My state may be making healthcare mandatory for everyone!!!

[Katherine Brengle]

BOSTON, April 4 -- The Massachusetts legislature approved a bill Tuesday that would require all residents to purchase health insurance or face legal penalties, which would make this the first state to tackle the problem of incomplete medical coverage by treating patients the same way it does cars.

Gov. Mitt Romney (R) supports the proposal, which would require all uninsured adults in the state to purchase some kind of insurance policy by July 1, 2007, or face a fine. Their choices would be expanded to include a range of new and inexpensive policies -- ranging from about $250 per month to nearly free -- from private insurers subsidized by the state.

Romney said the bill, modeled on the state's policy of requiring auto insurance, is intended to end an era in which 550,000 people go without insurance and their hospital and doctor visits are paid for in part with public funds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937.html?referrer=email

I can't stand Romney, but this is definitely a step in the right direction, and AWESOME logic!

[KitchenWitch]

1. That is an incredibly progressive stance!

I hope it happens, and that other states follow suit.

[lastliberalintexas]

5. Giving taxpayer monies to the insurance industry is progressive?

A single payer, universal healthcare system is the real answer, rather than some legislation that hurts the poor and provides a boondoggle to Insurance and Big Pharma. Just my humble opinion, anyway.

[KitchenWitch]

12. As much as I would love single payer universal healthcare

The Massachussetts initiative is a step in that direction. It is going to take small steps to get where we need to be with healthcare in this country.

[Katherine Brengle]

15. Precisely --

there is zero chance of a national single-payer healthcare system right now -- it's going to be a long haul fight, uphill and against some very powerful elements.

For the time being, this law will get healthcare coverage for thousands of MA residents -- including children who might otherwise not have it -- and for reasonable prices.

Sorry, but I can't see that as a bad thing, even if it is a temporary deal with the devil -- your choice here is healthcare from an evil insurance company OR no healthcare at all.

Not a difficult decision in my world.

[mondo joe]

22. I agree. And, as I understand it, Canada only went universal after

most of the provinces were essentially trying to cover everyone.

It's good for the states to step up to the plate in their varying ways. It's progress.

[SidDithers]

58. Health care in Canada is a provincial responsibility...

It is essentially 10 provincial health care system, all of which must adhere to the Canada Health Act, a federal standard.

Basically, the federal government sets the standard, and partially funds the provincial plans. It is then up to each province to administer their plan, and provide the remaining funding. (Federal funding used to be ~50%, but has shrank over the years and now ranges from 20-30%).

If a state could afford it, is there anything preventing it from "going it alone" and providing health care to its citizens?

Sid

[LSdemocrat]

81. The affordability is the main problem

Most states are cash strapped anyway and all but two have mandatory balanced budget laws. The other problem at doing it at the state level is that states have very little leeway to regulate commerce.

[Matariki]

95. Are you kidding!!!??

MANDATORY health care - or face a fine, like car insurance??? That's HORRIBLE! A HUGE bonus for the insurance companies. What is progressive about that?

And I'm sure it's based on a sliding scale by income. Just because you make $50k a year DOESN'T mean you can afford $250 a MONTH.

[lastliberalintexas]

2. Not really

It both places even more of a burden on lower income residents who will be forced to pay money that they don't have for such policies, and it shifts even more taxpayer money into the hands of the insurance industry. It's a horrible way to deal with the healthcare problems we face.

[Katherine Brengle]

8. It's scaled -- lower-income people/families will have theirs...

subsidized by the state government -- how does this hurt anyone?

Instead of not getting medical care, or going to the emergency room for primary care, which is incredibly expensive, everyone will have insurance, and people will pay exactly as much as they can afford.

I think it is an incredible stride.

[oscar111]

29. some can afford ZERO.. twelve million in hunger, thirtysix mill. "on the

brink of hunger".. USDA last month said.

a million homeless too.

upper crust oft looses sight of what real poverty is like.

[mondo joe]

34. Those at the lowest income levels have to pay nothing.

Up from there to 300% of the poverty level is a sliding fee scale.

