This entry was posted
on Wednesday, July 8th, 2009 at 7:17 am and is filed under politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
What was the wait time in Massachussets before they implemented their current mandate plan? If close to the same, the conclusion here is false. All you’ve proven then is that paying more for insurance doesn’t necessarily get you better (actually quicker) care.
I really don’t know. I can tell you that when I lived in Boston and was caught in the clutches of the Evil Harvard HMO (no affiliation with the college, street, avenue, way, lane, bar, or t-shirt store of the same name), my average wait was a couple of days for routine services. Urgent care (I never needed emergency care) was on a walk-in basis and my one visit took about an hour, total.
But you can probably find out using this thing called Google. There’s a Bing thing, too.
And I haven’t actually “proven” anything. At all. But – to your point – why would I want to pay three times more for worse (or slower) care? Or even the same level of care?
That would be stupid, wouldn’t it?
But be a good comrade and report this fishy stuff to http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck. You get a free miniature Obama organic arugula-flavored candy boot to lick.
I found your video entertaining. I just felt the need to point out that a false connection was being made with Massachussets’ recent insurance reform.
Instances can definitely be found all over the nation proving that regions with more expensive care often have no better (and sometimes worse) health outcomes than regions with less expensive care.
It’s a huge part of the current debate, IMHO. It points to the fact that there are great inefficiencies in the system, but it is controversial how to fix them, and whether the fixes would actually work.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Hilarious!
What was the wait time in Massachussets before they implemented their current mandate plan? If close to the same, the conclusion here is false. All you’ve proven then is that paying more for insurance doesn’t necessarily get you better (actually quicker) care.
Dale:
I really don’t know. I can tell you that when I lived in Boston and was caught in the clutches of the Evil Harvard HMO (no affiliation with the college, street, avenue, way, lane, bar, or t-shirt store of the same name), my average wait was a couple of days for routine services. Urgent care (I never needed emergency care) was on a walk-in basis and my one visit took about an hour, total.
But you can probably find out using this thing called Google. There’s a Bing thing, too.
And I haven’t actually “proven” anything. At all. But – to your point – why would I want to pay three times more for worse (or slower) care? Or even the same level of care?
That would be stupid, wouldn’t it?
But be a good comrade and report this fishy stuff to http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck. You get a free miniature Obama organic arugula-flavored candy boot to lick.
I found your video entertaining. I just felt the need to point out that a false connection was being made with Massachussets’ recent insurance reform.
Instances can definitely be found all over the nation proving that regions with more expensive care often have no better (and sometimes worse) health outcomes than regions with less expensive care.
It’s a huge part of the current debate, IMHO. It points to the fact that there are great inefficiencies in the system, but it is controversial how to fix them, and whether the fixes would actually work.