I suppose President Obama is still running around telling everyone who will listen, along with anyone else who won't, that "If you like your doctors and medical providers, you can keep them."
It would also not surprise me to learn that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is still singing the praises of CommonwealthCare, the state-run system conservatives also deride as RomneyCare, so named after Mitt Romney, Patrick's allegedly Republican predecessor who brought it into being. Patrick even wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed column several weeks ago that called CommonwealthCare a "model for national reform."
As an apparently pivotal Senate committee vote on imposing statist health care on the entire country looms, the Boston Globe's Liz Kowalczyk has inconveniently reminded statists (HT Hot Air) that the alleged wonders of the Bay State's care regimen are instead leading it inexorably into serious rationing, and to a direct contradiction of Obama's and Patrick's core claims. Currently on the horizon are serious limitations on choice of care providers and annual capitated payments to those providers. Kowalczyk would probably protest that she never uses the word "rationing," but it really doesn't matter. Anyone with even a modicum of sense will recognize these moves for what they are.
Here are some of the key paragraphs in Kowalczyk's Sunday report:
The state’s ambitious plan to shake up how providers are paid could have a hidden price for patients: Controlling Massachusetts’ soaring medical costs, many health care leaders believe, may require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any hospital and specialist they want.
.... a growing number of hospital officials and physician lead ers warn that the new payment system proposed by a state commission would not work without restrictions on where patients receive care - an issue some providers say the commission and the Patrick administration have glossed over.
“You can’t reap these savings without limiting patients’ choices in some way,’’ said Paul Levy, chief executive of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “It’s a huge issue, it’s huge." Dr. James Mongan, president of Partners HealthCare, a Beth Israel Deaconess competitor, agreed that it wouldn’t “work without some restriction on choice."
A state commission recommended in July that insurers largely scrap the current fee-for-service system - in which insurers pay doctors, hospitals, and other providers a negotiated fee for each procedure and visit - and instead pay providers a per-patient annual fee to cover all of the patient’s medical care.
.... The Massachusetts proposal would involve a more ambitious restructuring of health care than any of the cost-cutting ideas being discussed in Washington. Under a global payment system, doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers would form large networks, called accountable care organizations, that would provide most of the care for individual patients and divvy up the payments. Doctors would try to coordinate patients’ care within these networks, which would share electronic medical records and treatment plans. And to manage costs, they would try to direct patients to the hospital within the network that could provide good-quality care at the lowest cost, while generally using teaching hospitals for advanced care.
.... Sarah Iselin, head of the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy and cochair of the payment commission, said the (commission) panel understood the importance of addressing the effect of its recommendations on patient choice, but “felt these issues could be figured out" later by a board that would be created to oversee the transition to a new payment system.
Well, if CommonwealthCare is indeed the model, then its imminent rationing should also be seen as a preview of things to come nationwide, regardless of the pie-in-the-sky contraptions Congress is attempting to cobble together. When theses messes meet reality, they invariably lead to rationing accompanied by a shocking degree of bureaucratic control over the minutiae of medicine.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air adds this question:
This is a microcosm of what we can expect on a national basis if ObamaCare gets enacted. Will the media start reporting this in that context?
When indeed?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Yet another reason to oppose Romney the Rino
October 12, 2009 - 23:46 ET by R D HelmSorry, but no one pointed a gun to his head and forced him to sign the bill.
He could have reached for the veto pen, but RINOs never seem to make it into orifice with one that actually works.
Just ask George W. Bush.
-Dave
Sadly,
October 13, 2009 - 00:03 ET by Tom BlumerRomney considers it his crowning achievement, and is still out there defending it with cooked numbers supposedly showing that costs haven't increase that much.
Tell that to MA taxpayers and government budget people.
He nomination would probably ensure Obama's re-election, which is why you see the establishment media acting so deferentially towards him -- for now. They'll turn on him and his hypocrisy really fast -- and unfortunately if it gets to that point he'll deserve every bit of it.
The media have learned a
October 13, 2009 - 00:57 ET by NL207The media have learned a great deal from their past mistakes.
The Fourth Estate has learned that influencing who the Republicans nominate is every bit as important as backing their man in the Democrat camp. A RINO will never defeat their man with their backing.
Re Romney
October 13, 2009 - 10:40 ET by slickwillie2001Agreed, Romneycare and Romney's subsequent positions should end all hope Romney might have had in 2012.
He could have actually used this to his benefit. He could have said that from this venture he learned why government healthcare doesn't work. He could have come out as the main Republican critic of Obamacare based on his experience. He could have sold the concept that no matter how well-intentioned a Republican social program might be, once democratics are in control of it, it will fail. He could have shown that he can learn from mistakes, a quality voters appreciate in a politician. Instead he stubbornly clings to his old program. This was a huge positive opportunity for Romney and he absolutely blew it.
That is the single dumbest idea ever proposed
October 13, 2009 - 00:43 ET by richb313The idea that you pay the healthcare providers an annual fee ahead of time and then trust them to provide expensive healthcare is STUPID. Where is the insentive to run expensive tests or procedures when the outcome is not garunteed? The costs of running these institutions will not lessen but the available capital will be fixed. This is like paying a contarctor before any work is done. With a contractor at least you have the option of suing for non-perfromance (hard to do when you are dead).
These guys are utopians and have no concept of the way things really work. The plan is already bad in the Mass. but the proposed remedy might control costs but will lead, just as Night follows Day, to the worse healthcare in the nation. Hospitals will have to budget for the entire year and when the money runs low a lot of people will suffer.
True compition is the only mechanism that has been proven to lower costs and at the same time improve quality. There is no real compitition in Health Care today due to all the Govt. Interfernce that already exits but setting the operating costs ahead of time can only lead to less coverage not more, less quality not better, and less access because too many Health Care facilities will go out of business.
