Mass. Lawmakers OK Mandatory Health Bill

[burythehatchet]

BOSTON - Lawmakers have approved a sweeping health care reform package that dramatically expands coverage for the state's uninsured, a bill that backers hope will become a model for the rest of the nation.

The plan would use a combination of financial incentives and penalties to expand access to health care over the next three years and extend coverage to the state's estimated 500,000 uninsured.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/massachusetts_health

This is just stupid! Its a dose of Robitussin for a broken leg. Until the current system is trashed and replaced with a universal, single payer system, with controls on what can be charged, these solutions will o nothing to solve the larger problem. Yes, its good that the less fortunate in Mass will get some insurance, but insurance is not the core of the problem. The real problem is the system of financing healthcare that doesn't work.

[sandnsea]

1. Stupid???

:grr:

I'd love to have this. I swear the only people who bitch about subsidized health insurance are those who either already have it or have no pressing medical needs. We aren't going to get single payer health insurance. Most countries have MORE than just single payer anyway, a combination of a base public plan with additional insurance works best. See France.

This is an awesome plan, close to what Oregon has except we don't have the money to offer it to everybody yet. The $295 assessment on businesses that don't provide insurance would be a good way for us to provide the subsidized plan to more people.

[izzie]

2. Single seems to work and is cheaper for all why not here?

It has to be big health care people holding it back as most big business would profit from it.Hospital, drug. and Ins. co. must be very powerful. It just show how money will sell out the whole country for profits and I own stocks so am into all that stuff. But I see some one stepping into this mess and doing it for this country. Sanders of Vt. sees the point but they just say he is a Commie and it just drops off the books. Odd that so many do not under stand that a modern society takes gov. and a tax to do things single people and business can not and will not do. I go back to roads. What rich man or business do you know that has ever put in a town road? The even more madding thing is how much your tax money gives to the drug and hospital Co. and then lets them milk your pocket book on top if it. The rich would not have their own health care if it was not for this mass input of money from the tax payer. This type of capitalist eco. has always been a two way street. Plus we have had to have it to build this country. Now that we love the internet so I am waiting for Congress to sell that off.

[sandnsea]

3. Why not something instead of nothing?

What's so complicated about supporting people seeing a doctor today, instead of just dreaming about it someday.

[regnaD kciN]

5. Here's the problem with that...

The plan hinges in part on two key sections: the $295-per-employee business assessment and a so-called "individual mandate," requiring every citizen who can afford it to obtain health insurance or face increasing tax penalties.

Liberals typically support employer mandates, while conservatives generally back individual responsibility.

The state's poorest — single adults making $9,500 or less a year — will have access to health coverage with no premiums or deductibles. Those living at up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $48,000 for a family of three, will be able to get health coverage on a sliding scale, also with no deductibles. The vast majority of Massachusetts residents who are already insured could see a modest easing of their premiums. Individuals deemed able but unwilling to purchase health care could face fines of more than $1,000 a year by the state if they don't get insurance.

The "individual mandate" is basically a poison pill put in this bill by conservatives.

The article speaks of "individuals deemed able but unwilling." How is that to be determined? There is mention of sliding-scale provisions for those with incomes up to $48,000 for a family of three, which leads me to suspect that there's a flat limit there -- anyone over $48,000 will be deemed "able but unwilling."

And the fact is that it's pretty hard to get by in Massachusetts on that amount (which is keyed to the federal poverty level, not the state level). Massachusetts has some of the higest housing costs in the country, plus very cold winters and a major dependence on costly fuel-oil heating rather than natural gas. In addition, taxes there are high enough to have given the state the moniker of "Taxachusetts" for at least forty years. $48,000 for a family of three works out to probably the same as half that or less in states with a lower cost of living.

So, what's going to happen when people whose employers have dropped their coverage (there's certainly impetus to do that -- the $295 fine for not insuring your employee is far less than the insurance premiums you'd have to pay for him or her), and whose expenses are already stretched to their limit, get told they're now in the "able but unwilling" category, and are going to have to start figuring out how to fit whopping monthly insurance premiums on top of all their other expenses or get penalized for their "irresponsibility" with even higher taxes, especially when they see people in lower-income brackets (i.e. "welfare recipients") being given for free what they're now being forced to pay for? You've got it -- there are a lot of people who are going to be screaming bloody murder, facing serious financial hardships, and deciding that, come next election, they're going to be voting for whichever candidate promises to "get government off our backs" and denounces this particular case of "tax-and-spend liberalism." Can you just imagine the campaign commercials, featuring the "true stories" of Bay-Staters who lost their homes because they couldn't afford the new government-mandated insurance requirement?

