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.
Rates for residual markets are frequently capped and insurers forced to write the business at a loss.
So yes, auto insurance for those people is subsidized.
Well....mine didn't. And I know many people who at around the age of 50 began having serious health problems. If it wasn't for modern medicine they would be dying of old age.
Good...Thats almost $20,000 out of pocket over 10 yrs. not including medical costs if your rates don't go up. I go to the doctor maybe 5 or 6 times in that period of time.
How do the Illegal Aliens participate? The New England Journal of Medicine wrote the 43% of emergency room treatments are "undocumented". Can we coerce them as well?
If they have 'serious' health problems, how long are their lives prolonged and what quality of life do they have?
My father died at a relativley young age of 64 from cancer. He was deemed 'cured" because he lived for 5 years after diagnosis. He died in the 6th year, and much of his final years was extremely difficult and painful.
OTOH my grandson was diagnosed with leukemia 4 years ago. Thanks to medical intervention he is now a healty (crosses fingers) seven year old. His illness has been very expensive! I am greatful my daughter had health insurance through her work. But face it - the costs wouldn't be so exhorbitant without lawyers and government.
Don't worry.....
When people start realizing the costs, they will flee in droves....
Free is never really free, in this case especially...
SOMEONE will have to pay the bill, and it will come Due eventually.....
I agree......
I'm thinking he's signing this BECAUSE he wants to run...
If he doesn't it, it's a HUGE hammer to hold over his head.
Imagine the "Grandma's eating Dogfood to pay for Healthcare" commericials the left would run if he did NOT?
I presume your perceptive sister can embellish what I've touched upon. Tell her to register at FR to sound off with the rest of us.
Down in Texas there's the DGDWTY../double garun damn well tee ya
Mitt Romney's theme song . . . how do you think he keeps claiming he's put in no new taxes?
It is coming your way too tcrlaf.
This is Healthy People 2010.
Here is the Indiana foreshadowing:
http://www.in.gov/isdh/dataandstats/brfss/2002/appendix_a.htm
(snip)
>>>Appendix A
Healthy People 2010 in Indiana<<<<
(snip)
If all goes as planned, poor people will be offered free or heavily subsidized coverage
What? Almost sounds like your suggesting euthanasia may be the way to go. I tend to think we as a society are in debt to our elders, don't you?
So all the indigents' healthcare and some of the lower middle class' healthcare is paid for by tax payers. And how does this differ from every other state again?
Help me out here, other than the slippery slope issue, and the no new taxes principle, is this a bad program? At first glance it just appears to lay an insurance policy on top of existing state spending cash flows, while reducing the risk and corruption associated with existing “free” ER/clinical visits and hospitalization.
We’re already unofficially supplying universal healthcare, and never going to stop. This look like it’s just formalizing and better structuring it, with a moderate expansion ($300 per worker).
<<< The trillion dollar prescription drug entitlement, an 86% increase in the education budget>>>
Quite true, but you forget the WHY's of it......
Bush compromised what otherwise would the Dems BIG HAMMER platforms, used to prove hoe Repubs hate the people, in commercial after commercial....
When he took thier ideas as his own, they were left flat-footed and disorganized...
I don't like it, but I DO understand why.....
If Romney doesn't sign, he gets beat up over this, and any hopes of being a National Candidate are GONE, while the bill passes through override anyway....
Until we get LARGE MAJORITIES we are forced into compromises we may not like.
Yeah... I know.....
HoosierHealth (HillaryCare) was a disaster here. 3 times more folks signed up than planned, and we STILL have the same numbers of uninsured.
They came from employers that had no hope of meeting the states plan at a reasonable cost, so why not pay them a little more, and hand them the papers for the state's plan?
Nonsense. That doesn’t make him a horrible person. A kook maybe, or at least someone so far out of touch with the electorate that his influence is nil. But with the public policies you suggest (and suggest are those of Arizona Pard), people would likely be more prone to avoid risky behavior, personally insure, and contribute to charities. There’s no telling if such a policy would actually be more effective, efficient and humane, but it will not be implemented in our democracy or take root in our society.
You seriously cannot be a conservative. There is a BIG difference between dying of old age, illness, natural causes and euthanasia!
Obviously we can debate the point when medical intervention is not a good thing. Everyone has a different opinion. But darned it, I don't want to be "taxed" in order to provide some 90 year old with a new heart...it just doesn't make sense. And who gets to decide just who gets a certain medical proceedure. If you think insurance companies are bad, just wait until government is involved. What will you do if the government deems you expendable. It could happen if you allow them the responsibilty of your health care.
Charity, not government, is for those who cannot provide for themselves. Government takes such a big part of our money, that no one wants to give to charity anymore. Plus, why give when the government will provide. Socialism is a sick form of government it won't work, never has and never will.
Life is not fair - get over it.
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.