You're right richb313.
October 13, 2009 - 01:30 ET by jdhawkYou're right richb313. Just ask Native Americans on this nation's reservations. They have a motto, "don't get sick after June." Why? Because the federal government has a similar program as that proposed by the dimocrats in MA. As sure as the sun comes up every day, the money for health care on Indian reservations runs out in June. But, conditions go beyond just money. It is a national disgrace.
Here is a link to an article that explains it: http://votingfemale.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/obama-health-care-a-native-american-warning-the-tashon-story/
There is no excuse
October 13, 2009 - 05:32 ET by richb313There is no excuse and continues to be no excuse for the way the Federal Govt has treated and continues to treat our Native American Population. One broken promise after another. It is really sad and tragic. Yet the Native Americans continue to be some of the most patriotic of all us Americans. As a Southerner, who has been constantly maligned, I only have the most microscopic understanding of how you must feel.
Its simple. If food
October 13, 2009 - 01:00 ET by MrSnugglesIts simple. If food suddenly became a "right" provided by government, people would not stop going to the local food depot at every opportunity. THERE WOULD BE NO FOOD LEFT.
Just like when a doctors visit is free, everyone will go at every opportunity even if it is for a hangnail.
Why do liberals not understand this? Or do they understand it and just lie that rationing wont happen when they know very well that it will? I suspect they are lying...
MrS, when we talked about
October 13, 2009 - 06:37 ET by motherbeltMrS, when we talked about that before, I linked to this old article which predicts what would happen:
Single-Payer Food
I also found this more recent dissertation on the subject:
Single-Payer Groceries, Anyone?
I think the first article was originally published either on Lew Rockwell's site, or WorldNetDaily.
Allow me to focus and
October 13, 2009 - 02:04 ET by Indiana JoeAllow me to focus and dissemble on the quote from President Obama: "If you like your doctors and medical providers, you can keep them."
Ahem... BULL-SHOOT!!!
I have employer-provided health-care, pretty good care too, BC/BS. Already they require that, if your spouse is offered coverage through her work, she must buy it. And they reimburse us an arbitrary $30/month of that cost. If you remember to file for it. You have to go to an isolated office building just to get the forms, and wait months for the (partial) reimbursement.
If any form of "public option" becomes available, it is no stretch to believe that my employer will require that we take it, while possibly providing a symbolic "offsetting amount" similar to the spousal rebate.
So, no, President Obama, you can't personally guarantee that my employer will not deny me access to my current physician(s) and level of care. When you say you can... YOU LIE!
"Four legs good... two legs better!" - George Orwell
does it really matter?
October 13, 2009 - 02:27 ET by konoThe damned Commies, oops - I mean 'Democrats', can ram the bill down our throats whether we like it or not, whether it solves any problems or not, whether it bankrupts the nation or not, whether they're honest about what's in it or not, and whether it's even moral or not.
"I, for one, welcome our new ant overlords..."
Yeah, I think it matters... to THEM
October 13, 2009 - 02:33 ET by Indiana JoeIf the Dems pass this through sheer numbers, straight party-line vote, then they own it. That's why they've been scrambling to get even one or two Reps on board, such as Snowe and a couple other RINOs whose names escape me at the moment.
That way, if it (snicker) actually succeeds, they can take the credit.
If it fails, it was a "bi-partisan" measure.
I think that's why it matters to them.
"Four legs good... two legs better!" - George Orwell
Indiana Joe is right
October 13, 2009 - 05:34 ET by richb313It is all about Political Cover.
One owner
October 13, 2009 - 07:08 ET by KC BeachObama has already said that he owns the healthcare bill. The problem is you won't be able to sue the owner when it fails and the way he is going through his stash of Obamamoney there won't be any left for me to get a refund.
Who cares who "owns" this peice of stool, we will all be swirling in the same bowl.
now there's an image!
October 13, 2009 - 08:21 ET by jon_torlinGee, and I just finished my bagel this morning.
Naw, that was pretty funny, I like that.
-Jon
I live in MA. Romney Care
October 13, 2009 - 09:16 ET by Six String SpiffI live in MA. Romney Care has been nothing but an absolute waste of time and money. When I moved, I had to settle for a doctor I DIDN'T WANT, and do you know why? Ever since socialized hC care passed up here in MA, everyone gets a PCP now. I have good health insurance, why should I settle for a doctor that wasn't my first, second, or third choice?
anyone who lives up here with me knows what I'm talking about. MA is a microcosm of Government run HC.
Oh and don't even get me STARTED on these retards doing something as simple getting my wife and I our insurance cards...
another microcosm
October 13, 2009 - 13:18 ET by katainkentwould be military retiree tricare. We've been 'punted' from our doctor twice in the last two years. Just this month our two younger children got 'punted' to another doctor. Picking an orthodontist for our son has been rediculous. First dr's are on the plan, then a week later, they're not. I've been through 3 selections, meanwhile we've been saving for the largest amount we can think necessary for paying for full care because I am not driving 30 miles to have weekly ortho appointments. Tricares' 'allowable cost' for medical and dental is so small that no one wants to do business with them.
____________________________________________
The Emperor, he has no clothes
This Is Why Romney Won't Be A Serious Challenger 2 Palin In 2012
October 13, 2009 - 10:35 ET by John Galt1776Come to think of it Palin won't have any serious challengers in the 2012 Primaries
The same was thought about McCain
October 13, 2009 - 13:10 ET by jon_torlinI thought that there would have been NO way McCain would have been selected during the primaries out of the others running after his defeat by Bush in 2000. I still remember how Michael Reagan hung up on him during a radio interview.
8 years later......*sigh*
At least Palin's not working for Congress, we need leaders, not politicians.
-Jon