By Laura Woodhead – Talk Radio News

Universal insurance coverage alone will not solve the health care crisis said Massachusetts Secretary of Health and Human services JudyAnn Bigby Tuesday during remarks on “The Massachusetts Model for Health Care Reform: Lessons Learned” at the Health Resources and Services Administrations Summit on the Future of Primary Care in Rural and Urban America.

“We have no illusions about how difficult this is and how long it will take,” Bigby said. “We don’t feel that simply making sure that everyone has insurance is the answer to the problem.”

Bigby stressed that while there is a lot to be learned from Massachusetts’ attempt at health care reform, passing the same reform nationally would be problematic since, as Bigby noted, reform means different things to different groups.

“Part of the difficulty with a national debate on health care reform is we don’t really all speak the same language about what reform means,” said the Secretary. “When we talk about reform in Massachusetts, we recognize that we have multiple segments within the health care regulatory system, the health care payment system and that we have to coordinate our efforts if we are going to see true reform and long lasting effects.”

The Massachusetts health care reform, which was signed into law in 2006, mandates that those that can afford to must purchase health insurance, either from a private insurer or through the state’s exchange program. In 2006, 7.4% of Massachusetts residents were uninsured which has fallen to 2.6% in 2009. Responding to a question regarding the exclusion of the state’s subsidized program from the exchange, Bigby said it allows them to better the administration of the system.

“Quite frankly we do not believe…that any program that looks like medicaid should be in the exchange,” said Bigby. “It would be, administratively, a nightmare.”

The Secretary dismissed claims that the Massachusetts health reform was costing more than was budgeted for.

“The notion that this is costing the state much more than they anticipated and much more than they budgeted for is simply not true.”

Michael Tanner, senior fellow of the Cato Institute, says people in Massachusetts who had health insurance and were happy with it are having to change their coverage because their current plan does not comply with the state’s mandates. It is just one example of the lessons he believes the federal government should take from the results of Massachusetts’ 2006 health care reforms. (0:23)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:23m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

By Courtney Ann Jackson- Talk Radio News Service

Policy analysts are taking their cue from Massachusetts’ 2006 health care reforms. Fellows from the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation discussed the results of Massachusetts’ reforms Monday, contrasting the state’s health care system with the possibility of health care reform on the national scale. All said there are lessons to be learned from the state of Massachusetts and certain problems that cannot be ignored.

Michael Tanner, senior fellow of the Cato Institute said, “Massachusetts’ biggest mistake was that they made universal coverage the loadstone of their reforms. That the whole idea of whether or not this was to be a successful reform was did they get a piece of paper into everybody’s hands that said they had health insurance. They neglected the all important issue of cost containment.”

Turner said Massachusetts could have pursued more consumer involvement and deregulated their health care system. Instead, he said they chose to go with a system that imposed government controls on the individuals, the insurers, and the providers.

Turner believes these are all issues the federal government should take into consideration and learn from Massachusetts’ mistakes.

Greg Scandlen, president and CEO at Consumers for Healthcare Choices asked, “If we reform all [U.S.] health care assistance the way Massachusetts was done, what’s going to happen with all these newly insured people coming in to see a doctor?”

Scandlen brought up the issue of accommodating such a large number of insured people. He said the rate of people going to the emergency room could rise if doctors have a difficult time providing for such large additions of insured patients.

Michael Tanner, senior fellow of the Cato Institute says, “Massachusetts’ biggest mistake was that they made universal coverage the loadstone of their reforms. That the whole idea of whether or not this was to be a successful reform was did they get a piece of paper into everybody’s hands that said they had health insurance. They neglected the all important issue of cost containment.”
Tanner believes the federal government should consider problems like this before reforming the national health care system. (0:54)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:54m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.)
Photo by Michael Ruhl

In the next 5 years, the Pakistani infrastructure will be fortified by almost $10 billion American dollars, if Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) have anything to say about it. The aptly titled Kerry-Lugar Bill will provided money for rebuilding the lives of civilians in war torn Pakistan.

Both Kerry and Lugar said that most of the money that has been funneled into Pakistan in the past few years has gone towards security. The aim of this bill is to shift the balance, to place more of an emphasis on infrastructure.

