34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
News
McGovern: Health care reform will help small businesses
 U.S. Rep James McGovern speaks to the Untied Regional Chamber of Commerce Monday morning at Highland Country Club in Attleboro. (Staff photo by Martin Gavin)
Top Headlines McGovern, D-Worcester, said the steady increase in the cost of health care is making it too expensive for smaller companies. Premiums have increased 129 percent for small businesses since 2000, he said, and projections are that the cost will continue to rise. Health care spending currently represents 17 percent of the gross domestic product. It has been estimated that will increase to 50 percent by 2080, he said. "The status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable," he said. McGovern said small businesses are hurt most by the increases because they cannot get the lower insurance rates that large corporations enjoy. "Small business in particular should want to see health care reform," he said. His comments came at a breakfast meeting of the chamber held at Highland Country Club. The address was part of a tour of the district that included stops in North Attleboro, Attleboro and South Attleboro. One businessman in the audience, John Migliaccio, who runs a weightloss clinic in Plainville, said one way of controlling health care costs is to give businesses a tax incentive to offer weightloss, exercise and smoking cessation programs to employees. McGovern said he is co-sponsoring legislation that would offer the incentives and he hopes it is incorporated into the larger health care reform bill. State Rep. Jay Barrows, D-Mansfield, who owns an insurance agency, said business costs could be lowered if businesses were allowed to offer health care plans with large deductibles, such as $5,000. The state of Massachusetts caps deductibles at $2,000, which drives up premiums, he said. McGovern said he favors controlling costs by having a "public option." The public option is a health insurance plan offered by the federal government, similar to Medicare. McGovern said the option would compete with private companies, providing an incentive for insurance companies to hold down administrative costs. He said no one would be forced into a government option. "If you like what you have now, you can keep it," he said. Later, McGovern declined to say if he would vote for a bill that did not include a public option. "I'm not drawing any lines in the sand," he said. McGovern said Congress has been mulling health care reform since the days of President Franklin Roosevelt and now is the the time to finally act on it. There are three bills pending in the House and two in the Senate. The bills have to be rolled into one and an initial vote could come within weeks, he said. McGovern said he wants a bill that covers almost everyone, holds down costs and puts an emphasis on preventive care. But, another businessman, Paul Cochrane, expressed skepticism that the government can come up with a bill that will accomplish what it intends. "Congress as a whole has not been able to get anything right," he said.
View Comments » 103 comment(s)
« Hide Comments
|
s-plumb wrote on Nov 12, 2009 4:18 PM:
http://thesunchronicle.ning.com/forum/topics/health-care-view-the-bill-the "
s-plumb wrote on Nov 12, 2009 3:26 PM:
ricknkim wrote on Nov 12, 2009 2:23 PM:
luiesmom wrote on Nov 11, 2009 10:13 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Nov 11, 2009 12:23 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Nov 11, 2009 11:34 AM:
Next time READ THE BILL! Or...just care about people, and their liberties! "
s-plumb wrote on Nov 11, 2009 10:24 AM:
I can just see the prison yard now...that guy is in for murder, and those 2 are in for armed robbery...what are you in for buddy?
I didn't buy health insurance.
Thanks Jim! "
s-plumb wrote on Nov 4, 2009 10:59 AM:
VladsBack!! wrote on Nov 4, 2009 10:11 AM:
# # # "
s-plumb wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:30 AM:
s-plumb wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:16 AM:
I never even mentioned congress with regards to the FCC, who has oversight of the Internet.
The problem with health care is the gov't. How do you think the ins. companies got protected? There is no competition across state lines because of gov't regulation. That is NOT capitalism.
A more capitalist president than Hoover...certainly Washington, Jefferson, Reagan, and to a lesser degree, JFK. "
VladsBack!! wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:42 AM:
Your adoring fans expect it :)
Or maybe you can't answer them because you are too stupid? That's a possibility.
