barack obama tax increase calculator
8/4/09: White House Press Briefing

Massachusetts: Health Care Utopia?

I recently attended a conference organized by the Federalist Society titled Boston: Health Reform: Is Massachusetts, to model a panacea for the country? Ironically, the conference was presented in the Kennedy Room of the Omni Parker House Hotel. There much the speakers disagreed on, but decided that was what surprised me. According to the technical data available, because it is subsidized by the government federal, Massachusetts model has proven to be available to our state. The plan has been successful in expanding coverage to some 97.3% of residents which gives us the lowest rate of uninsured in the country. The most contentious issue was the constitutionality of forcing people over the age of 18 to buy health insurance or pay a fine. The Commerce Clause was also discussed at some length.

Timothy Murphy, Beacon Health Strategies, made a presentation made this proud member of the Tea Party. He said the state law, despite allowing greater transparency of the costs of health care, has done nothing to lower rates. the rates of health care throughout the state continue to rise about 10% annually. State Plan, said, "We have the mandate of bad guy." He believes that the plan has led the government to be in the "business harassment and price controls." As a business owner, Murphy believes in a consumer driven market rather than employers to negotiate directly with insurance companies. Employers do not like dealing with insurance, and find it a distraction from their main function.

Nancy Turnbull of the Harvard School of Public Health, disagrees. She said: "People can not choose their own coverage. They can not decide not wish substance abuse or mental health coverage today and then change my mind tomorrow. "Oh, really why not? People in general have to wait until open enrollment to make changes to their plans, but why can not change their minds? As for men who want to deny coverage Maternity, which actually accused them of trying to deny its role in the parenting process. You can not do this. Turnbull believes that people want health choices easier "because I do not understand. "I do not know about you, but I'm tired of being told I'm not smart enough to make my own decisions. Turnbull also blamed "the state monopolies that control the market." In my humble opinion, this is the best argument for making health insurance more competitive. Why can not buy insurance in other states? Anyone?

The audience in Kennedy Hall was mostly by lawyers and health professionals. For a topic as controversial, I would say that the audience were very quiet. When Tim Murphy spoke, I had to sit on my hands to clap together spontaneously. Sometimes I had to remind myself that this was not a Tea Party Rally. Murphy spoke passionately about the overreaching of federal health law. He said it would "follow suit in Massachusetts, but on steroids. "The state bill is only 70 pages, while the colossal towers federal bill by almost 2,700. Nancy Turnbull that supports increased government regulation, seemed to have no problem with that. Were derived aloud ", 70 pages, multiplied by 50 states … "That comment was followed by some real boos from the crowd. In their calculations, we are saving about 800 pages. Nancy, we will not give Congress the ideas.

Turnbull cites the tired liberal mantra about "other countries with lower costs and better quality health care." Anybody Please tell me where these utopias are health? It is almost impossible to compare the quality of health care between countries can not even agree on the criteria for data collection. For example, when comparing infant mortality rates, some countries do not have the death unless the children are at least 24 hours life. Therefore, if another country has child deaths from the moment of birth, the country is perceived as a higher mortality rate (ie the U.S.). Also, if I have cancer, I have a 20% higher chance of survival then if I lived in England or Canada. Call me crazy, but I think I'm well to pay more than those odds.

Murphy uses an excellent example of free market self-regulation when he spoke of his own experience with eye surgery with Lasik. Since Lasik is not covered by insurance, he decided to undergo this procedure to investigate the most experienced doctors. By educating yourself with the relevant facts that he was able to make an informed decision. He said he was surprised by what the price has dropped since the surgery had first become popular. Murphy said this was "the best example of a procedure in which the quality and the price went down." Wow! Capitalism does not work!

There was much discussion on the constitutionality of the federal government into the business of health care. The approach was the most controversial Commerce Clause, which grants the government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause only may be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial and has not been traditionally regulated by states. In a September 2009 article in the WSJ, Andrew Napolitano said:

"Applying these principles to the proposal President Barack Obama's health care clear that his plan is unconstitutional at its core. The practice of medicine consists in providing intimate services to the human body. In almost all cases, the provision medical services produced in one place and not move across state borders. You go to a doctor not to participate in a trade, as the Editors of the Constitution means, but to improve health. And the practice of medicine, as well as the safety of the public schools, has been regulated by the states during the last century. "

Presenter David Rivkin, Esq. Washington, DC seemed to agree with the massive overreaching federal government. According to Rivkin, "every decision you make has an economic footprint – what you eat, if you exercise, and even if childbearing" That means the government must control all behavior, in a word.? "No".

One theme that was absent from the debate tort reform. I guess with all the lawyers in the room nobody wanted to touch the subject. The conference ended with a presentation by Wendy Mariner Boston University School of Public Health. She said it was not a problem with the Constitution if the bill received federal funds "a tax rather than a mandate" (note the giant sucking sound.) She said: "God made sure to spread the cost." I guess my Bible is out of date.