People would be free to choose doctors and hospitals, and insurance would not be tied to a job. Costs would be controlled because health planning in a national health program can reestablish needed balance between primary/preventive care and high-tech tertiary care. A modest, progressive tax would replace what people currently pay out of pocket. This program would pay for itself by eliminating the wasteful administrative costs and profits of private insurance companies, and save $8 billion to $10 billion in Massachusetts alone.
Another *interesting* Op Ed piece from the Boston Globe. I don’t the *blame* the state of MA for their *failed* universal coverage effort. They were bold enough (some might say silly enough) to try *something*. There was little chance for success from the outset given the basic issue that they were layering this on top of an existing HC system which can not control costs or absorb the increase in the insured population. HC reform can not be a state effort.
The paragraph I pulled out above is laughable. People will certainly be *free* to choose their doctors… IF THEY CAN FIND ONE. With the number of docs dropping MCare rising to 37% in some areas, can you imagine what the enrollment numbers would be in a nationally sponsored health care plan ????
“Costs would be controlled …” OMG ! Does Dr. King really think that the government is capable of controlling costs…. or eliminating wasteful administrative costs and profits ?? The US govt ??? Nah ! No way.