BTW, Congress does have a say in the actions of the FCC, fool. "
s-plumb wrote on Nov 3, 2009 6:32 PM:
I've already explained, in simple termsfor you, what capitalism is.
Marsha has no say in the actions the FCC takes.
Your statement was: "Fortunately, the FCC does not regulate the "internets," but whatever..."
Now you know they do. "
VladsBack!! wrote on Nov 3, 2009 5:38 PM:
Marsha, Marsha, Marsha... "
VladsBack!! wrote on Nov 3, 2009 5:31 PM:
s-p, your argument is that capitalism will correct all economic problems without any government interference, right or wrong?
If the guv'mnt stops injecting money (G)into the economy tomorrow, or, as Hoover did, withdraws money from the economy, then things would improve, right or wrong?
How?
If private capital would turn the economy around, why hasn't it done so? They have had huge tax cuts and deregulation under Bush, so why is there 10%+ unemployment?
How does guv'mnt injecting money into the economy prevent private capital from doing the same?
If capitalism is, as you say, a company or individual providing goods or services to consumers based on profit and competition (supply and demand) then what do you call the protected market system enjoyed by the private health insurers?
If you consider Hoover to have been a socialist, then what president do you consider a capitalist? "
ricknkim wrote on Nov 3, 2009 12:50 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Nov 3, 2009 12:11 PM:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/172371/fccs_net_neutrality_plan_draws_fast_fire.html "
s-plumb wrote on Nov 3, 2009 11:26 AM:
http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativeopinion/2007/02/22/how-fdr-destroyed-the-dollar/
We should learn from history, not intentionally repeat mistakes. We're still paying for the mistakes of the New Deal.
BTW,The FCC DOES regulate the Internet & will be clamping down even more. No more "making free money scams", but no free speech either:
http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativeopinion/2007/02/22/how-fdr-destroyed-the-dollar/
I honestly have no idea what you are aking in the post from yesterday. You continue to express frustration regarding the primary subjected of failed health care reform. I don't blame you, but don't shoot the messenger. "
VladsBack!! wrote on Nov 3, 2009 10:38 AM:
What was the rate of inflation resulting from the New Deal?
You know exactly what I'm asking in items 2 and 3, you evasive little twit.
Fortunately, the FCC does not regulate the "internets," but whatever... "
s-plumb wrote on Nov 3, 2009 8:24 AM:
I do understand your frustration with the lastest version of the bill. As scored by the CBO, it will cost $1.2 Trillion, yet only 2% of the population will be "eligible". Most likely it leaves you out.
The correct term is tea party participant, not the degrading expression 1st coined by the daily KOS, & other SOROS funded groups, meant to stiffle debate.
1) Inflation like you've never seen?
2) Have no clue what you are asking?
3) Again...What are you asking?
Even though not personally offended, others have been fined by the FCC for less. "
VladsBack!! wrote on Nov 2, 2009 10:45 PM:
2, So, business isn't doing what it claims that it does best because of taxes and regulation? And after 8 years of Bush tax cuts and deregulation we are - in a ditch.
So is business being mean and vindictive because they have to deal with some taxation and regulation?
3. I'm talking about their cartel status
(see your response to 4)
You have a filthy mind "
celt wrote on Nov 2, 2009 7:48 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Nov 2, 2009 6:39 PM:
celt wrote on Nov 2, 2009 4:43 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Nov 2, 2009 4:25 PM:
celt wrote on Nov 2, 2009 4:15 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Nov 1, 2009 5:03 PM:
I'm actually glad that your tactics are so obvious to all. "
celt wrote on Nov 1, 2009 11:40 AM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 31, 2009 4:55 PM:
A: Not compared to what's coming.
Q. Where are all your capitalist buddies and why aren't they hiring people, hmm?
A: gov't interference, taxes and over regulation
And how does the health insurance cartel square with your definition of capitalism?
Ans: If your talking about prices...again regulation (ie mandated coverage & stiffling competition)
What is your definition of capitalism?
