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.
On further thought the business will simply pay the 295 and not offer health insurance to gladly dump the employees on this new state plan instead. Much less cost to the business.
Update to the story below, the insurance premium was not paid and the church is out of luck. The fire has also been ruled an arson.
A dream 25 years old, born of bake sales and dollar donations and the toil of church members as close as family, burned to the ground on Columbus’ West Side yesterday.
Just before dawn, a fire destroyed what a simple blackand-white sign still announces: "Future Home of the Full Gospel Sons of God Church."
Housed for 25 years in the rented Hilltop storefront at 2449 W. Broad St. where members still worship, the Pentecostal church was nearing a move to its new home off Hague Avenue at 1200 Vera Place.
For the congregation, it was to be a place of worship all their own, built largely by themselves the past two years after two decades of planning and scrimping. It had five classrooms, a sanctuary, soaring ceilings and a proper steeple.
"It was gonna be something when it was done," said Enola Harding, the pastor’s wife of 43 years.
Her husband, Richard, had left for his job as a truck driver with Columbus Public Schools about 5:50 a.m. and saw nothing amiss.
Mrs. Harding, 59, learned of the blaze when a neighbor rushed to her door about 20 minutes later. When she looked out, the fire across the street was roaring. "The flames were coming right out through the center," she said. No one was injured, but the church was destroyed. The building didn’t yet have utilities, limiting the possibilities for accidental sources of a fire, investigators said. The church furnace still sits in the Hardings’ driveway, at a home they bought to be near the new church.
Columbus Fire investigator Josh Brent said it’s too early to call the fire suspicious.
"We have to dig through a whole lot of stuff," he said.
Investigators know of the recent rash of church arsons in Alabama, but Brent said that nothing points strongly toward such a crime.
He said the presence of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should not be misinterpreted.
"They’re automatically going to come on a church fire in this day and age," he said.
"I can’t think of another crime that strikes more at the heart of the community than when a place of worship is burnt," said Patrick J. Berarducci, a senior special agent with the bureau.
Investigators are to return to the rubble today, Berarducci said.
The congregation had about $200,000 invested in the land and materials for the church, but that doesn’t come close to the real cost. Contractors donated their time and labor; much of the work was done by the roughly 85 members.
"We all did it," said Harding’s daughter, Teresa Martin.
"There’s so much hard work," said her husband, Chris. "To see it all go up that quick. . . . "
The 60-by-80-foot building was insured, though Mrs. Harding said the church might have been slightly behind on the premium.
Bull crap. I don't know if you've done any geneology or not, but most of my ancestors lived to be in their 80's or 90's if they made it past infancy or childbearing. The average mortality rate is based on just that - averages. If two infants die and two 100 year old men die...then the average age is 50. Simply put, more babies and birthing women died in those days. Keeping the mortality rates of those two groups down is not expensive.
If you factor in the millions of babies killed by abortion nowdays, I think you'd find the average age of mortality would be about 30. (That's a total guess on my part, I haven't done the math.)
"All insurance schemes are Ponzi scams made legal;"
I used to think the same thing, until I read some of Thomas Sowell's explanation and defense of Insurance. Now I at least understand the value in insurance as risk carriers. Take a look at some of his writing on the subject, I can't remember the exact book that I read, but he is easy enough to find.
Insurance is collectivization of risk. They are not ponzi schemes.
Medicare, medicaid, and social security are ponzi schemes in that they rely on an ever increasing population which has been the case in the US so this ponzi scheme has worked so far. But if the population stabilizes, these programs will come crashing down.
It sounds like one of those communities that you can't keep down for long. I'm sure they try again and eventually succeed in time.
Help me out here Freepers. As a Ward Committee Chairman I am an Ex-Officio delegate to the MA Republican Convention. So, what is my motivation here?
This is a blatantly false, though commonly held idea. When enough people believe as you do, all that's necessary for someone to win an election is for them to persuade enough "my vote doesn't matter" Kool-Aid drinkers that he will win anyway, so stay home.
You should be ashamed of yourself for even typing those words. The ability to vote and have your vote counted is a sacred right and trust bought and paid for with some of the best blood that has ever circulated through man's veins.
Was Kerry worse? An equally good question is "Was Clinton worse? Bill Clinton actually cut government spending unlike the guy you voted for.
"The guy [I] voted for"? Does this mean you did not vote for Bush? Did you vote for Kerry? ...or did you sit at home sulking when you should have been voting, all because Bush has flaws in some areas that ticked you off?
Yes, Kerry was worse. You have apparently become so narrow-minded in your focus on budget issues as to ignore all others. To me, the budget doesn't matter much to a man falling from a hundred-story building covered in burning jet fuel.
Your sense of priority is disturbing.
Too many. If however we let people who couldn't pay for their treatment, and refused to buy insurance, simply NOT GET treatment, I imagine things would be different.
You can't give away free stuff to the ill-prepared, and expect the prepared to remain that way.
And nothing in government is free. Once government decide that they will offer free services for ANYTHING, you can assume that eventually they will make people pay for it, they will destroy the private businesses competing, and will make it illegal to not use the service.
Government justifies high taxes on cigarrettes the same way, by claiming that smokers cost government money -- which is only true because government took that responsibility, even though they shouldn't, and smokers didn't ask them to.
Government shuts down trails because it costs too much to keep them safe. But they only care about "safe" because government decided it was their job to keep us safe. They can't afford to DO the job, so they just pass laws to take away our freedom.
At some beaches, you can't swim when there is no lifeguard. Same thing.
Increase insurance plan participation and limit amounts collected in law suits. Should be easy :)
Live Free or Die, baby...
I don't understand your comment in reference to my post 47.
I agree. That particular Mormon will though. He's obsessed. And there are more like him on FR.
That is exactly it Jeff. The people are not being informed. And if they hear anything, it is only partially packaged push poll style.
bump!
And OMG is expressed as "oh my heck".
i ALMOST agree with you.
The problem is that it's pretty easy to define a "minimum" level of car insurance.
How do you define the "minimum" level of health care insurance necessary to avoid triggering the penalties?
What if a business offers a "health care plan" where the employees put in 90% of the cost, and the employer 10%? Will that be enough? What will be enough?
What about the insurance itself? What's the maximum deductable allowed before the plan doesn't qualify? What medication has to be on it? What treatments are covered?
Right now I can choose my coverage, how will that work if government has to define a standard coverage set?
It's not as entirely stupid a plan as some people here seem to believe.
I think the business stuff has always been backwards -- business doesn't provide HEALTH INSURANCE, they pay employees. Sometimes they pay us with money that immediately gets taken away and is used to buy us health care. But it's just another form of payment. So I don't know why business should be required to provide that particular benefit.
I'm not sure how my brother opted out of health insurance. He has no spouse (he's too cheap to be married) and the company (large company) probably prefers not to have to pay a premium on him.
Live Free or Die used to be New Hampshire. Too many people from Massachusetts are turning NH Blue. It's not a pretty picture.
I have a 160 a month policy with a 5000 dollar deductible. I'll take care of my own health care but need something when the hand of God smotes me down with a severe mountain biking mishap or a really, really bad disease.
It has made me a lot more aware of health issues. I eat well, get regular dental cleanings, exercise like a madman, take supplements, and maintain a positive attitude about life. I pray, also.
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.