Posted on 04/05/2006 7:05:04 AM PDT by CSM
Tuesday, April 4, 2006 10:54 p.m. EDT Romney to Sign Mandatory Health Bill
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.
Sorry, post 139
Hello?
>>>>Actually, your other statement is not quite right. The size of government, in terms of spending, actually fell under none other than Bill Clinton. It has skyrocketed under George Bush.
Let me compartmentalize one more time for ya. When I talk about federal spending, I take national defense off the table. The Feds are required to meet their Constitutional obligations and defending America is priority #1. Its a dangerous world and keeping America with a strong military is an expensive objective. So be it.
What's left in the federal budget is all other spending and that falls under the budget line item called, "Human Resources", AKA. welfare entitlements. While the Feds did spend less as a percentage of the GDP under Clinton, defense spending as a part of the budget went down 5% and HR spending went up 9% under Clinton. The GOP Congress may have held Clinton's feet to the fire and while they did have some success with the Contract With America, the social welfare state was really wasn't reduced in the 1990`s, like it was under Reagan in the 1980`s.
In the last five years, Bush has expanded the social welfare state like no one since LBJ. Social spending has gone up under Bush. The trillion dollar prescription drug entitlement, an 86% increase in the education budget and increases in pork barrel discretionary programs like transportation, energy and farm, all have made Bush the buiggest spender in history. Look at the data at OMB.gove. The facts don't lie.
No. And no.
This bill sounds really bad, but all it does is replace medicaid with mandatory insurance.
In OH, one out of six people is on taxpayer funded medicaid. There have been more than a few stories about people refusing to make more money so they can stay on medicaid and with the subsidies in this bill for poor, there will also be more than a few poor who choose to stay poor to keep the subsidized health insurance.
This bill stinks, but does not stink more than the current system.
Check the part about "federal reimbursements" - that means MY money, even though I don't live in Massachusetts. De-lovely. Do *I* get to vote on subsidizing MA health care? I'm guessing not.
Not really. People who pay cash only get necessary medical treatment. People who have insurance, and especially subsidized insurance or medicaid or medicare, tend to use more health services because it is not coming out of their pocket.
He may have catastrophic insurance (or some form of major medical) I'm not positive. I'll ask.
I do know that when his wife had their last baby, he paid in cash up front, and I recall him making the comment about no insurance. He's an extremely honest decent person and plans carefully, so I can't see him not being prepared for serious illness or injury (or expecting the guvmint to handle it).
I think that mandatory auto is good, but subsidizing mandatory auto for the poor is bad as it encourages people to stay poor. People need to be punished for being poor as you are not paying taxes, you are providing less than desirable labor if any, you are in "failure to launch" mode.
I agree that Romney isn't our best presidential candidate and I'll probably support Allen. However, Romney might be a good running mate. He could attract Notherners, RINO's, independents and other swing voters without scaring away social conservatives, like McCain, Giuliani and Pataki would. In domestic policy, Romney is no worse than the Bush family and take into account that he has to work with a state legislature where the Democrats have a veto proof majority.
Ohio is the home of the 3rd highest rate of medicaid utilization. Univeral Health care would merely replace what we have now.
AS THE REST OF THE COUNTRY WATCHES THIS DISASTER UNFOLD JUST IN TIME TO REMIND PEOPLE OF HILLARY-HEALTH DURING HER PRESIDENTIAL RUN
The Republican Party has no principles; it's just the usual collection of professional-politician whores. See my FR homepage for my questions to people still ignorant enough to support the GOP.
Fast-tracked in three years what has taken the President in six years to accomplish.
Hard to believe some folks in that state once dressed up like Indians and chucked a bunch of tea in the bay. Over what amounts to about a 2 cent tax...
Once upon a time...
And if the necessary treatment is $40k, then what, do they go home and die honorably?
That you, Scrooge? Do you mean their auto insurance shouldn't be subsidized (I don't know of anywhere that it is) or that they should be put in the stocks?
Mandatory health insurance. Is this better than mandatory health savings accounts?
Without a doubt, the new Democrat & MSM darling, for awhile anyway.
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.