Mass. Pols OK Mandatory Health Insurance

AP ^ | 4/4/6 | STEVE LeBLANC

[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 . . .

[BlueStateDepression]

Sheesh, from what I have seen on the news alot of folks are doing that nowadays. I look to the future and it shows me that soon it will be a felony to impersonate a rider in those lanes. LMAO

[GovernmentShrinker]

I don't think medical professionals or hospital administrators have a blanket ethical obligation to provide medical care without payment. Carefully directed charity is a good thing, but your statement is essentially indistinguishable from declaring an entitlement. In a free country, I think most hospitals would choose to provide emergency life-saving measures, no questions asked, if only because there often isn't time to first determine whether someone is insured or has other means to pay. But the bulk of health care outlays for uninsured people are not for emergency life-saving attention after trauma, heart attack, etc. About 50% is for conditions arising from obesity, which in nearly all cases is self-inflicted. Plenty more is for conditions arising from use of tobacco, alcohol, and other toxic recreational substances. And in big cities, there are also quite a lot of gang-bangers being patched up at taxpayer expense so they can go out and gang-bang some more. I don't buy into the notion that anyone has an ethical obligation to pay for this stuff. And furthermore, I think the insidious spread of this notion has fueled irresponsible behavior that causes serious health problems.

[steve86]

They can just invent some cut rate plan that doesn't really cover anything and has a $25,000 deductable or some crap.

I don't know about MA but that couldn't happen in my state. Too many regulations mandating minimum benefits. And, yes, many insurers pulled out instead of offering the required benefits. I'm not sure if the regs cover deductibles.

[BlueStateDepression]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. We seem to be more in line than I first thought.

My buddy had a state farm payout when his house burned and when an uninsured driver ran into the back of his car.

He was recently cancelled 'because they wanted some painting done" at his house. The gal that talked to him about having that stuff painted said her husband would come and do the work so he could remain insured.

Point of this is that when they want to cancel you they do. Nothing will stop them when they are the caretakers of their own hen house.

Here in Illinois insurance companies write alot of their own rules and have very little, if any, state supervision. YET it is the law to have auto insurance. If you do not believe me, call the Illinois Department of Insurance (after choosing English from the menu of spanish words) you can ask them what part of that agency deals with oversight of mandated auto insurance policies.

Then you can laugh when they say that is not in their job description. As that is exactly what they told me when I was told that insurance companies set their own rules for how an underinsured claim can be filed.

IMHO if the state mandates then the state has to oversee and it is no longer a free market enterprise. Here the insurance lobby got the best of both worlds. They get a law mandating purchase with STIFF penalties for not doing so...... and they get to set their own rules about claims with impunity.


Sure seems to me that they play both ends against the middle and laugh all the way to the bank.

When I was 18 I bought a brand new pickup truck. My insurance premium (straight and clean driving record) was more than my truck payment. Yeah I call that a racket.

When an insurance company can stall payment for three years when the at fault driver was 17 blowing a a .123 after being two lanes away from his own.......something is very very wrong....and I offer this is a result of them being allowed to make their own rules and the consumer having no choice but to purchase the product under penalty of 500 dollar (or more) fines.

[BlueStateDepression]

So the Massachusetts taxpayers will subsidize the lower-income residents.

What is considered low income in MASS? 150 grand a year? ;)

[steve86]

Federal law requires life-saving treatment. And I believe they also have an ethical responsibility to provide such; few medical professionals would disagree.

Hippocratic Oath
Translation by Heinrich Von Staden, "In a pure and holy way:" Personal and Professional Conduct in the Hippocratic Oath," Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 51 (1996) 406-408.
1. i. I swear
ii. by Apollo the Physician and by Asclepius and by Health and Panacea and by all the gods as well as goddesses, making them judges [witnesses],
iii. to bring the following oath and written covenant to ful- fillment,in accordance with my power and my judgment;
2. i. to regard him who has taught me this techne as equal to my parents, and
ii. to share, in partnership, my livelihood with him and to give him a share when he is in need of necessities, and
iii. to judge the offspring [coming] from him equal to [my] male siblings, and
iv. to teach them this techne, should they desire to learn [it], without fee and written covenant, and to give a share both of rules and of lectures, and of all the rest of learning, to my sons and to the [sons]of him who has taught me and to the pupils who have both make a written contract and sworn by a medical convention but by no other.
3. i. And I will use regimens for the benefit of the ill in accordance with my ability and my judgment, but from [what is] to their harm or injustice I will keep [them].
4. i. And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked [for it],
ii. nor will I suggest the way to such a counsel. And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary.
5. i. And in a pure and holy way
ii. I will guard my life and my techne.
6. i. I will not cut, and certainly not those suffering from stone, but I will cede [this] to men [who are] practitioners of this activity.
7. i. Into as many houses as I may enter, I will go for the benefit of the ill,
ii. while being far from all voluntary and destructive injustice, especially from sexual acts both upon women's bodies and upon men's, both of the free and of the slaves.
8. i. And about whatever I may see or hear in treatment, or even without treatment, in the life of human beings -- things that should not ever be blurted out outside --I will remain silent, holding such things to be unutterable [sacred, not to be divulged],
i. a. If I render this oath fulfilled, and if I do not blur and confound it [making it to no effect]
b. may it be [granted] to me to enjoy the benefits both of life and of techne,
c. being held in good repute among all human beings for time eternal.
ii. a. If, however, I transgress and purjure myself,
b. the opposite of these

[BlueStateDepression]

I agree this is a trojan horse for some folks desired outcome. Maybe this will make better business come from the insurance industry?

[bert]

....Remember that fact when he runs for prezzzz.....

The instant of signing the bill takes him out of the race.

