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.
Well, also, don't forget the other side of the coin. Behavior will have to be mandated as well in order to properly manage costs.
I now see your point of view.
I'm not sure you do since you altered my sentence and left our the most important part.
Quality workers want more work and more money. It's always the ones who are lazy and shiftless that want all the 'perks.'
If Reagan were alive today, he would tell you he cut the rate of increase in the welfare state. He never "reduced" it.
Ditto on Allen, if the dumb dim arse Rinos keep on keeping on, soon even a candle will burn brightly.
All you say is true.
The argument relative to food costs is based a premise that is not comparable. Where fod costs are driven by technology that is cheaper and more productive than what it replaced the technology of medical care expands the scope of the possibilities of the health care industry. That is expensive, but we gain in that we may have the chance to live to realize our personal dreams.
As in raises, or working longer hours to make more money?
Geico is not allowed in MA.
Let the Church handle it. And by Church, I mean THE Church, as in one and only 'true' church of latter days.
Remember, the Church already tried this experiment called the 'United Order.' It didn't work then - it won't work now.
Yes - we should just step over the sick and dying! That image is just absurd. We have the fattest and healthiest poor people in the history of the world.
As in, quality workers want an increase in actual, physical money in their pockets, and they'll do whatever it takes - they'll work smarter, longer, harder - they'll deserve a raise. Quality people understand their own needs and what it takes to provide them. Quality people do not stand around with their hands out and their mouths open - they take the initiative to meet their own needs however they must do it.
People of quality will do whatever it takes to provide themselves an adequate life. They understand that what is good for the business, is also good for them. If they find that is not the case, that their boss is a selfish miser, then they find a different job...or else < gasp > create one of their own, where they will fight and scrape to make it work! Once they create a viable business, they'll hire people to work for them, and they will recognize a quality worker when they are fortunate enough to find one. Then, and only then, will they offer him/her benefits and raises.
If you don't understand this concept, you are not a conservative.
"I don't think I'll be voting for Romney in 2008...."
Nor will I. What an idiotic bill - requiring EVERYONE to buy health insurance whether they want it or not? So someone as wealthy as, say, the Heinz-Kerrys would HAVE to buy health insurance, even though they might prefer to pay for their health care out-of-pocket? And that's only ONE of the things I find wrong with this.
Dead man walking.
That is correct, as I pointed out in my reply. However, Mitt has made a serious effort to unburden insurance companies from state regulations who wish to compete in a freer market. GEICO would be one of those and the residents of Massachusetts would be well served if they did.
I thought those required at least catastrophic care policies...
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.