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.
I am so glad I don't live up there any more. I wish my parents would escape...
I believe I said we have the fattest POOR people. I meant fattest people in poverty. I've also heard it said that in the USA, the majority of people listed in 'poverty' have a car, TV, AND are fat. I'm certain they get far better health care also than the corresponding poverty members in other countries.
"we have socialized medicine whether you like it or not"
A significant part is still private, but too much is already socialized. Having the federal gov't or a state gov't dictate that people buy medical insurance is contrary to the principles of the U.S. Constitution. (So is Social Security, etc.)
The Massachusetts plan will collapse under the weight of people who want something for nothing, then the liberal lunatics will say the Federal gov't should rescue it. The Massachusetts plan is a step toward more socialized medicine. There will never be enough taxpayers to pay for all the things, including medical care, that people think they are entitled to. How about free housing, free food, free education, free retirement, so everyone can be equal like the peasants on Stalin's collective farms? - Completely equal slaves to the state.
Don't like the Romneys, never did.
BUT, I have mixed feelings on this bill.
The way ROmney explained it, the state is ALREADY paying this amount of money out for medical coverage for these people. The difference here is that the state will now be paying for medical insurance coverage instead and getting a better bang for the taxpayer buck in doing so.
As for mandating health coverage by employers - I don't know about that. But at least it will discourage employers of illegal aliens there. They don't want to provide medical coverage for their illegals and want to pass the social cost of that on to the taxpayers.
How is the state gov't doing this against the principles of the constitution?
The worst part for me is the forcing of everyone to have health insurance. They will use the law to eliminate the choices some people would prefer.
If "everyone will need it" then it's no longer INSURANCE (look it up).
"The Massachusetts plan subsidizes personal responsibility."
This is about the third time you made this statement. For clarification can you explain to me how government provided health insurance subsidizes personal responsibility? If the individual does not earn something, they don't take responsibility for it. Instead they abuse it.
More likely, their premiums will go up.
My 15 year old daughter has been saying for a few years now how she intends to move out of MA after college.
When will the state just implement a Witholding Tax for Compulsory Health Insurance? How about a tax on my healthcare witholdings?
"Yeah, this guy is presidential timber all right."
That's what the logger yells just before it hits the forest floor.
Since he's wortless timber, grind him up for paper pulp.
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.