national Heath Care system. It simply is not true, as the burden of cost is still a major issue in Canada and Great Britain. The only thing you accomplish is raising the burden of such expenses to our national debt that must be addressed through higher taxes. You are simply allowing yourself to be fooled in this worldly "delusion" of yours if you think the middle class will never have to face these burdens of a growing national debt through increased taxes or coping with rationed care.

Quit drinking the swill and do some "serious" research. Remember, Massachusetts was going bankrupt. Why? Because people were using the emergency room for primary health care. The ER costs ten to hundreds of times the cost of visiting a doctor at a clinic. Not to mention finding a problem early before they become expensive and a burden. Add in medical bills being the number one cause of bankruptcy and your premise based on a lack of anything close to reason falls completely apart.

When are these right wingers going to learn? The reason the Heritage Foundation embraced Obamacare were "several". Just adding Obama's name to it is no reason to end it.

As per usual, Deanie...you know nothing about what you're talking about. Massachusetts is my home State and it was not going bankrupt because people were using the ER for primary care. One of the things idiots like yourself are clueless about is the relatively small number of people in Massachusetts that were uninsured BEFORE Commonwealth Care was passed. There are other States that have 3 times the number of uninsured. The cost of such a program is going to vary substantially because of that. Commonwealth Care added about 1% to the Massachusetts budget. The truth is that Massachusetts had a balanced budget before Romney proposed Commonwealth Care and was not in trouble financially. The same is NOT true for the US.

If ObamaCare Is So Bad, How Does RomneyCare Survive?

When he signed the law in 2006, Romney wrote in a statement, “Today, we spend approximately $1 billion on the medical cost for the uninsured.

----------------------------------------------------------

Such a tiny state paying a billion dollars a year on the uninsured. A billion dollars from a state with a mere six and a half million people. And someone is going to tell me it was nothing?????

 

[PredFan]

Obamacare, over 6 people served!

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

Obamacare, over 6 people served!

and like i said, two of them were hamsters walking on the keyboard for 48 minutes.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You still can't grasp this simple FACT.... The middle class ALREADY carries the burden.
Doesn't it make more sense for that burden to be more cost effective and reap better outcomes??

I don't think the ACA is perfect, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

You haven't provided ANY of these supposed "FACTS" that the overall cost of providing Heath care drops simply because it's run by the government through a national Heath Care system. It simply is not true, as the burden of cost is still a major issue in Canada and Great Britain. The only thing you accomplish is raising the burden of such expenses to our national debt that must be addressed through higher taxes. You are simply allowing yourself to be fooled in this worldly "delusion" of yours if you think the middle class will never have to face these burdens of a growing national debt through increased taxes or coping with rationed care.

Quit drinking the swill and do some "serious" research. Remember, Massachusetts was going bankrupt. Why? Because people were using the emergency room for primary health care. The ER costs ten to hundreds of times the cost of visiting a doctor at a clinic. Not to mention finding a problem early before they become expensive and a burden. Add in medical bills being the number one cause of bankruptcy and your premise based on a lack of anything close to reason falls completely apart.

When are these right wingers going to learn? The reason the Heritage Foundation embraced Obamacare were "several". Just adding Obama's name to it is no reason to end it.

Another reply devoid of any actual facts on the issue of the governments ability to effectively reduce "cost", but should I be surprised? While RDean looks to rely mostly on sheer propaganda and main stream media hype, to include previous statements regarding racial claims he most likely heard from the likes of Chris Matthews, I'd rather look to investigating through ACTUAL research on the effects of a government controlled national health care system. Only "serious" research comes with the ability to back up your statements through several sources with the use of "links". Here are but some of the problems we can find associated with a government run health care program.

NHS rationing 'forcing patients to go private'

NHS rationing 'forcing patients to go private' - Telegraph

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent3:25PM BST 24 Sep 2012

More patients are going private because the NHS is increasingly cutting back on providing a range of treatments.

GPs believe the numbers of patients asking about paying for operations including cataract removal and joint replacements has increased markedly in the last year, according to a poll.

NHS charging and rationing 'may be needed'

BBC News - NHS charging and rationing 'may be needed'

By Nick Triggle
Health correspondent, BBC News
4 July 2012 Last updated at 01:16

The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the coming years will be the toughest since the early 1950s when dental and prescription fees were introduced.