[Katherine Brengle]

36. Read my reply #33.

[area51]

64. "everyone will have insurance"

However, insurance doesn't cover everything. The whole point of republican HMOs, PPOs, etc. are to deny people care; that's how they make their money. Just having insurance doesn't mean your medical needs are being taken care of.

What we need is universal healthcare, not health insurance.

[lastliberalintexas]

73. Who determines what you can afford?

Is it only based on income, or are assets included too? Many elderly have too many assets (usually a paid for house) to qualify for certain government programs if they are need based, just so you know. And yet, if assets aren't included and only income is, then some rather well off people could get a better subsidy from the taxpayers than a single person earning $30K a year.

How much will taxes be increased to pay for this boondoggle to Insurance and Big Pharma? How will this be administered? How many records and how much information will the government require from individuals?

Why such a small "penalty" for employers who fail to provide coverage for employees? It couldn't be because this legislation was likely written by Insurance and the Chamber folks? :think:

Way too many questions and likely problems with this proposal.

[Matariki]

97. because middle class families with higher income DON'T

neccasarily have extra cash. They might be up to their eyeballs in debt - or have a huge mortgage, or whatever. This is a TERRIBLE idea.

[HereSince1628]

10. I fear the same things. I have a lot of questions about this.

It seems to have many fingerprints of social conservatives, including the creation of a new minimum annual employer contribution of about $295. This could be a benefit to employers of many hundreds if not several thousand dollars per person. Think about how loud that hissing sound could be as employers deflate their benefit packages.

[lastliberalintexas]

75. Can you see the smiles at the next Chamber of Commerce meeting?

Yeah, I can too. Enough of my taxes go to Corporate America, so I can't see supporting a bad program that puts even more money into those peoples' hands.

[OzarkDem]

92. Also allows "insurance-lite"

forcing people to purchase health insurance plans that are full of loopholes and cover very little.

[Sgent]

101. No it doesn't

All people below 300% FPL must puchase state approved comprehensive insurance.

All people above 300% FPL must purchase either one of the above plans, or a HSA plan which is comprehensive above $2100/yr.

The only exemption is those aged 19-26 who will be able to purchase HSA type plans regardless of income.

Nowhere does "insurance lite" (aka shitty "cancer" coverage, or Mega Life & Health) come into compliance.

[DUHandle]

3. Interesting, but

how is this different from States that supply a level of health insurance to the working poor?

[Katherine Brengle]

11. MA already does this, but --

there is a huge segment of the population that doesn't qualify for state insurance under the current guidelines, but also cannot afford private insurance.

This closes that gap by providing insurance to everyone at the price they can afford, which I think is more than fair, at least as fair as anything can be under the current system.

[DUHandle]

59. Sounds interesting

I have a feeling that your State put a bit of pressure on providers to come up with a reasonably profitable range of services.

Good, good and good.

[Zenlitened]

4. Hmmm... and if Mittens wasn't eyeing the White House right now...

... would he have opposed it as "anti-business"?

Probably. That man is a pathological liar with good teeth and a pleasant smile. The very model of a successful con-man.

[monarch]

6. How is it ant-business?

Won't it allow businesses who still offer health insurance to get off the hook by placing the burden on the individual?

[blondeatlast]

28. Exactly--it's Wal_mart's wet dream realized... nt

[mondo joe]

44. What's the incentive to do that? If they provide insurance now even

though they don't have to, what would be the reason to stop doing it now?

[Atman]

49. $295 a YEAR

That's one hell of an incentive to not insure an employee.

[mondo joe]

51. Right now it would be $0 a year to not insure employees.

Why does increasing it to $295 encourage them to drop health coverage?

[Katherine Brengle]

56. LOL -- great point!

Sorry, that literally made me laugh, bc it is so freaking obvious.

[Atman]

57. Obviously, they'd drop coverage only on those who already have it

Come on...Wal Mart DOES insure a lot of employees. Just not the line workers and clerks...that may be a lot of people, but look at it from WM's perspective...$295 per, and eliminating the administration costs, would save WM fortunes, and the people already insured would likely wind up paying more. I say "likely," because we simply don't know yet. But when it comes to insurance, it seems no one ever gets to pay LESS. Except the corporations.

[mondo joe]

62. Why? Again, they could not provide coverage right now with NO

penalty.