If there's anything that could turn Massachusetts into a red state, it would be a heavy-handed proposal like this. Which, I suspect, is just the Republican plan behind forcing the inclusion of "individual mandates." :grr:

[izzie]

8. You have a point their which I did not thing about.

Health care is just beyond me as I was under a military care plan until about 5 years ago and I am lost in the plans A to Z now. I pay way to much for ins. Medicare gap, SS fees, and glasses and teeth I do on my own. I did not even do one thing on the drug plan and let the state do it as I take no drugs. Last time I went for a check up I had to fight for over a year not to pay for all the test medicare said were free. I just plain gave up when they said they would take 125.00 and call it even. It is now like should I pay for the medi-gap or see a doctor? What I would do if I had children is just beyond my IQ. Any thing a state can do to help people seems like a good move to me.

[sandnsea]

9. Gee, they'll demand real solutions???

Your argument is the argument Republicans used in Oregon to defeat our single payer style plan a few years ago, business will stop providing premium insurance and Oregon will be flooded with people wanting basic coverage and we'll go bankrupt. They always have some reason to vote against a health plan. You either jump in and start providing something, knowing you'll have to tweak it to make it work, or you have nothing.

Massachusetts has a much higher median income than most of the country, $80,000 for a family of four, which is why your cost of living is higher, or vice versa. That $45,000 sounds fair generous considering your median income. And, btw, Massachusetts isn't highly taxed anymore, it ranks 32nd. So you can stop with that line, it isn't helping anything in your state or the Democratic Party as a whole.

If you don't want any plan at all, that's your choice. But most of the country, even red America, want the government to do something to help with health care. They just don't want government run health care. I don't think we'll have a chance of getting anything through except a subsidized insurance plan.

[MADem]

15. Uh, state taxes aren't bad, but property taxes are through the roof here

So, the poor bastard making minimum wage, living in the house he inherited from his folks, and struggling to pay the bills is going to be hit with this "new tax" in essence. Employers who once covered people will toss a few hundred to the state as their 'fine', and tell people to get their own coverage.

And everyone talks about the rich folk in the state, but there are plenty of poor folk as well. Working poor, who live paycheck to paycheck. This is going to gut the people who are barely getting by, working two lousy jobs, in places like Lawrence and Lowell, some of the western towns, to say nothing of the ever-growing immigrant population on the Cape.

[MADem]

12. So, if you make $10K a year, you get fined a grand for not having

insurance if you are a single person--just a few hundred bucks over the cap. Try living on 10K a year in MA--it ain't pretty.

You'll see people eating cat food, but hey, they'll be insured!

This is a SHITTY execution of what could be a good idea. They are going about it all wrong. The "working poorest" will suffer the most.

[Cobalt Violet]

14. No, it's 300% of the federal poverty level or about $29,400.

$48,000 for a family of 3.

[MADem]

16. NO, I am talking about the poor SINGLE bastard

Not everyone lives in a family of three. I know a load of single people who make under 20K, and struggle to make ends meet.

[Cobalt Violet]

17. I am too. People ,single people making less than 29,400.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/05/mass_lawmakers_ok_mandatory_health_bill/

Those living at up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $48,000 for a family of three, will be able to get health coverage on a sliding scale, also with no deductibles.

This will apply to individual with incomes up to $29,400.

[MADem]

19. I still see those people as getting hit hardest

Can't wait to see how the "scale" slides.

If it has Romney's fingerprints on it, I don't trust it. He's making it WAY too easy for EMPLOYERS to get off the hook, but impossible for INDIVIDUALS to have the same courtesy.

[Cobalt Violet]

20. I am one of those people.

I'm getting hit very hard by a serious illness, no insurance, and no treatment. I really need this until we all get universal healthcare.