Other measures, including tax rises, could also form part of the solution.

And the review says decisions on the NHS - and social care - will have an impact on other public services too.

The NHS alone accounts for nearly a quarter of public spending.

When it comes to waiting for health care, Canada is last in line

A major international survey says Canadians wait longer for health care

When it comes to waiting for health care, Canada is last in line - Week in Review - Macleans.ca

by macleans.ca on Tuesday, February 19, 2013 7:00pm


For decades, wait times have been a consistent and much-lamented component of the Canadian health care system. Within the strictures of medicare, we endure lengthy waits for family doctors, specialists, tests, therapy, beds and on and on. Canadians, in fact, wait longer and more often for health care than citizens in all other developed countries.

Earlier this month, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released a major survey on international health care waiting lists and policies. Canada is at the bottom of the pack in almost every category. One example among many: 25 per cent of Canadian patients waited more than four months for non-emergency, elective surgery, the highest proportion of any country reported. The figure is 18 per cent in Australia and seven per cent in France, Switzerland and the United States.

Prescription drug expenses in Canada a health-care barrier, researchers argue

Even those with insurance coverage face difficulties, article suggests

Prescription drug expenses in Canada a health-care barrier, researchers argue | UToday | University of Calgary

High drug expenses in Canada are a significant barrier for people to access prescription drugs outside of hospital, according to an analysis article in Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Even those with insurance may face difficulties affording medications as most insurance plans require copayments by patients, thereby presenting a barrier to accessing needed drugs. While provincial governments cover most or all drug costs for seniors and those receiving social assistance, the “working poor” (households with an annual income less than $29,999) do not have the same benefits, which can result in high rates of noncompliance and failure of patients to fill their prescriptions.

MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH CARE

Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb
Medinnovation: Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb

More people are seeking care in Massachusetts hospital emergency rooms, and the cost of caring for ER patients has soared 17% over two years. This is despite efforts to direct patients with nonurgent problems to primary care doctors instead, according to new state data. Visits to Massachusetts emergency rooms grew 7% between 2005 and 2007, to 2,469,295 visits. The estimated cost of treating those patients jumped from $826 million to $973 million.

Merritt Hawkins & Associates, “2009 Survey of Physician Appointment Wait Times,”
Physician Jobs and Healthcare Employment - Merritt Hawkins & Associates

It is the state where President Obama received his law school education, where Senator Edward Kennedy has fought for a single payer system for 40 years, where Obama’s closest health care advisors, Dean David Cutler, PhD, of Harvard and Robert Blumenthal, M.D., of Massachusetts General and National Coordinator for Health Information Technology,reside, and where the nation’s first “universal health plan” was spawned and has been in operation for three years.

Yet, despite this political firepower, something seems to have gone askew. Massachusetts health costs are the highest in the land. Despite the highest concentration of physicians per capita and lowest rate of uninsured among the states (2.6%), people are having a hard time finding doctors, especially primary care practitioners but other specialists as well. Bay State residents are flocking to high-cost emergency rooms for care in unprecedented numbers. And all of this in an affluent states which is supposed to set an example for other states to follow.

The average wait times for appointments in Boston for cardiology are 21 days, dermatology 54 days, obstetrics-gynecology 70 days, orthopedic surgery 40 days, and family practice 63 days.

The average cumulative wait times for the 5 specialties just mentioned are,

Boston, 50 days

Philadelphia, 27 days

Los Angeles, 24 days

Houston, 23 days

Washington, D.C., 23 days

San Diego, 20 days

Minneapolis, 20 days

Dallas, 19 days

New York, 19 days

Denver, 15 days

Miami, 15 days

Portland, 14 days

Seattle, 14 days

Detroit, 12 days

Atlanta, 11 days

Mass Panel To Tackle Health Care Costs
Mass. Panel To Tackle Health Care Costs | Radio Boston

Total Health Care spending will double from 2009 to 2020

The federal law is modeled on this state’s health care law, which was passed in 2006. And here’s what we know so far: just about everyone in the state has health insurance, but costs have continued to rise. And in fact, we’re spending more per capita on health care than any other state in the nation.

Under a health care cost containment law passed last year, medical expenses are not SUPPOSED to grow more than the state’s economy, pegged at 3.6 percent this year.