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.
What is a dream, as in, not real, is that socialism will equalize health care provision for the wealthy and the poor.
It is no more likely to do so here than in any other economic sector, that is to say, not at all.
But you really shouldn't be so snippity in your correction of my error.
I should be more forgiving, you are correct. I often get it wrong on the first read as well.
Thank you, sir. I appreciate your comment.
Sorry..the $295 fee IS a new tax..
Bush told people exactly what he would do, including Amnesty and free drugs. The "conservatives" on this forum still bent over backwards to defend him, put him in office and keep him there.
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."
Yes, the Cold War is over.
Apparently, we lost.
Screw Newt.
I knew he was a scumbag from the way he treated his wives. This is merely the icing on the cake. A cad and a socialist. How quaint.
It's the Communist Manifesto, but without the smoke-filled back rooms and those silly beards. Really.
This guy sounds like Hillary.
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."
The Income Tax was a pretty reasonable percentage too, when it was first put into effect.
How do you spell "I-N-C-R-E-M-E-N-T-A-L-I-S-M"?
Dang, Romney ate my tagline! :)
The $295 is a small price to pay by businesses, who will surely pay it rather than health care premiums.
I don't like the concept of forced health care, but until we are willing to deny treatment to those who show up at the emergency room without cash or coverage, I am not sure how else to proceed. Without insurance, the taxpayers pay for health care. I pay taxes, and if requiring those who are able (the devil will be in the details on how this is determined) to get coverage will reduce taxpayer liability and increase personal accountability, in theory it sounds like a good idea. I don't like the idea of linking employers to health care, however. In today's multi-career society, it just doesn't make sense. In fact, even though my employer "pays" for my health insurance (using money I would otherwise have received as salary), it would be better if health insurance was only sold in the free market, as life insurance is. Premiums would be lower, ultimately.
Just my $0.02, worth what you are paying for it.
You said, in part: Massachusetts now forces people, via the new law, to obtain health insurance, whether they want to or not. That's not freedom, that's mandatory governmental dictate. You may counter with the car insurance argument, but I say that also is not freedom.
***
In the abstract, I agree with you. The problem here is that health care is not CONSIDERED a typical market product. If you come into my office for legal services, and cannot pay, I refuse to handle your matter. If you walk into a grocery store for a banana, and can't pay, you don't get the banana. Not so with health care. If your leg is broken and you show up at an ER, they get your insurance information, but if you have none, you are not turned away. You are treated, and, productive society, get to pay.
Either we make health care a market-driven system, and require payment for services or else deny those services, or we require individuals to maintain health care coverage, upon pain of state action. We do this with car liability insurance. There is still a market out there for that coverage. The same would likely hold true for health care insurance. If you don't want auto liability coverage, don't plan on driving.
Unfortunately, we don't seem to have the stomach for denying health care for those who refuse to cover themselves and their dependants. Health care has somehow become a "right" (how a benefit that requires others to provide it can be a right I will never know). As long as it is perceived as a right, it will never be denied. On the other hand, if people knew that they would get no care if they failed to maintain insurance, the very vast majority would do so. I am great believer in the ability of people to reach reasonable expectations.
"...or a posted bond..."
Which is what the HSA is, and that is an option not available under Mitt's bill. Seems like a very important element that is being removed, in the name of personal responsibility.
Newt delivered the majority to the GOP and the concept of conservatism. He had a plan of action. Liberals have a plan of talk. Denying ones personal responsibility is never conservative.
Ronald Reagan was divorced and he had a homosexual son, is he a scumbag?
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.