I agree though, I think the fine for businesses who can afford to pay should be $3000.00

[MADem]

21. I've got relatives who could be screwed by this

Their employers 'reluctantly' provide insurance, and I see those bastards dropping it and leaving them to fend for themselves.

[Cobalt Violet]

22. If I bought into my employers insurance I would have to pay 1/2 my income.

I hope your relatives are healthy. I really would like to see the details of this plan instead of the same old news stories.

[Cobalt Violet]

13. Gov. Romeny (R) was the one who instisted on the individual mandate.

[izzie]

6. Oh I like what Ma. has done. Even in maine we have some help.

I think it will move through the states as they seem to be just going around the feds and doing what their people want. Maine was one of the first states that cleaned up its water ways. Lots of states seem to be doing this and I almost think it works better. Just eye ball where the best education is. I live in fear that Bush will really get our education 'up' to Texas. I felt the same with Clinton and Ak. education level.

[burythehatchet]

23. Read the post

Quote: Yes, its good that the less fortunate in Mass will get some insurance

Repeat: Insurance is not the core issue. The method of finance is.

[NMMNG]

4. Stupid?

Until the current system is trashed and replaced with a universal, single payer system, with controls on what can be charged, these solutions will o nothing to solve the larger problem.

So people with inadequate or nonexistent insurance should go without until the government decides to do what is right, which might take until the proverbial "hell freezes over"?

[SoCalDem]

7. It just means that rich folks will continue with their "golden plans"

and the poor will still be covered...BUT a whole bunch of "middles" will now have to "prove" they cannot afford coverage..

Can see it now:

couple brings in pay stubs and "counselor" says.."You need to move to a cheaper place..and drop cable..and junior doesn;t need to play little league...now you can afford it"..

I can see lots of libertarian-leaning types who will really resent the fact that a "government-type" will be poring over their finances to "judge" them..

and what's to prevent people from moving to MA from nearby states that have nothing similar?

This could end up costing a bunch, and only hurt the middle classers..

we need a universal national coverage plan..Canada is certainly close enough to "study"..

If the majority of the people want it, it's OUR money, and we need to FORCE them to do OUR bidding for a change..

They can buy guns with what's left over after OUR needs are tended to..

[Cobalt Violet]

11. Until we get the ideal plan, this is better than what we have.

This will save lives.

[burythehatchet]

24. Yes, it will help.

Long term though, it feeds the problem by paying more money into a broken system. There will be universal healthcare when the healthcare special interests can be subdued.

Sort of like Part D medicare, it pours 100's of billions into big pharma. Yes it helps some people but it furthers the diseased system.

[Cobalt Violet]

26. I just don't think that my being insured "further the diseased system".

It's not just me. There are thousands just like me in my state. People who make to much for Medicaid and not enough to buy insurance.

One could just as easily say that it is the people who buy their own insurance who further disease the system.

[MADem]

18. Like I said in another thread, FORGET HELPING GRANDMA!!

You know, that check you send to half blind, can't drive grandma every month, so she can take a cab to church and the grocery, and buy something other than cat food, and maybe put the heat up over 55 on her lousy SS check??? Hell, you will need that for INSURANCE, because your employer will stop covering you, pay the lousy few hundred bucks for NOT covering you, and tell you that you are on your own!

Either that, or put the dining room table in the attic, and move grandma in there!

Or better still, that place you bought in the nice town with the super school system, ya may as well sell it and move to the crappy town with the lousy schools...this WILL squeeze the people in the lower middle end of the spectrum who are struggling now to get by. The people on public assistance and the out of work will benefit hugely, but the slobs trying to get by are going to get hit harder than they are already.

[Cobalt Violet]

10. This "stupid" plan may save my life.

With a very serious untreated illness, and no insurance, and not enough income to buy into what is offer at work, I welcome this plan.

I agree that a universal, single payer system would be better but I think that would have to be done on the national level. Fat chance of that happening with repukes in charge.

I hope my health hold out until next summer when this plan goes into effect.

[burythehatchet]

25. I'm very happy when enen one person is a litle better off

and I hope you do get what you need and deserve. My perspective is macro level. As I said before, the more the system gets fed with insurance premiums, the longer the system remains in private hands, the more we will all suffer.