Ans: Company or individual providing goods and services to consumers based on profit & competition (supply & demand).
As for your last comment you brought up the sick term, and know exactly what insults you are hurling at over 1/2 the country to silence debate. It's unnacceptable. "
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 31, 2009 2:14 PM:
Where are all your capitalist buddies and why aren't they hiring people, hmm?
And how does the health insurance cartel square with your definition of capitalism?
What is your definition of capitalism?
So many questions, and no answers forthcoming. Probably because you have a pornographic mind, s-p. "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 31, 2009 1:08 PM:
Don't ever let others shout you down, or distract you from the issues. "
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 31, 2009 11:55 AM:
Honestly, s-p, are you challenged in some way? "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 31, 2009 11:26 AM:
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 31, 2009 11:20 AM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 31, 2009 11:05 AM:
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 31, 2009 10:38 AM:
But what do you expect from a LaRouche believer like s-p?
Just T-Baggin' with his brain turned off,
oh yeah. "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 31, 2009 10:06 AM:
However, we (the majority of Americans) disagree that it is the right approach. "
celt wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:40 AM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 30, 2009 1:15 PM:
So which is it? The only consistency is your overt expression of frustration. You appear to have no real opinion. "
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 30, 2009 12:21 PM:
You are the one claiming that government run health care would not be capitalism.
You are the one insuating that anyone supporting a government run option is anti-capitalist.
In short, it's your usual bullsh$t, s-p.
You really ought to read through these posts to see how ridiculous you sound. "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 30, 2009 11:50 AM:
Why build a straw man just to abandon the point? "
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 30, 2009 9:49 AM:
Instead, you are evasive and irrational. So far, you are nothing but a waste of time. "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 30, 2009 9:09 AM:
You just made the false arguments mute.
Back to the original thought process. Why would anyone who believes in capitalism, accept a non-capitalist approach? "
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 30, 2009 9:01 AM:
Now let's see what incoherent reasoning you come back with. Funny stuff! "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 30, 2009 5:12 AM:
celt wrote on Oct 29, 2009 6:45 PM:
So according to you, S-P, a person can be a capitalist (i.e., pro-capitalism) although they "totally bought into an anti-capitalist approach." And that is because, in order to be an anti-capitalist, one must "develop the approach." (Whatever that means.) And that makes sense to you?
I assume this logic applies to other areas and (for instance) someone can be a Christian although they "totally bought into atheism" because they have not "developed the approach."
As they used to say on Laugh In, "Interesting... but stupid. "
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 29, 2009 3:33 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 29, 2009 2:32 PM:
I've also stated that I don't understand your thought process or "logic".
Why would anyone freely give up all opportunities allowed under a free market system for this farce? "
celt wrote on Oct 29, 2009 2:20 PM:
Oh Boy. You really are something. What logic! "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 29, 2009 2:13 PM:
Again, you've misinterpreted my comments.
Most thinking people understand that:
Belief in a false promise is much different than making the false promise yourself. "
celt wrote on Oct 29, 2009 1:38 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 29, 2009 1:21 PM:
If business is not for profit why bother. You could always pursue your interests as a hobby. I just don't understand your willingness to byuy into this anti-capitalist approach. "
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 29, 2009 1:11 PM:
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 29, 2009 1:08 PM:
celt wrote on Oct 29, 2009 1:07 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 29, 2009 12:42 PM:
celt wrote on Oct 29, 2009 11:13 AM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 29, 2009 10:28 AM:
It's a little different for the public at large, because 0bama hasn't yet pointed to them, and called them out by name. He has however, called out small businesses as being greedy and self serving.
Aren't you the least bit concerned with the accusations that he and others in the administration say about your evil profits in an effort to promote the govt take-over of health care? They appear to wish failure upon us all, and you are in the cross hairs.
