MA Healthcare Law: Someone 'splain this to me.

[MallRat]

While a lot of people are rightfully focused on the provision which would penalize people who don't get health coverage but are "financially-able" to do so, there's another part of this law that I don't quite understand.

Employers with more than 11 employees who do not offer their workers health insurance must pay a $295 fee per employee per year.

At $295 an employee, what's to stop every business in Massachusetts from terminating their current health insurance benefit? I have a pretty good benefit package through my employer: they pick up 75% of my premium, and that's a helluva lot more than $295 a year.

What am I missing here? If the penalty is a measly $295 a year, what business in their right mind would continue to offer insurance coverage to their employees? Is everyone going to ultimately end up going through the state "Connector" to hook up with a new plan?

-MR

[mainegreen]

1. Do they have to insure you now?

If not, I doubt they'll drop it, as the reasons why they offer insurance are not because they have to.
:shrug:

[MallRat]

7. Good point.

No, they don't HAVE to insure me now. But in my industry (biotech), an employer that doesn't offer health insurance doesn't get employees.

Market forces are the only thing preventing them from dropping the benefit. I hope that continues to be the case.

-MR

[elfin]

2. Romney excised that business penalty

in the final version, using the excuse that the measly amount would "only" bring in 48 million to the state -- and so businesses are off the responsiblity hook - even though it wasn't onerous to begin with.

Even if the amount was modest, the principle that ALL entities needed to participate is lost with no hope of adjusting the amount to a more reasonable level.

Romney is going to try to ride this to the White House - with Kennedy praising it all along the way.

Am sorely disappointed.

[Jane Austin]

3. I don't understand why the insurance companies are the centerpiece

of this legislation.

These are the fine folks who dump you out of the hospital when their policy manual tells them to, not when your doctor says you're well enough to go home.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Maybe because Romney's a Republican?

The insurance industry is terrified of a single-payer system because, for the most part, insurance is all about getting a lot of something for doing next to nothing. Under a single-payer system, the industry would wind up selling supplemental policies only. Health insurance is the ONLY insurance industry (other than, perhaps, auto insurance) that is guaranteed to always make a profit and never be at risk for paying out more than they bring in. Their profit margin is greater than the people who sell 4 1/2 cents of syrup which gets turned into a $4 cup of soda at the movies.

I've always said, we do not have a health care crisis in this country. We have a health insurance crisis in this country.

[Dr.Phool]

4. The bill sucks. read this article.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11375

Then check out this plan, for nationwide, universal, single payer insurance.It's H.R.676, sponsored by Conyers, and co-sponsored by dozens of others. And a lot of heavy hitters on their board of trustees.

www.healthcare-now.org

[Jane Austin]

5. The low cost number may have something to do with young men being a

large part of the uninsured.

Young men don't use the medical system much and are probably less likely to buy insurance coverage.

I don't know anything about the Mass. program, but when our company's policy is reviewed and renewed each year, the premium goes down as our percentage of young, male employees goes up - - and vice-versa.