[Alberta's Child]

Indiana may have recently deregulated their auto insurance industry. New Jersey has gone through a similar thing in the last couple of years, with a bunch of new insurance carriers that had previously avoided doing business here.

[Gaffer]

Massachusetts Lawmakers just sounded the death knell for independent free-enterprise business in that state. Watch for mass company migration from that state. If they weren't already taxing their citizens to death, they've confined them to death through unemployment...

[chapin2500]

He is vehemently anti-2nd Amendment (even thought he won't say so).

I would like to read something that supports your statement please. see my tagline

[Bogeygolfer]

I don't see how this can result in any good outcomes for the insurance industry. I also don't see how it will ever benefit the consumer. On that we agree. I guess where we disagree is that insurance companies are rackets. They are middle men. They charge a percentage for the service. Simple stuff. If they were over charging and not paying claims (I understand this does happen) then where do you think the money has been going the last hundred years? How about the last few years. If they were making money hand over foot you'd see it in their financials and there stocks would be going through the roof. I'm not suggesting they are doing well but to the point of being a racket. They take in money and they pay out less. They have to have rules though since people cheat and rules are going to hurt somebody..your buddy for example. If they agree to pay everything that everybody thinks is reasonable then they will have to raise premiums to make their profit and we will all pay more. I want the carriers to keep down claims, especially bogus claims of which there are millions. I want them to be fair and yet strict for the overall health of the system. Someone is going to be pissed. P.S. Your buddy should have painted his house and I sure as heck don't want to be paying higher premiums for somebody down the street not taking care of business and adding risk by not keeping his house up.

[msrngtp2002]

OK so the plan says that small business's that don't currently provide coverage must buy coverage for $295 bucks per YEAR.

I own a small business that DOES provide health coverage. Our minimal plan costs us $268 bucks per MONTH for a single person, $786 per MONTH for a married couple, and a whopping $977 per MONTH for a family (Husband, wife, and at least one kid).

$295 bucks won't pay for even a single blood workup for a physical exam.

Who are these people kidding? It would appear that the US Taxpayer, through "federal subsidies" will foot the extra 240 bucks per month for a single person.

Granted health insurance coverage is expensive, and health costs in general keep rising, but if their annual premium amount is correct these people who buy the coverage will THINK they have adequate coverage, but when they fall a break their arm, their house will end up with a lien on it!

[Jack Hammer]

Among Massachusetts shooters, he's considered anti-gun. Although I can't, just at the moment, cite chapter and verse, I could probably find something in print if you won't take our word for it.

-Mass. resident, NRA Life Member, and member of Gun Owner's Action League (a New England gun rights group)

[Jack Hammer]

He's already made public statements for the record to the effect that he's ready to sign; and he never had any realistic chance for the nomination. He's never been anything but a RINO; everyone in the nation who's unfamiliar with him and his record should be aware that he's a Democrat in all but name. In a Marxist state such as Massachusetts, being a Democrat makes one ipso facto a comparative conservative. The "Democrats" here, meanwhile, are in actuality Marxist/Leninist in their orientation. And that's not an exaggeration.

[scory]

Liberty is always lost for "good" reasons. Most people could care less. Most people apparently welcome control by others. They welcome all the "free" services and benefits. Most people like it when others are forced to do good (rarely do they consider that the laws apply to them as well and by then it is too late). We march inexorably toward a totalitarian bureaucracy created solely to "do good".

[aShepard]

Well, there goes the part-timer and teenager labor market!

Retail stores would rather work full timers big overtime rather than pick up part-timer med insurance.

Watch the Mass. unemployment soar!

[BlueStateDepression]

Well as for my buddy, gieco was happy to underwrite for farmers. Simple disclaimer about that one trouble spot. LOL That spot is so small and insignificant that it just highlighted how silly it was to use that as an excuse to cancel him. But whatever, that isn't really here nor there.

I would bet that there is as many or more bogus denials than there is bogus claims. ALl of your argument changes when the context of forced purchase is added into it.

Here in Ilinois we were told (years ago) that rates would come down when the law requiring auto insurance was passed. Do you honestly think that rates went down?

I ask this about the term middleman? When I contract with them to assume liability for covered items. How exactly are they a middle man? I sure see them as the man.

KNow this, you will pay higher premiums whenever insurance industry wants you too, especially when its the law mandating you have to have it. History is teaching us this right before our eyes.

Answer me this one question, Can you get an insurance company to pay a claim they dispute without contracting the servics of a lawyer? ( especially when dealing with Auto claims)......therein lies the game they play.....

[chapin2500]

I could probably find something in print if you won't take our word for it.

I trust you, but I want something in print, something tangible that can be shown to voters over and over again to prove that mit is no conservative.

[Final Authority]

I have read many of the replies here and I can only think about what are the alternatives to not having health insurance.

Do those who wish the government not to require insurance also wish for the government to enact "Hillary care"? Do we want health care as those have in the UK or Canada? Or, do we wish for only those who have insurance or the money to pay the full freight of a procedure to receive treatment? Do we want to trip over sick people and the dead as we walk down city streets?

When we drive, do we wish for the driver to our right or left to be insured or to be free from responsibility? After all, a poor person, although having the good intentions of paying for losses he causes, is not fulfilling ones responsibility. That is why many states have mandatory auto insurance. In NH we do not have mandatory insurance, however, if one is borrowing to pay for a car one must have insurance as the lien holder requires it. But, in reality, NH is unique, as drivers have voluntarily insured themselves at a rate higher than drivers of states where it is mandatory. I believe, the difference is the cost of insurance and the values of the people that make NH a great place to live. But the issue remains. Who should pay and who should be responsible for ones own welfare?