What I'd suggest you consider is that employers provide benefits for more reasons than to avoid penalties.

[Atman]

65. Well, you're willing to give Wal Mart more credit than I

I hear you, and you make valid points. For most companies. Wal Mart is Satan with a smiley-face, though. If they could fuck over everybody and pay employees in scrip, I'm sure they'd find a way.

[mondo joe]

69. Employers compete for employees and will go as low as the Market will

bear. WalMart is certainly the bottom of the barrel already and I don't doubt that they haven't calculated the precise LACK of benefits they can provide and still compete.

This will be no different, other than that WalMart's already low paid employees will have access to coverage on a sliding fee scale, which is more than they have now.

[lumberjack_jeff]

100. As more employers drop coverage...

... and given that there's a law that individuals have coverage, the state would provide it.

Wal mart employees are not paid enough that individuals would be required to pay for it themselves.

I think it's a good thing if private insurers become irrelevant.

[lastliberalintexas]

80. Right now they get a tax deduction for the monies

they pay to insure employees. I'm sure you've seen that Bush wants to eliminate those deductions, right? What better way to do that than by pushing people into these types of private insurance plans that won't really do squat for people in terms of care?

And it isn't a zero cost for them not to insure employees currently, since they are competing with other companies who likely do provide insurance benefits. Take away that issue, and no employer in its right mind would offer insurance.

[mondo joe]

84. They'd still be competing with other companies.

And in WA state there is low cost basic healthcare. Has been for several years now. Employers are still providing health coverage at a greater expense than it would cost employees to buy into the basic plan.

[lastliberalintexas]

87. Because that's a different scenario than what we're discussing here

If I read your post correctly, then the Washington plan is not MANDATORY. The MA plan is, so no employer would face any employee who was not already "covered" since it's state law that they *must* be covered. No incentive whatsoever for any employer to offer insurance, since *in theory*, their employees won't "need" it because they're supposedly already covered.

Combine this with Bush's plan to eliminate the tax deduction that employers get, and voila, insurance benefits become a thing of the past. And rather than subsidizing docs and hospitals for uninsureds care, we're now subsidizing Aetna, Blue Cross, Humana...

[converted_democrat]

99. You get tax breaks for offering, and paying for portions of insurance

for your employees.. I own my own business, and 295.00 would be a much better deal than what the business gets in tax breaks for paying it.. It would save a lot of money.. I don't do my own accounting, but this is how my accountant explained it to me.. (*I think that's the way it is on a federal level, but I forgot to ask.*) I wish they offered this in my state..


Edited to make clearer, and for my many spelling issues..

[Zenlitened]

85. You're right. Maybe he'd say it was too "big government."

Point is, that guy lied about who he is and what he stands for when he ran for governor of Massachusetts.

So I have no trouble believing his willingness to sign this bill is all about his lust for the Oval Office.

Now he'll go around crowing about how he "reformed healthcare" in Massachusetts -- probably in the same breath that he bad-mouths the state he's allegedly leading.

He's a con-man, a smirking little liar who successfully scammed Massachusetts. Now he's trying see if he can take his act national.

[Katherine Brengle]

13. He's a dick, yes, but...

he doesn't get any dick-ish measures passed, because he is dealing with a progressive legislature, not a bunch of right-wing dittoheads.

Mitt's just biding his time here in MA -- his attitude does not reflect the will of the state citizenry.

[jody]

7. Modeled on auto insurance! Are all MA autos covered by insurance? n/t

[Atman]

17. The trouble with the auto insurance comparison

If I cannot afford the insurance -- or choose not to drive -- I don't have to pay. I can make the choice not to carry insurance simply by foregoing that which has to be insured. No "opt-out" provision in the Mass bill. In fact, they will "bill" your income tax return if you're uninsured, via loss of personal exemption.

[Fleshdancer]

26. another problem with the auto insurance comparison....

When you pay your car insurance, you don't have to pay for every passenger who rides in your car. Health insurance has to be paid for every person so a family of four may potentially pay quite a bit.

[Katherine Brengle]

27. By law, they have to be --

not everyone follows that law, but the vast majority of MA drivers are fully insured.

