MA takes a step forward on Health Care

[sarahlee]

On Friday, legislative leaders in Massachusetts appear to have agreed to a compromise bill that would assess a modest fee on any business with ten employees or more which does not provide health care to their employees-- a key element of a broader plan to move towards universal health care coverage.

Business largely supports the compromise because the assessment is relatively small -- only $295 per employee not covered by health care insurance -- an amount far less than a proposed state House bill. Which explains why health care advocates are only cautiously celebrating.

<...> -- the deal involves a fundamental victory for advocates, namely establishing the principle that businesses have a legal obligation to provide for health coverage of their employees, either directly or through taxes paid to the state government.

<...>Massachusetts figures show the state already spends $212 million to provide health care to employees at larger firms -- and the number is no doubt far larger when smaller firms are included -- so the adequacy of the health care assessment will immediately become a key policy debate if enacted, so the debate will still be on advocates' terrain.

The deal in Massachusetts is an incremental victory, but by applying to most businesses in the state, it pushes the debate fare beyond the law recently enacted in Maryland that applies only to large businesses like Wal-Mart. <...>

And advocates are not sitting back-- they are ready to go to a ballot initiative if the final bill's details do not extend health coverage comprehensively to the uninsured in the state.

So health care advocates can be proud of a campaign in Massachusetts that is pushing the goal of universal coverage forward.

http://www.progressivestates.org/blog/113/ma-deal-on-health-care-expansion-but-is-it-enough

Congratulations MA!!!!!!!!

[mom cat]

1. I am so proud of my adopted state!

[Selatius]

2. I think it would be better if Massachusetts collaborated with other...

blue states. Instead of one state trying to handle universal health care for its residents, why not cobble together several states and pool resources? If you can get New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and several other blue states on the same page with respect to offering universal health care coverage, it will be much easier to control health care costs because populous blue states have huge numbers of people, and with that being the case, they have collective bargaining power to negotiate fairer prices with pharmaceutical companies and for-profit HMOs.

If a pharmaceutical company had 100 customers as its market, then one or two approaching the company to negotiate a fairer price won't work. It will laugh at those people, but if 20, 30, or 40 of those customers got together and tried to do the same thing, the company would more likely listen or risk losing a large chunk of its market share and thus revenue. If you can get 50, 60, or 70 customers out of the 100 to come together for mutual cooperation, then the pharmaceutical company will have to recognize them or risk a costly battle.

Collective bargaining power is the same principle behind the existence of worker unions.

[skyblue]

4. Good Points

:applause:

[Cobalt Violet]

3. I still can't afford to buy insurance from my employer.

But they offer it. So I guess under this I will still be uninsured.

[Selatius]

5. This scheme is pointless without collective bargaining power.

If even one employee is so poor that he cannot afford health care, then it should be considered a failure to meet objectives. The only way it will work is if collective bargaining power is invoked to force down health care costs, and I'm talking about pharmaceutical companies and HMOs, above all else.

[Cobalt Violet]

6. I need to pay $300. bi weekly as an individual.

It's just too much. Way out of my reach.