Arthritis Foundation Forum
Home   
Search
Welcome Guest ( Login | Register )
  
Recent Posts
   
Popular Topics

Home » RA Connect » Rheumatoid Arthritis - (RA Connect) » Access to Health Care » HAWAII'S HEALTH SYSTEM

HAWAII'S HEALTH SYSTEM Expand / Collapse
Rate Topic
Display Mode
Topic Options
Author
Message
Joy125
Posted Friday, October 16, 2009 5:39 PM


 

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:54 PM
Posts: 2,353, Visits: 4,113
FROM NEW YORK TIMES


In Hawaii’s Health System, Lessons for Lawmakers

By GARDINER HARRIS

October 16, 2009

HONOLULU — Imee Gallardo, 24, has been scooping ice cream at a Häagen-Dazs shop at Waikiki Beach for five years, and during that time the shop has done something its counterparts on the mainland rarely do: it has paid for her health care.

Ms. Gallardo cannot imagine any other system.

“I wouldn’t get coverage on the mainland? Even if I worked? Why?” Ms. Gallardo asked in an interview.

Since 1974, Hawaii has required all employers to provide relatively generous health care benefits to any employee who works more than 20 hours a week. If health care legislation passes in Congress, the rest of the country may barely catch up.

. . . the most intriguing lesson from Hawaii has to do with costs. This is a state where regular milk sells for $8 a gallon, gasoline costs $3.60 a gallon and the median price of a home in 2008 was $624,000 — the second-highest in the nation. Despite this, Hawaii’s health insurance premiums are nearly tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country, and Medicare costs per beneficiary are the nation’s lowest.

Hawaiians live longer than people in the rest of the country, recent surveys have shown, and the state’s health care system may be one reason. . . . .

READ COMPLETE ARTICLE AT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/health/policy/17hawaii.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

________________________________________________________________________

I have learned that the greater part of our misery or unhappiness is determined not by our circumstance but by our disposition. MARTHA WASHINGTON


Post #4245892
Top
Grandpavan
Posted Friday, October 16, 2009 6:26 PM


 

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:59 PM
Posts: 4,499, Visits: 3,618
.Here's the view of some locals on this subject. I haven't studied it because it does not apply to me but it sounds like they control payments for services and thus reduce the availabiltiy of services as people leave the profession. God bless.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?7185c136-54ae-4350-a110-907161fc32ff

Age 82, diagnosed RA 12/2001, married since 1952, 4 sons no daughters, 4 grandsons 1 granddaughter.  Doing well on Methotrexate and Remicade.
Post #4245915
Top
Joy125
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:55 AM


 

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:54 PM
Posts: 2,353, Visits: 4,113

GPV,

The link you provided was to an article about the Maui Memorial Medical Center. The writer supports it its autonomy from the Hawaii Health Systems Corp. It does not speak to how Hawaiians feel about their health care system.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?7185c136-54ae-4350-a110-907161fc32ff

What I find noteworthy about Hawaii, is that since 1974, employers have been required to provide health insurance to not only full time workers, but also part time workers. So you have a large percentage of people with health insurance. Having insurance and continuous access to health care, could contribute to a healthier population when they become eligible for Medicare, and thus less spending. In Hawaii, the average spending in 2006 on a Medicare beneficiary was $5,300; the national average was $8,300; and in Florida, around $16,000.

________________________________________________________________________

I have learned that the greater part of our misery or unhappiness is determined not by our circumstance but by our disposition. MARTHA WASHINGTON


Post #4248318
Top
Grandpavan
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:05 PM


 

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:59 PM
Posts: 4,499, Visits: 3,618
Requiring employers to fund more health care insurance is a bad move when employers are struggling to maintain current payrolls. This will lead to additional layoffs and thus increase the number of people without income or health care insurance. We need to increase employment rather than decrease it. God bless.

Age 82, diagnosed RA 12/2001, married since 1952, 4 sons no daughters, 4 grandsons 1 granddaughter.  Doing well on Methotrexate and Remicade.
Post #4248512
Top
Joy125
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:29 PM


 

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:54 PM
Posts: 2,353, Visits: 4,113

As health insurance costs rise, employers pay more toward health benefits, which is not taxable, and less in salary or wage increases, that would be taxable. The result -- stagnant wages for the employee, and less revenues (loss of payroll/income taxes) for the government at a time when more people are relying on government health insurance programs. If steps are not taken toward reining in rising health care costs, not only will this continue, but more and more employers will not offer health benefits.

Small businesses that have a difficult time finding affordable health insurance would benefit from health care reform. Reform would create an exchange where employees of small businesses could shop for affordable health insurance.

If since 1974, Hawaii has had an employer mandate to provide health insurance, we should be able to figure out something that would provide access to health insurance for all workers.

________________________________________________________________________

I have learned that the greater part of our misery or unhappiness is determined not by our circumstance but by our disposition. MARTHA WASHINGTON


Post #4248711
Top
Grandpavan
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:49 PM


 

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:59 PM
Posts: 4,499, Visits: 3,618
Some of the proposals call for making health insurance costs taxable and that would decrease money available for employees. More squeezing of employers means fewer jobs. Of course the bills are not final yet. God bless.

Age 82, diagnosed RA 12/2001, married since 1952, 4 sons no daughters, 4 grandsons 1 granddaughter.  Doing well on Methotrexate and Remicade.
Post #4248889
Top
Joy125
Posted Friday, October 23, 2009 1:02 PM


 

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:54 PM
Posts: 2,353, Visits: 4,113


I'm too lazy this morning to look this up but I think it is the Senate Finance Cttee bill that would tax so-called "cadillac" plans -- but the tax would be to the insurance company. A health plan that costs over $21,000 for a family (cost to the employer and employee) would be subject to the excise tax, but it would be the amount over $21,000 that would be taxed.

This would not only be a revenue source, but a disincentive to sell or select/buy such plans, which some argue, promotes overuse of health care, driving up health care costs. An example is the story of a Microsoft employee whose employer provided health insurance paid nearly a million dollars for several infertility treatments and for a complicated pregnancy. The employee paid little of these costs. Consider these health benefits, a form of compensation, are not taxed. Consider a woman buying a nongroup or individual plan, must not only pay premiums with after taxed dollars, but in many states, is charged an additional amount for maternity coverage, in one case $400, on top of the premium amount -- that is, if she is not denied.

________________________________________________________________________

I have learned that the greater part of our misery or unhappiness is determined not by our circumstance but by our disposition. MARTHA WASHINGTON


Post #4249093
Top
Grandpavan
Posted Friday, October 23, 2009 2:09 PM


 

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:59 PM
Posts: 4,499, Visits: 3,618
As the costs to insurance companies go up the prices of policies go up so whoever buys a policy is the one who pays the price. If that is the employer then either less insurance is offered or employment costs are cut so that the employer can stay in business. Ultimately such a cost is paid for by the individual. Insurance companies and employers are in business to make a profit and unless they make one they go out of business. I've never worked anywhere that the employer was out to break even or lose money. Profits give us employment. God bless.

Age 82, diagnosed RA 12/2001, married since 1952, 4 sons no daughters, 4 grandsons 1 granddaughter.  Doing well on Methotrexate and Remicade.
Post #4249117
Top
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »


All times are GMT -5:00, Time now is 5:03pm


Execution: 0.484. 50 queries. Compression Disabled.
[  HOME |  MyPROFILE |  MyNEWS |  COMMUNITY |  RA CONNECT |  GROUPS |  FORUMS |  TAGS |  PHOTO GALLERY |  EVENTS |  INVITE |  FIND OTHERS  ]
© 2008 Arthritis Foundation.