What was your point?

[brokensymmetry]

9. I have a question...

This is an exciting development, and you're right to be proud of your state.

But...let's suppose we have people with preexisting conditions. Let's suppose they're getting up in age.

What's "affordable"? And, what sort of policies can they obtain?

I perceive this as a very big devil in the details...

[blondeatlast]

18. See post #16--we may be smelling the same rat... nt

[spinbaby]

19. That's what I'm afraid of

I can see the state deciding that an older couple with health problems and a $60,000 income can afford to pay $30,000 towards health insurance.

[SoCalDem]

30. A bureaucrat will scrutinize your family budget and "decide"

what you can cut out of your budget so you CAN afford a policy..and whaddayahwannabet that the "plans" will end up very similar to the "medicare drug benefit", with exclusions, donut-holes and high co-pays ...for middle classers.. The uppercrusties will still have their cushy all-inclusive policies, and the poor will still be covered, but I fear this plan will be a way for "biddness-types" to decide it's too expensive to pay by the quarter or monthly for employess, and they would prefer to pay a ONCE A YEAR penalty of $295.00 and leave it up to the employess to "choose" their own.. (There's that "choice" option again)..

and will the coverage be seamless if you lose your job?? What happens to COBRA coverage?

[OzarkDem]

93. Insurance - lite

They'll end up paying for policies that probably won't cover the care they need.

[Atman]

14. At first I was "outraged." But I think the plan has merit.

The dirt-poor will get free care, no deductibles.

Families of four making less than $48,000 will get reduced deductibles.

The only thing I don't like is the "fine" provision. An individual who doesn't carry health insurance will be subject to a $1000 FINE, but a business that doesn't provide insurance for an employee only has to pay a $295 "FEE" to the state, which gets pooled to pay for the uninsured. It's pretty easy to see that most businesses will find it cheaper to pay a once-yearly $295 "FEE" rather than have to administer and pay for a health plan.

Also, if you don't sign up for a plan, the state will select one for you based upon "affordability." Who is to decide what's "affordable?"

There are some serious kinks in the plan, but it actually seems to be an interesting proposition.

[Katherine Brengle]

24. Agreed about that --

I support the idea of fining individuals who do not get with the program -- it is designed not only to help them, but to help the taxpayers by cutting down the number of MA residents getting primary care from state supported walk-in medical centers and the emergency room, so it is the duty of every resident to make sure they are covered -- plus it is just smart. But allowing employers a loophole to get out of playing along is bullshit.

"Also, if you don't sign up for a plan, the state will select one for you based upon "affordability." Who is to decide what's "affordable?"

I don't find this any different from HMOs choosing doctors or providing lists of doctors for members, or workplaces assigning a particular healthplan if an employee fails to choose on by a certain deadline.

[OzarkDem]

94. No, they'll get free insurance

that's not the same as free health care. They may end up getting a small menu of low cost health care services and nothing more.

[blondeatlast]

16. So romney can now campaign on having a comprehensive health care package.

But that package will be a major burden on the working poor who have pre-existing medical conditions and will find comprehensive policies with preventive care completely out of reach.

It's also a way to let big bidness cop out on providing comprehensive health care--legislation like this is Wal-Mart's wet dream.

Having shopped around a lot, that $250 per month coverage would be hospitalization only; no prescription drugs, doctor visits, or preventive care, I'm willing to bet.

[brokensymmetry]

45. Yes -

As you mentioned earlier, we're seeing exactly the same problem.

[Sgent]

102. Individual Health underwriting is not allowed

underwriting (within certain percentages) is allowed for smoking status, age, and sex.

The early non-government estimates put the estimated premium for full coverage at about $325/month.

[Fleshdancer]

20. would this mean that companies would no longer provide health ins?

I'm just trying to figure out how this would work. This article compares health insurance to car insurance, but when you're poor and can't afford a car or car insurance, you have the option of using other means of transportation.

Would there be a minimal level of coverage? Would companies still provide health insurance? If a company does provide insurance does this mean you don't have to pay or do you have to maintain supplemental coverage so that you don't get fined if you lose your job?

