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.
Society is much more than the state. It is, to borrow a phrase from Edmund Burke, numerous small battalions of families, churches, businesses, fraternities, etc. During the heyday of fraternal organizations, before the Depression, many men joined such organizations for the support they provided their families, such as health benefits and burial coverage. For those who did not have the social status to be Masons, there were other, more working class oriented groups like the Odd Fellows and the Woodmen of the World, as well as ethnic oriented ones like the Sons of Norway or the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Many hospitals carry the names of their religious origins. Although the Protestant denomination or Catholic order that founded a particular hospital may no longer manage the institution, the name is reflective of their origin as non-profit, charitable institutions.
The Christian journalist, Marvin Olasky, wrote a book, The Tragedy of American Compassion, which outlines how private charity, church groups, etc., took care of the indigent and the sick with little or no government intervention. Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, we have suffered increased government takeover of this area as the voters learned that organized looting under color of law is more profitable than having to spend their own money for goods and services. It is fortunate that these statists and socialists have not entirely crippled the productivity and ingenuity of Americans. If and when that point is reached, our economy will go into an irreversible decline, as happened with Spain in the 18th Century and England in the 20th Century.
America needs a leader who will start unshackling this nation from the chains of big government and massive state intervention. It needs him sooner, not later.
I have forgotten nothing. The "WHY" you speak of is crystal clear. On domestic spending, Bush and the GOP Congress don't govern as fiscal conservatives. Period.
>>>>Until we get LARGE MAJORITIES we are forced into compromises we may not like.
BULLoney! Reagan significantly reduced welfare state over his eight years in office and actually cut non-defense related discretionary spending. Reagan didn't have a GOP House. The Democrats controlled the purse strings in the 1980`s. Bush has had a GOP controlled Congress. Everything the GOP Congress has sent to Bush, he's signed into law. Not a single veto on any spending bills. On federal spending, Bush is no fisal cosnervative.
She got me into this, and is included in the convo.
That response was reasoned and eloquent.
Our younger generations are so used to the government teat that I fear we are already on the irreversible decline. It frightens me to see some of the responses to this issue from those who call themselves FreeRebulicans (or Republicites whatever.)
When those, who call themselves conservative, don't grasp the simple concepts you've outlined, we're doomed - doomed I tell ya!
Why not? I want to see a Employer driven health system with costs passed on to the consumer, not a government system with costs passed on to the taxpayer.
What's not conservative?
I've just logged on and am catching up on this thread, but I just wanted to say that I like your web page. Welcome to FR!
Oops, I meant your home page here on FR.
Making employment expensive is what's blowing up the French state right now. Let's take everything that's not working in Europe and try it on the east and west coasts. Brilliant!
"They"...are doing that here in OK.
Both sides...claiming no taxes hikes...All the while raising service charges, building permits, trash fees, service fee on this and that...etc...etc...etc...
The Borg just keeps growing.
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!!
No, people get sick and die eventually, no matter how careful they are. But if you walk into a hospital on a given day, I would estimate that at least half of the patients are there primarily due to self-abuse. Just think of all the problems caused by cigarettes and alcohol for starters. The list is very long. Why should taxpayers pay for the irresponsible behavior of other people?
People have also come to expect medical care without paying, or only about $20 for a "copay", and being insured for everything else. This increases the cost of insurance for everyone. But people think nothing of spending $75 a month on a cell phone, $50 a month to have someone else mow the lawn, $1,200 for a new TV, etc.
By the way, I'm a "health nut", and I only see the doctor once a year. But I have private insurance in case of bad luck.
(Not just in taxes, but that $295/employee will be passed on to the consumer, a double whammy.)
Not all of the businesses will be able to do that. If a business outside of Massachussetts can (or is allowed) to provide the same goods and services, it will cause the in-state one to either go bankrupt or move out of state.
Hey, if forcing employers to provide health care is such a good idea, why not force them to provide food and housing as well? Communism worked oh so well!
Respecting 222, what would you do for a society who has not the responsibility to pay for their own health care? Who pays? Do we just drag dead and dying corpses out to a pit and toss them in?
Medical care was but a small segment of the economy just 50 years ago. It is now averaging 18% I think and over 22% in states like Massachusetts where the best hospitals and doctors are located. Charity is a good way to pay but what if it doesn't cover the costs of care? Do we ration care and to whom?
The whole point of this legislation is to apply some responsibility to the recipient of the care that is offered by society. I think that is a good thing, and over time, we all will think that is better than a state run, socialist system of universal care.
What do you mean by Employer driven? I am a small business owner. After raising my family without insurance as we were building our own business, we started offering health insurance as a way to get "quality" employees. It didn't change the quality at all. Now some of our employees think they should also get dental, eyewear and full-family health insurance coverage at no cost. It's funny, but our real "quality" workers don't ever think to ask for these types of benefits - Quality workers want more work and more money. It's always the ones who are lazy and shiftless that want all the 'perks.'
Puhlease...how about a consumer driven health system. Now that is the only one that makes sense. You want it, you pay for it.
America has been fortunate to benefit from a series of technological advances that has increased per capita productivity and certain Presidents (Kennedy, Reagan, the younger Bush) who had at least some economic common sense and cut taxes (though not regulation or spending).
Otto Von Bismarck, the architect of German unification, once remarked that God protects fools, drunks, and the United States of America. I don't believe our fortune will last forever.
Alright, I can see that you probably HAD to sign it--Who could politically live in MA and not sign a bill to give people health care?
Answer: A person with a spine and one who's not currently in or running for, any office.
There's always a silver lining, isn't there?
What is proposed in Massachusetts, and what already exists in part throughout the nation is in fact a state run system of medical care. You are correct when you state that medical costs take up an ever increasing portion of the economy. However, you must consider that these costs are driven up by government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, burdensome regulations imposed by state and Federal governments on health care providers and insurance companies, out of control malpractice insurance costs driven by liberal run courts on both state and Federal levels, excessive FDA regulations on the issuance of new medicines, etc. The question should be asked: what would the cost of health care be in a free market? I would draw an analogy with the cost of food, where overall regulatory burden is far lighter. Compared with 50 years ago, food is a smaller percentage of the family budget because of the increased efficiency of farmers, ranchers, and food processors. As a general rule, customer satisfaction is far weaker where the state provides the services directly (roads, public schools) or where the commodity or service is highly regulated (air travel, medical care) than where the good or service is basically free market in nature, for example, retail stores, electronics, entertainment. You can avoid Target, Sony, or Disney if the company or their service displeases you and find an alternative provider. It is far more difficult to avoid state run or highly regulated enterprises. You cannot avoid using the highways, or, if you lack a car, riding public transit.
Political and economic history provide clear evidence that state intervention, beyond the duty of providing public order, is inimical to the general good and harmful to the overall population, though it benefits certain persons with political influence. Eliminating government burden, not imposing new ones, is the only way to improve medical care.
Romney can kiss my vote Goodbye!
I now see your point of view.
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.