Source: Families USA, Publication no. 07-103, April 2007
In 2005, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen made the largest cuts in health coverage in our nation’s history. Thousands upon thousands of people were dropped from TennCare, the state’s innovative Medicaid program. Others who remained in the program had their benefits slashed. It was obvious that these drastic cuts would cause enormous harm. The governor, however, dismissed these concerns and moved forward with his plan.
Governor Bredesen not only touted his plan within Tennessee, but he also recommended that other states make similar changes. At the time he was promoting Medicaid cuts, many states were facing budget crunches and looking for ways to cut costs. The TennCare cuts became a potential forerunner of what could happen to health coverage programs across the country.
Against this backdrop, it is instructive to look beyond the numbers and see what has happened to the real people affected by the TennCare cuts—that is what this book is designed to do.
Source: Betty Joyce Nash, Region Focus, Vol. 11 no. 1, Winter 2007
Health care markets have a host of fundamental economic problems. Fixing Medicare will require facing those problems head on.
Source: Marilyn Werber Serafini, National Journal, Vol. 39 no. 11, March 17, 2007
The ink was barely dry on then-Gov. Mitt Romney’s bold new plan to achieve nearly universal health coverage for Massachusetts residents when Vermont Gov. James H. Douglas signed similar legislation into law last year. “We have a goal of 96 percent coverage within the next three years, and I think we can do that,” Douglas recently boasted to National Journal. “We’re going to be quite aggressive with enrollment.”
Other state officials had been closely watching this pair of Republican governors as they steered away from the safe political path to push plans requiring employers to either offer their employees health insurance or pay a compensating fee to the state. The Massachusetts Legislature went a controversial step further when it decided to require all residents to certify on their state income tax forms that they had health insurance — or face a penalty. Before Massachusetts and Vermont took the plunge, most politicians had spoken only in muffled tones about health care mandates, fearful of a backlash from constituents — voting constituents.
Source: Rachel Degolia, Perspectives on Work, Summer 2006, Volume 10, no. 2
The Massachusetts health reforms approved in April 2006 are indicative of a larger trend among states, in the absence of federal action, states—on the front lines of dealing with the nation’s health care crisis—have begun to take the lead on comprehensive health care reforms.
The state experiments bubbling up around the country illustrate not only the potential for real progress, but also the problems and pitfalls of state-based health care reform. As a result of state-level health policy developments, reform advocates must grapple with new challenges. These include the need to anticipate and address the political and social consequences of state mandates and to help states devise strategies for curtailing rapidly rising health care costs.
Source: Wayne Nealis, WorkingUSA, Volume 9, Issue 1, March 2006
From the abstract:
History shows that labor union membership increased rapidly in the United States in the last century only during periods when broad movements for social justice also existed. One of these movements was the fight for basic social benefits during the Great Depression; the other was the struggle to secure democratic rights and dignity for African-Americans during the Civil Rights movement. This article presents an argument as to why labor should join in leading an offensive for single-payer national health insurance (NHI), not only to win health care for all, but to help jump start a broader social and economic justice movement that could create a socio-political climate that is more conducive to organizing the unorganized.