I want everyone to be insured. I'm just not sure this is the best way to go about it and I have a hard time believing that some of the policies would be "nearly free". If a family of four has an income of $40,000/year, how much money will they spend on insurance per month? Hopefully not $250 each. It adds up fast.

[blondeatlast]

37. Wal-Mart will LOVE this; it shifts the burden off big employers (while

to its credit, possibly helping small business).

Universal, single payer is in ALL business's best interest, but this bill is the wrong way to go about it.

Also, that lower cost policy will probably be completely inadequate for the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions, as it probably only covers hospitalization.

I've shopped for individual health insurance and I have a couple of pre-ex conditions.

There is no way this plan would benefit me in the slightest.

[Atman]

48. It should be weighted against a corp's ability to pay, too

Wal Mart can afford to insure it's workers. A twenty person machine shop may not be able to, and the $295 provision certainly helps them. But why should a massive mega corp like Wal Mart be able to opt-out, and save itself millions in admin costs, too, simply by paying a mere week's wages into a pool?

[blondeatlast]

83. Precisaely--that's why I, who have advocated for health care rights

most of my adult life, don't like these incremental stabs at universal coverage.

[oscar111]

21. TOTALLY FREE, not nearly, is needed

big big flaw in that last line of the next to last para.

those most needing change will be left out.

still , better than what was, .. or is it.

a fine on the very poor for not buying it????

[Atman]

35. No, the very poor will not be fined.

They'll get automatic coverage with no deductibles.

Just wait, though. You'll probably hear the republicans start screaming that it encourages people to be single and make less than $9,800 annually.

[iamthebandfanman]

23. i dont like it

there should be no large fine for not having health insurance.
atleast not as large of one.


ultimately though, i think health care should be free and something that is just your right as an american/human being.

[blondeatlast]

25. Unless the state insists on all approved plans covering preventive and

maintenance medical needs, this is completely bogus.

Without that requirement, the insurers can offer low cost plans to cover the poor, but the poor won't be able to afford things like insulin syringes and testing supplies.

Meanwhile, Romney gets to state that his entire state has medical vcoverage.

[Squatch]

31. Since when has the government been in the business of

making it compulsory for its citizens to buy something from a private enterprise.

[mondo joe]

42. You mean like car insurance?

Granted, there are a minority of people who don't own cars.

[Squatch]

46. Nobody is compelled to drive.

driving is a privelege. If you wish to drive, then the state can impose requirements, like licensure, insurance, etc.

[Katherine Brengle]

60. The insurance is more to protect others than yourself --

We have auto insurance bc it protects OTHERS if we get into accidents -- so it only makes sense to me to protect the taxpayers from the costs of people using the ER as primary care and other serious insurance-related issues.

[Atman]

63. True...compulsory insurance only protects OTHERS

against YOU should you get in an accident with them.

[Squatch]

67. Well, if everybody is going to protect everybody else

then why do you need insurance at all? :shrug:

[Atman]

82. Once the lien is off your vehicle, you only need compulsory

So the full coverage is actually only to protect others, too...the bank.

[JanMichael]

96. Nobody is compelled to drive???

Do you live in America?

[Nederland]

103. Nice point

Perhaps if they live in NYC, but not many other places.

[Texasgal]

32. What about people with

pre-exsisting conditions? Such as, Liver failure? Or other ailments?

There are no insurance companies out there that would cover you, what does one do then?

[Katherine Brengle]

41. We have state health insurance.

I am not 100% sure how to answer your question, but I will look into it. My best guess is that MassHealth would cover you under these circumstances.

It's not fancy insurance, but I had it when I was pregnant with my daughter and it paid for a great doctor, all of my prenatal care, the delivery/hospital stay/anesthesia, and everything. I was pregnant before signing up, and was not turned away (some insurance companies view pregnancy as a "pre-existing condition" which is bull, but it does happen).

[Texasgal]

55. I see where you are coming from..

It just seems odd to me that an insurance company would sign someone up with pre-existing conditions. Expensive things like what I mentioned in my post above. I only knwo this because I just had my very best friend die of liver failure. He was not able to get on a transplant list because he had no insurance and no one would insure him. It was a vicious cycle.

