Virginia Libertarian

BOSTON — Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill Tuesday that would make

Massachusetts the first state to require that all its citizens have some form of health insurance.
The plan — approved just 24 hours after the final details were released — would use a combination of financial incentives and penalties to dramatically expand access to health care over the next three years and extend coverage to the state’s estimated 500,000 uninsured.
If all goes as planned, poor people will be offered free or heavily subsidized coverage; those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage; and those already insured will see a modest drop in their premiums.
The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.
The cost was put at $316 million in the first year, and more than a $1 billion by the third year, with much of that money coming from federal reimbursements and existing state spending, officials said.
The House approved the bill on a 154-2 vote. The Senate endorsed it 37-0.
A final procedural vote is needed in both chambers of the Democratic-controlled legislature before the bill can head to the desk of Gov. Mitt Romney, a potential Republican candidate for president in 2008. Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said the governor would sign the bill but would make some changes that wouldn’t “affect the main purpose of the bill.”
Legislators praised the effort.
“It’s only fitting that Massachusetts would set forward and produce the most comprehensive, all-encompassing health care reform bill in the country,” said House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a Democrat. “Do we know whether this is perfect or not? No, because it’s never been done before.”
The only other state to come close to the Massachusetts plan is Maine, which passed a law in 2003 to dramatically expand health care. That plan relies largely on voluntary compliance.
“What Massachusetts is doing, who they are covering, how they’re crafting it, especially the individual requirement, that’s all unique,” said Laura Tobler, a health policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
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 novelty of what’s happened in this building is that instead of saying, `Let’s do neither,’ leaders are saying, `Let’s do both,’” said John McDonough of Health Care for All. “This will have a ripple effect across the country.”
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.
Romney pushed vigorously for the individual mandate and called the legislation “something historic, truly landmark, a once-in-a-generation opportunity.”
One goal of the bill is to protect $385 million pledged by the federal government over each of the next two years if the state can show it is on a path to reducing its number of uninsured.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has threatened to withhold the money if the state does not have a plan up and running by July 1.
God help us, this is coming…
There are so many problems with this, but lets start at the top:
One goal of the bill is to protect $385 million pledged by the federal government over each of the next two years if the state can show it is on a path to reducing its number of uninsured.
Why is the ferderal government giving out money to reduce the number of uninsured? I’ll answer my own question, since this article doesn’t, it’s because they are now paying for those people who are uninsured by giving out money when Jon Doe doesn’t have health insurance and can’t pay his bill. That needs to stop. If the hospitals want to take people that can’t pay their way, that should be up to them, they should not be reimbursed by the fed to take them. Yes, that sounds callous on the surface, but there are much better and efficient ways to help people that need it other than government (actually almost any way is better than government). Private charity organizations (March of Dimes, American Red Cross, the myriad Cancer ones, most hostpitals have some foundation or other, see here for more) do a far better job of it than government bureacracy ever can.
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.
Why are people that don’t want to buy health insurance forced to do so? If they don’t have insurance, do they not have to pay their medical bills? The underlying problem is that people aren’t paying their bills, and government is for some reason footing the bill.
“The novelty of what’s happened in this building is that instead of saying, `Let’s do neither,’ leaders are saying, `Let’s do both,’” said John McDonough of Health Care for All. “This will have a ripple effect across the country.”

God help us, yes it will.
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.
Now, MA is free to do as it chooses, but wait, we will be seeing this kind of thing all over the country, with the fed cramming it down the states throats (by “witholding” money they shouldn’t be giving away in the first place).
I don’t see why, if I don’t want to, that I should be forced to purchase health insurance. I also don’t see why my employer should be forced to offer that as a benefit (mine doesn’t), that is part of negotiating for your job (as is your wage, which the gov’t has stepped into as well). If I’m perfectly healthy, and I’m willing to run the risk that I’m not going to get deathly ill or get into an accident, then I should be able to not buy into this. Insurance is a gamble that something bad is going to happen to you (for life insurance, you’re betting you’re going to die, for health insurance, you’re betting you’re going to get seriously hurt). If I choose to bet that I’m going to stay healthy and live a long time, and I loose, then why should I not just have to pay the consequences for that (i.e., I’m now, say, $500,000 in debt to the hospital for that bypass surgery it turns out I needed). The problem is, we give people an easy way out of that (bankruptcy), thus there are no consequences for gambling wrong. What they’re doing now is making everybody pay (don’t hold your breath for this: “The vast majority of Massachusetts residents who are already insured could see a modest easing of their premiums.”, and if you think that service won’t get worse, you’re kidding yourself, look at Canada, England, and any other country with socialized medicine.) for those who gamble and loose instead of just making the looser pay.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 5th, 2006 at 10:50 am and is filed under National. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.