Its scary, and its sad. "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:14 AM:
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:09 AM:
"Your interpretation of my writing is 1/2 write...it may be muddled, but that is more due to the fact that I'm concentrating on other things, while attempting to explain real life to someone who has totally bought into an anti-capitalist approach."
I would say you are being intellectually dishonest here, but you have no intellect. You are just full of crap. "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 28, 2009 6:57 PM:
celt wrote on Oct 28, 2009 5:42 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 28, 2009 3:39 PM:
Im sure youve heard of the drastically lower cost of elective surgeries (lasic, cosmetic, etc) that are not covered by health insurance. If they were covered by any companies, no individual could afford them. "
celt wrote on Oct 28, 2009 3:20 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 28, 2009 2:31 PM:
Heck, they only took a few dollars from us each pay period, and we could have health care without understanding the true cost (wed never pay $40/Tylenol). This was the initial perversion of the system.
Then the commonwealth placed restrictions on which companies we could purchase coverage from, as well as dictating what the level of coverage had to be. This placed more upward pressure on costs. Simple enough?
Wait until the gov't takes it over...ask your dr if he or she will be able to afford the lower payments; ask the hospitals the same question.
There are many more unintended consequences, but neither you nor I are likely to grasp them. Thats why theyll referred to as unintended consequences. "
celt wrote on Oct 28, 2009 1:22 PM:
And you never made the point about checkups being a God-given right so how could I have missed it?
Please explain why we would not need health insurance and how the system was perverted. (If that was your point? Who knows?)
Your postings are muddled and confused. You seem to be unhappy about health insurance but I am not sure what point you are trying to make. "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 28, 2009 1:00 PM:
I can...the poster (me) left out the word "need", Translation: Can anyone translate this? "...we wouldn't need insurance if the system hadn't been perverted..."
Of course you knew the meaning, but didnt wish to debate anything substinative. Another wasted post "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 28, 2009 12:18 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 28, 2009 12:14 PM:
celt wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:46 AM:
Can anyone translate this? "we wouldn't insurance if the system hadn't been perverted." "
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:42 AM:
You are either some kind of "consultant" or living off a trust fund because you certainly couldn't work with anyone, let alone be an actual employer. You are a lunatic, but we are glad you are here for the entertainment value.. "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 28, 2009 10:25 AM:
The bail-outs, take-overs, & stimulus, all created more problems than we had. Why would anyone think this is different?
Growing up, we never saw Dr's unless we were sick until it was mandated by the rules set forth by HMO coverage.
As gimmesum points out, we wouldn't insurance if the system hadn't been perverted.
We need less not more. To re-state, we already have $74 Trillion in unfunded debt for just Medicare. Why increase the this number by at least an order of magnitude, while at the same time the administration is breaking the free market system, and lowering the tax base? "
gimmesum wrote on Oct 28, 2009 6:44 AM:
There was a very enlightening program on NPR within the last couple of weeks.
The way the story goes is insurance companies recognized an opportunity during WWII and crafted a group health insurance system. Government wage and price controls basically gave birth to the benefit packages we see today.
I guess now the government recognizes the same opportunity. As Rahm "dead fish" Emmanuel always says "never let a good crisis go to waste". "
celt wrote on Oct 28, 2009 6:10 AM:
Anna D wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:31 PM:
Anna D wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:28 PM:
celt wrote on Oct 27, 2009 7:16 PM:
Our system of paying for health care is the most inefficient one on the planet. There are less expensive ways of paying for health care as demonstrated by most of the other developed countries. Why don't you peel yourself away from the SC site and take a look. Try Google to start. Listen and read for a change instead of posting nonsense. "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 27, 2009 7:04 PM:
Where will revenue come from to keep hospitals or administrative offices open?
Do you really think money grows on trees? "
celt wrote on Oct 27, 2009 6:37 PM:
celt wrote on Oct 27, 2009 6:26 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:56 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:54 PM:
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:51 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:49 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:38 PM:
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:30 PM:
After all your blubbering about "unconstitutional takeovers" and Marxist democrats, this is the first time you even acknowledged that the insurance companies enjoy market protection, do you realize that spoop-dog?