I see the legislation looking pretty reasonable, but there are always going to be people who are stuck. I find the "fine" issue is kinda funny. It's not that people don't WANT to be insured, it's simply because the CAN'T.

[Katherine Brengle]

33. I don't get the negativity going on here --

Yeah, this system isn't perfect, but try and tell me that there is a better VIABLE option happening anywhere in this country right now?

Massachusetts already provides absolutely free healthcare to pregnant women, the elderly, and children, as well as those who care for young children and the elderly, and those who live under the federal poverty line. This is very progressive, and as far as I know will not change.

Now we are taking an additional step to try to cover more MA residents, and it is seen as some kind of evil boon to the insurance companies?

Why do I get the feeling that if a Democratic governor were talking about it in that article, everyone would be cheering him/her on?

[Atman]

40. When I lived in MA, my sister flew back from Africa to have her baby

My mom lives there still. My sister, rightly I think, didn't want to go near Tanzanian hospitals, so she came back to the states, declared mom's addy as her residence, and took advantage of totally free pre- and post-natal care. The state even sent a home health aid to the house to check up on her and bring her a "starter pack" of nappies and stuff. MA is pretty "progressive" in that way, but it could certainly be argued that my sister was taking advantage of the system.

[Katherine Brengle]

47. True, she did, but...

I don't blame her -- it is amazing. I didn't pay for a thing when I was pregnant with my daughter (which was good, because I really couldn't afford it).

When you add up all those prenatal check-ups, vitamins, blood tests and sonograms and the delivery and anesthesia and all that stuff... we're talking about many thousands of dollars in medical care.

MassHealth even paid for my birth control after my daughter was born--in full. A lot of insurance companies don't even partially cover it.

[Atman]

50. Oh, I don't fault her

She did the right thing for the health of her baby, and isn't that supposed to be the concern? I was amazed at the level of care she received! Quite comprehensive.

[blondeatlast]

43. I'd rip a Dem governor as well--and have, pre=primary 2004.

I got royally beat up about it too, but I made a couple of people see through the bullshit.

This is Wal-Mart's dream scenario, but it does nothing to protect a consumer with pre-existing conditions who needs expensive maintenance equipment and medication.

I've shopped plans that cover such things privately--they are prohibitive even for me, and I make a very respectable income.

In the meantime, Romney can campaign on providing health care to every citizen in the state, but the reality just isn't so pretty.

[burythehatchet]

52. Regardless of who the Gov is

This plan provides the underinsured some relief in the short run, and further feeds a sick system. The problem is the 5,000 ER visit, as an example. The problem is a 10 minute psych visit that gets billed out at $400 dollars. The problem is hospitals and doctors who shift costs to those least able to afford it. The overall system of financing is simply unworkable because it creates the wrong incentives for everyone. For a while I believed that HMO's were the answer (back in the 70's and 80's) but companies like Kaiser and UHC proved that they can take a good concept, preventive medicine, and turn it into a scam.

[lastliberalintexas]

68. Vermont and now Maine have better alternatives

Still not great, but better than this proposal.

I think what you are overlooking is that there are too many families and individuals who will fall through the cracks in this measure, who will be forced to pay for coverage they can't afford even at very reduced rates.

Employers, especially large corporations, will get a tremendous boost from this by being able to drop insurance benefits for employees- all the while, shifting that burden from the private sector to the public. And public monies- large amounts of it- will be going to 2 arms of the evil triumverate who dominate the corporate world, Big Pharma and Insurance. If we're going to do something like this, I'd rather people who don't have insurance simply be covered by a state plan, so that taxpayer monies are used more responsibly and we cut out the middle man of insurers.

We're upset about it being an evil boon to the insurance companies because it is, not because Romney is a republican. Indeed, this sounds like legislation that would have been written BY (and for) Insurance, much like Cheney's energy policy was written by by and for Big Oil.

[The2ndWheel]

38. Mandatory

only through penalty of a fine.

What if you don't want health insurance? I know, I know, crazy. But maybe you're single with no children, and choose not to have it. You still get fined. The state and the corporation working in perfect synergy there.

They get your money coming or going, story of history.

