Massachusetts: Health Care Utopia?
I recently attended a lecture hosted by The Boston Federalist Society entitled: Health Care Reform: Is the Massachusetts Model a Cure-All for the Country? Ironically, the lecture was presented in the Kennedy Room of the Omni Parker House Hotel. There was plenty the speakers disagreed about, but it was what they agreed upon that surprised me most. According to expert data available, because it’s subsidized by the federal government, the Massachusetts model has proven to be mostly affordable for our state. The plan has succeeded in extending some form of coverage to 97.3% of residents, giving us the lowest rate of uninsured in the country. The issue most hotly contested was the Constitutionality of forcing people over the age of 18 to buy health insurance or pay a fine. The Commerce Clause was also debated at some length.
Timothy Murphy, of Beacon Health Strategies, gave a presentation that made this Tea Party member proud. He said that the state law, despite allowing for greater transparency of health care costs, has done nothing to lower rates. Health care rates across the state continue to increase about 10% yearly. Of the state plan he said, “We got the individual mandate wrong.” He believes the plan has lead to the government being in the “bullying and price control business.” As a business owner, Murphy believes in a consumer driven market rather than having employers negotiate directly with insurance companies. Employers dislike dealing with insurance, and find it a distraction from their main function.
Nancy Turnbull of Harvard School of Public Health disagrees. She said, “People can’t pick their own coverage. They can’t decide they don’t want substance abuse or mental health coverage today and then change their minds tomorrow.” Oh really? Why not? People generally have to wait until open enrollment to make changes to their plans, but why can’t they change their minds? Regarding men wishing to decline maternity coverage, she actually accused them of attempting to deny their roll in the fathering process. You can’t make this stuff up. Turnbull believes that people want healthcare choices simpler “because they don’t understand it.” I don’t know about you, but I’m growing tired of being told I’m not smart enough to make my own decisions. Turnbull also blamed “monopolies in the state that control the market.” In my humble opinion, that’s the best argument for making health insurance more competitive. Why can’t we buy insurance across state lines? Anyone?
The audience in the Kennedy Room was predominantly made up of lawyers and health care professionals. For a topic so controversial, I’d say the listeners were quite reserved. When Tim Murphy spoke, I had to sit on my hands lest they spontaneously clap together. At times I had to remind myself that this was not a Tea Party Rally. Murphy spoke passionately about the overreach of the federal health care bill. He stated it would “follow the same path as Massachusetts-but on steroids.” The state bill is barely 70 pages, while the colossal federal bill towers at almost 2,700. Nancy Turnbull, who supports more government regulation, appeared to have no problem with that. She proceeded to calculate out loud, “70 pages multiplied by 50 states…” That comment was followed by some actual booing from the crowd. By her calculations, we are saving about 800 pages. Nancy, let’s not give Congress any ideas.
Turnbull quoted the tired liberal mantra about “other countries having lower costs and better quality health care.” Will someone please tell me where these health care utopias are? It’s almost impossible to compare the quality of health care among countries that can’t even agree on the criteria for collecting data. For instance, when comparing infant mortality rates, some countries don’t count the deaths unless the infants are at least 24 hours old. Therefore if another country counts infant deaths from the time of birth, that country is perceived as having a higher mortality rate (i.e., the United States). Furthermore, if I develop 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 ok with paying more for those odds.
Murphy used an excellent illustration of the free market regulating itself when he spoke of his own experience with Lasik eye surgery. Since Lasik is not covered by insurance, when he decided to have the procedure he researched doctors with the most experience. By educating himself with the pertinent facts he was able to make an informed decision. He stated he was amazed at how the price has dropped since the surgery had first become popular. Murphy states this was “the best example of a procedure in which the quality went up and the price went down.” Wow! Capitalism does work!
There was much discussion about the Constitutionality of the federal government getting into the health care business. The focus was the much contested Commerce Clause which gives government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial and has not been traditionally regulated by the states. In a September 2009 WSJ article, Andrew Napolitano said the following:
“Applying these principles to President Barack Obama’s health care proposal it’s clear that his plan is unconstitutional at its core. The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across state lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in a commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one’s health. And the practice of medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by the states for the past century.”
Presenter David Rivkin, Esq. from Washington, D.C. seemed to agree with the massive overreach of the federal government. According to Rivkin, “every decision you make has an economic footprint–what you eat, if you exercise and even if you procreate.” Does that mean the government should control all behavior? In a word, “no.”
A subject that was conspicuously absent from the debate was TORT reform. I guess with all those lawyers in the room no one wanted to bring it up. The lecture ended with a presentation by Wendy Mariner from Boston University School of Public Health. She stated it was not a problem with the Constitution if the federal bill received its funding from “a tax instead of a mandate” (cue the giant sucking sound). She said, “God created insurance to spread the cost.” I guess my Bible is out of date.
About the Author
Christine has a BA in Communications from Truman State University. Before becoming a psychiatric nurse she worked as a zookeeper for 13 years. While in the animal field she traveled extensively around the country presenting educational bird shows. She became passionate about politics over the past several years and is concerned about the ever increasing size and scope of government. Christine is currently serving on the steering committee for the Greater Boston Tea Party.
MA Employment Law – How To Let Your Workers Go
