Posted on 04/04/2006 12:51:34 PM PDT by SmithL
BOSTON -- Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill Tuesday that would make Massachusetts the first state to require that all of its citizens have some form of health insurance.
The plan — hailed as a national model and approved just 24 hours after the final details were released — would dramatically expand access to health care over the next three years.
If all goes as the supporters hope . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
It is going to bankrupt businesses with a high turnover rate!!!
Well, I don't live in MA so I'm not sure how much is regulated :)
No he won't. He'll veto and it will get overridden.
Yeah, in fiscal terms this law is scary. But in terms of new government controls over daily life, it's really scary.
Romney signed a 'primary seat-belt enforcement law'. It would have been an easy veto but he thought the police should be able to pull you over for not having a strap over your shoulder. AAAAAAARRRRRRRRR!!!!!!
I wonder if local insurance companies had anything to do with this.
"those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage"
Who decides if you can afford the insurance?
I think it's more most companies won't sell car insurance in MA because of the ridiculous amount of regulation. (People who claim to understand these things -- and I have no reason to doubt them -- say the state ins. div. works hand-in-glove with the few insurers who remain, and everyone's happy, except of course the consumer.) Technically, it may be something like an insurance company has to be registered in MA to do business here, and the ins. cos. don't want to and don't register.
Why does somebody else have to pay if someone gets sick or injured? Auto insurance is necessary to ensure compensation to the person who is injured or whose property is damaged by the insured person -- that's a reasonable requirement for using the public roads. But if someone is uninsured and gets sick or gets injured, why should we assume that somebody else has to pay?
I thought Romney was enthusiastic about this plan.
Certainly not "you"! What do "you" know about these things? The Great and General Court will undoubtedly decide.
Can we properly call this socialized medicine ?
Just the kind of thing Romney loves! No new taxes. Everyone knows a fee is not a tax. Repeat. Everyone knows . . .
Yes he will. He's been promising something like this for quit a while now. I'll be happy(er) if your scenario plays out.
Gawd, don't give Baldacci any ideas here in Maine!
And All-state, I believe.
How can you say free market when the law states you HAVE to purchase the product?
That doesn't fit.
You need vitamin C so pass a law to force you to purchase oranges or pharms? Not much a free market there eh?
Lets see, I want to provide a service, I want to collect a premium for that service. I want to force a deductable and then cancel you if you actually do use the service I am providing. Futhermore I lobby the state to mandate your purchase of my product and am successful......
OH YEAH that is a free market eh?
Insurance was once a good thing but it has become nothing more than a tax when laws mandate it.
If you truly belived in a free market then you would oppose all laws requiring purchasing a private industry product or service. Absent that opposition you are for the free market on the side of business but oppose the free market on the side of the consumer.
Heck, I could produce a stock that would do great if I could get the lawmakers to force everyone to buy the service and have free reign to deny any payouts I felt like denying for whatever reason i wanted to and have little to no penalty for doing it.
Lawmakers, trial lawyers and insurance companies play a game at the consumers expense. If you back this action, so be it, but at least you could admit it.
It would seem that way, wouldn't it? The main problem with this logic is that if everyone is required to buy the coverage, there will be a significant number of applicants with serious preexisting conditions. The insurance companies are currently allowed to reject these applicants. In the face of this kind of legislation, there will be pressure to guarantee the issuance of policies without any regard to insurability.
No insurance company will want to stay in a state that requires them to insure any person at a state controlled price regardless of health. If this legislation happens, it is merely a matter of time for this state.
What about the added expense passed on down to the consumer? They might be getting insurance, but they'll end up paying for it in the products/services they buy.
The enterprising among us just find a way to register their cars in another state -- mostly NH.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.