[mondo joe]

39. Right. Because if you don't have it and you use ER services who is at

risk? You?

[The2ndWheel]

66. What if they don't use ER services?

There's chance in everything, but if you're healthy, and don't walk in between cars on the highway, and you choose not to have insurance, why are you fined for not "getting in line"?

Make it mandatory, great. But to impose a fine on individuals that may not want it? There has to be a better first step than that.

[mondo joe]

71. That's why I used the word "risk". Who bears the burden of that risk?

If you want to take the risk you take it.

Your $1k per year fine will contribute to the cost of your ER care when you need it.

[The2ndWheel]

76. I agree with the risk

If you want to risk it and not have insurance, that's on you. That's a perfectly fair way to do it. You pay for whatever comes up from your own pocket. But no need to fine the action of not buying this or that insurance plan.

[mondo joe]

78. Okay - so then you'd support the state denying ER care to anyone

without coverage?

I can really see that passing...

[The2ndWheel]

88. No I would not

Most people, I'm guessing, aren't going to get the fine. Most people will buy X or Y insurance plan. Single, married, children, no kids, whatever. The vast majority, I imagine, will buy something.

If you chose not to buy the insurance though, you might think you can afford whatever might come up. Maybe you won't be able to, and that's on you. I'm not saying the state should then decline that person care. If that person chooses not to have insurance, and they get a bill that is astronomical, that should be their fault. But they made the choice of not buying insurance.

Like I said, most people will buy the insurance, especially if it's made easier to do so. But for the few that choose not to, there's no need to force them to do so.

[Atman]

77. Exactly. Mass also has an "uninsured drivers" insurance pool

everybody pays into.

Same concept here. If you could predict your need for ER use, it wouldn't be EMERGENCY care, would it? I don't expect to have a tree fall on my head. Therefore, I don't need insurance? Nah...insurance is essentially a BET that you will or won't get sick/hurt. If you don't ever use it, well heck, I guess you "lose." But there does need to be some shared risk. Having everybody pay a little bit is better than having a few pay shitloads they cannot afford.

In fact, in MA the car-insurance system has been contentious for years, since the RISK associated with owning a car and driving in Boston is massive compared to owning/driving in the Berkshires. If auto insurance was based on address, only the wealthiest of Boston drivers could afford auto insurance. So, they spread the premiums across the state, making those in Western Mass pay quite a bit more than they'd have to pay if they just moved across the borders to NY, CT or VT. It is all to subsidize Boston's drivers. Places like Geico don't even sell insurance in MA, because premiums are set by the state. No point in shopping around, it's the same wherever you buy it. The only difference is level of service.

Shared risk.

[Katherine Brengle]

53. So, now we are arguing for freedom from health insurance??

Sorry, but this is a bs argument.

No one has the right to forego health insurance -- it costs the rest of us more money to take care of them when they get sick and don't have insurance than it does to subsidize insurance premiums.

And absolutely no one with children has an excuse, but I would guess you already agree with that since you limited your example to a single person.

[The2ndWheel]

72. If you have children, that's one thing

Some people don't get sick as easily as others. Some people don't take many risks in their daily life. You might break your leg anyway, but to impose a fine on someone that doesn't choose to buy this or that from X or Y insurance company, that's not right.

If they choose not to do that, and they end up in the hospital, that's on them. They should have to pay for it out of their own pocket, on their own. No need to fine them into compliance.

[Atman]

79. I'm self-employed. The self-employed NEVER get sick!

LOL!

Seriously...we can't afford to. We can't afford the time off. We can't afford insurance, either.

But you know what? There's still that chance a tree will fall on my head. So paying into a shared risk pool isn't a bad idea.

[The2ndWheel]

89. And most people will buy insurance

Because they think a tree could fall on their head.

But why fine someone who thinks that they could afford tree to the head surgery?

Society is based on shared risk. We all buy into that, in one form or another. But why fine someone for not buying insurance? Maybe they take care of themselves better than everyone else. Maybe they don't walk among trees. They could still get cancer, but that's why the vast majority will buy some type of insurance.

But for those few that don't(who could afford it, and should take the risk of having to pay for whatever comes up from their own pocket), why fine them? What few choices are left these days, you're taking away.