The Senators want to use the money for building schools, improving health care, building bridges, water projects, and other elements of infrastructure. Kerry said that the target projects are “things that would improve life and give people a sense of progress” to civilians.

The money would also be used for ensuring an independent media, expanding human rights and the rule of law, expanding transparency in government, rooting out political corruption and countering the drug trade.

Additionally military funding would be conditioned upon several things, including Pakistani security forces preventing al Qaeda and Taliban forces from operating in Pakistan. The military forces would not be able to interfere in politics or in the judicial process, according to the provisions of the bill.

The legislation bill would give $1.5 billion each year from FY 2009-2013, and would recommend similar amounts of money over the subsequent five years. There would be required benchmarks to measuring how effective the funding is, and the President will have to submit semi-annual reports to Congress about progress made.

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

“We all have an inherent right to self defense in international waters,” according to Senator Jim Webb (D-VA). This remark came out of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that saw testimony from Richard Phillips, Captain of the Maersk Alabama. Phillips received international media attention several weeks ago while being held hostage by pirates off of the coast of Somalia.

Both the Senators and the witnesses acknowledged that Piracy off of the coast of Somalia has been on the rise recently. Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said that America’s “ability to project naval power and to help ensure the free passage of goods and humanitarian aid is as important as ever.”

Phillips acknowledged that more needs to be done to secure vessels of the merchant marine, specifically arming the crew.

“In my opinion, arming the crew cannot and should not be viewed as the best or ultimate solution to the problem. At most, arming the crew should only be one component of a comprehensive plan and approach to combat piracy,” he said.

The comprehensive approach the committee discussed could include increased U.S. Navy presence in the most dangerous areas, the creation of a protected corridor that civilian ships can travel within, the rooting out of pirates in their land based sanctuaries and the “hardening” of ships, to make the ships structurally more resistant to pirates. “Hardening” measures include razor wire on railings, fire hoses to repel the pirates, and unbolting ladders that lead onto the boat. Phillips does not believe this will stop the pirates, but rather, that they will find a way to adapt.

Maersk Chaiman John Clancey, also present at the hearing, does not believe that arming the crews is a good idea.

“Our belief is that arming merchant sailors may result in the acquisition of even more lethal weapons and tactics by the pirates, a race that merchant sailors cannot win. In addition, most ports of call will not permit the introduction of forearms into their national waters,” Clancey said.

Clancey also posed that greater liability may be assumed by the companies if sailors are traveling with weapons. Neither Chairman Kerry nor Phillips felt that this argument was strong, because of the intense amount of training that mariners go through already. Kerry, a former member of the U.S. Navy, feels that the benefits outweigh the risks, and that multinational agreements can be reached to work out the issue of bringing weapons into port.

Richard Phillips is scheduled to testify next week before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

by Christina Lovato, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

This afternoon Speaker Pelosi along with Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-CA), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), released a draft of comprehensive energy legislation, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Pelosi says that the U.S. must be first with the establishment of this legislation. (00:48)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

by Christina Lovato, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

Today at a discussion titled, “The Implications of the G-20 Summit for the Political Sovereignty and Economic Freedom of the United States,” J.D. Foster, a senior fellow in the economics of fiscal policy at the Thomas Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies of the Heritage Foundation, spoke about the upcoming G-20 summit in April and how France’s President, Nicolas Sarkozy is suggesting that Europe take the lead of the country and the United States follow. Foster said that Barney Frank (D-Mass.) would not allow that to happen. (01:09)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

by Suzia van Swol and Candyce Torres, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service
After the President’s Address to Congress, Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) says that he thinks it is possible to cut the deficit in half if, “you stop this cold war defense weapons spending, and you curtail very expensive sending people to Mars, you cut back on excessive agriculture spending as he said, and you let taxes on the wealthiest people go back to where they were under Bill Clinton when the economy prospered, that you can do this.” (0:29)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Shelly Maxwell interviews Massachusetts Senator Marc Pacheco and talks about the U.S. economic situation and how it is a major crisis. Senator Pacheco talks about a need for better representation of the U.S. and why he feels America’s image is a little tarnished. (29:05)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download