We'll make a progressive out of you yet! "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:03 PM:
By rights this should have been done years ago, to help open competition among insurance companies, but the govt interfered on behalf of the lobbyists. Its a good thing that lobbyists are not allowed in 0bamas WH. Then again youd know this if you read the real news, instead of the kos, and media matters. "
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 27, 2009 2:57 PM:
As a result of this exemption, states have seen markets for health insurance where one or two companies predominate. In the state of Maine, Wellpoint controls 71% of the market. In North Dakota, Blue Cross controls 90%. Using the Herfindahl/Hirschman Index, a metric for market concentration, a 2007 study by the AMA found almost every health insurance market in the United States is highly concentrated."
Sounds to me like the insurers don't want to compete. Removing the exemption would force them to. The result might be more, but smaller, companies...maybe. "
hardhearted wrote on Oct 27, 2009 2:02 PM:
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:44 PM:
skeptic wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:12 PM:
hardhearted wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:06 PM:
Will doctors be required to take on new patients? You see I'm still confused about whether we are talking health care reform or health insurance reform. "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 27, 2009 12:41 PM:
VladsBack!! wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:57 AM:
1333 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:49 AM:
realist wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:36 AM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:16 AM:
We are already approching a debt of $74 trillion in medicare alone.
There are only 3 individuals putting the bill together, and only 2 of the bills are to be scored by the CBO in the near future.
Why not approach whatever issues there are logically: 1)What are the problems, 2)What are the causes, 3)From this point we can begin looking at what actions the private sector can take address the specific problems.
Only then can congress be tasked with eliminating anything in their way. "
anavoter wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:00 AM:
What does Jim Mcgovern know about small business? What does he know about big business? He has never had a real job in the private sector in his life.
This healthcare bill is NOT good for those who have healthcare insurance through thier current employer or as a retiree. IT will result in a move to a single payer govenement run healthcare system that will be more inefficient and more costly.
Our government taxes too much and spends too much on everything. People like McGovern are driving our country in to bankruptcy.
Just look how poorly they are handling the Stimmulus Plan. How is it working for the average taxpayer? It has not produced private sector jobs but has increased government employees and debt that our children and grandchildren will be burdened with. "
konker wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:47 AM:
www.aha.org/aha/content/2008/pd/08-uncompensated-care.pdf
We shouldnt be surprised that Congress is trying to solve a 35 billion dollar problem with a trillion dollar solution.
To knock down the uncompensated care costs at hospitals, they should establish minute clinics staffed by nurse practitioners next to the ERs. The ERs should be treating heart attacks, broken bones, strokes, etc. Those who show up with sore throats, runny noses, ear aches etc. should be sent next door. The system has to address those who repeatedly show up at ERs with minor health issues.
The Administration should immediately implement the provisions they speak of to save billions of dollars by eliminating the fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid. The "60 Minutes" show on health care waste was an eye opener.
Oh, and by the way. Those who do not pay taxes, and will not be penalized, will still not buy the public option health insurance and they will still show up at the ERs. Boston Medical Center the primary safety net hospital for the poor in Boston is losing money and laying off staff.. Ironically, hospital officials blame the downturn partly on changes ushered in with the states groundbreaking mandatory health insurance law ... Once universal health care was implemented the state cut the reimbursement rates.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/12/boston_medical_center_forecasts_first_loss_in_five_years/ "
s-plumb wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:12 AM:
Get out of our health care system. "
kevin h. wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:11 AM:
Wait until Obamacare.
Think those government hires are excellent, qualified workers, just like at the turnpike? Wait till government selects one to operate on your childs eye.
It's just more slow, incompetent, overpriced McGovernment. "
ken wrote on Oct 27, 2009 6:40 AM:
s-plumb wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:52 AM:
It's time for Rep McGovern to step down. "