[lastliberalintexas]

86. Wow- nanny state activism at its best

"No one has the right to forego health insurance"

While I doubt that there are very many people who would willingly forgo health insurance, I can't believe that a progressive would be arguing for the state to impose such things on individuals.

[Heidi]

54. Right on!

It's been mandatory in Switzerland for years, for all residents, temporary and permanent. It's an added expense for everyone, it seems at first blush, but one's payment is based on a sliding scale, and it's virtually free for low-income people. :thumbsup:

[Jim Warren]

61. Mmmm and what happens if you don't file taxes?

There is language in the bill, somewhere in the 145! pages it contains, to the effect that a 5% non-compliance is to be expected and those 350K residents will just fall through the cracks. I don't know but I think it will have an adverse t on my situation.

[Sinti]

70. People are more expensive than cars

Hey this really does fix the problem of the uninsured. They are going to make it illegal not to buy health insurance, a novel idea. Most of the uninsured are uninsured because they want to be, and the dirt poor, who can't really afford housing, we'll give them insurance for free.

I hope this works out better than I see it working.

This "plan" seems to completely ignore the working poor, they make to much to receive welfare or food stamps, and too little to have a dime at the end of the month to put in a piggy bank. Years ago, when I was in such a situation, I can't imagine where I would have found even $25 more dollars a month to spend on anything. I'm pretty sure with this plan, though, a government official could have found the extra money in my budget for me.

The auto insurance comparison is bogus. If you can't afford insurance, you don't drive, it's a choice. You can't choose whether or not to own a body.

[kestrel91316]

74. Well, they're making the purchasing of medical insurance

mandatory. IMHO that does not necessarily equate with "mandtory healthcare". I'm sure the insurers will be making a hefty profit in their ongoing attempts to DENY CARE for the usual sundry reasons.

[lastliberalintexas]

90. Speaking of the insurance industry...

LAT: Insurers Saw Record Gains in Year of Catastrophic Loss
Insurers Saw Record Gains in Year of Catastrophic Loss

THEY SAY THE PROFITS ARE A FLUKE, BUT THE INDUSTRY HAS WORKED TO SHIFT RISK TO CLIENTS AND THE PUBLIC.

By Peter G. Gosselin, Times Staff Writer
April 5, 2006

The companies that provide Americans with their homeowners and auto insurance made a record $44.8-billion profit last year even after accounting for the claims of policyholders wiped out by Hurricane Katrina and the other big storms of 2005, according to the firms' filings with state regulators.

Top executives described the profit — an 18.7% increase over the previous year — as a fluke, the product of gains in other lines of insurance besides homeowners and a very good year for their investments.

They said that even with the increase, insurers face deep problems that can be fixed only by substantial premium hikes, a scaling back of commitments by several firms to the most disaster-prone portions of the country and, according to some, a greatly expanded role for the state and federal governments in insuring individuals against the largest of catastrophes.

"Unless insurers can get relief, you're going to see a pullback by the private industry," warned Robert P. Hartwig, chief economist of the industry-funded Insurance Information Institute.

"We're not being good stewards of our investors' capital or our policyholders' surplus if we keep doing business where we can't make money."...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-in...


Ahem- THEY SAY THE PROFITS ARE A FLUKE, BUT THE INDUSTRY HAS WORKED TO SHIFT RISK TO CLIENTS AND THE PUBLIC. Shifting the risk to the public- now why does that sound familiar? :)

[oscar111]

91. DEAD THREAD SOON.. POST IN NARROW TOPIC FORUMS TO LIVE LONGER

TIP.. GD forum moves fast , threads disappear in a day.
post such as this,in Health forum , and it will be on page one of that forum for a week.

[Vinca]

98. Here's another point to consider about our current insurance

system, whether mandatory or not. The vast majority of policies only cover about 80% of medical expenses. Most bankruptcies occur because of medical expenses and most of the people who file had insurance. It's almost stupid to buy insurance if you're going to go belly up anyways, a factor I considered when weighing whether I could afford $12,000 a year for minimal coverage (I can't). Fixing the healthcare system in this country is going to take something beyond fining people who don't buy insurance.