Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney to Sign Mandatory Health Bill
NewsMax.com ^ | April 4, 2006 | NewsMax Staff

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: commonwealth; dukakisii; fakerepublican; healthypeople; healthypeople2010; hillaryromneycare; rinomoron; rinowatch; romney; romneytherino; socialismuberalles
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-412 next last
To: Jim Noble
"Last great county hospital". I believe it, the last one. There are no more like that, at least in these parts, as docs need to be paid, nurses need money, the kitchen staff work for a living, and so on and so forth.

The plan put forth by Newt Gingrich and the Massachusetts legislature is for the poor. If you are really poor, you pay nothing, if you are somewhat poor, you pay something, and if you have been a leech on the teat of society, you pay your way, as long as you can.

There will always be medical care for the rich, the question is, should it be nationalized or maintained as a private system of delivery. This plan keeps it private, for now at least, as long as personal reponsibility is accepted.
381 posted on 04/07/2006 2:21:13 PM PDT by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority
eliminating even a tenth of our GDP for it to become volunteer work and charity to be able to assume the health treatment of millions of those who don't have it is a dream, as in, not real.

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.

382 posted on 04/07/2006 2:22:26 PM PDT by Jim Noble (And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
You still haven't figured out the issue is. It is about holding back the rising tide of socialism. It is the exact opposite of what you believe. It is to force personal responsibility on individuals who in the past refuse to pay for their care. It is to keep private insurers and private providers do their private work privately. It is not a government run medical care delivery system.

Read more about it then get back to me, but answer this. Do you believe in personal responsibility for the payment of goods and services or do you believe certain things, like medical care is a right and whether or not one can pay, it should be either free or offered without cost?
383 posted on 04/07/2006 2:28:37 PM PDT by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority
Re your post 363, I went back and re-read what you wrote and see that I misinterpreted what I saw. You really weren't limiting costs of insurance for events involving old age. Therefore you were right and I was wrong.

But you really shouldn't be so snippity in your correction of my error.

384 posted on 04/07/2006 4:49:43 PM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

I should be more forgiving, you are correct. I often get it wrong on the first read as well.


385 posted on 04/07/2006 5:04:24 PM PDT by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority

Thank you, sir. I appreciate your comment.


386 posted on 04/08/2006 3:27:30 PM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: CSM
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.

Sorry..the $295 fee IS a new tax..

387 posted on 04/08/2006 3:30:06 PM PDT by ExtremeUnction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris
Had I known he would do what he has done, I certainly would have taken a hard look at other candidates during the Republican primaries.

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.

388 posted on 04/09/2006 6:40:45 AM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority; CSM
You might ask, why do I not talk about the very poor? Well, as in most states, there are already insurance plans to deal with that. The Mass. plan is an method to engage those who have resources to pay to do so. So what is wrong with that?

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

Yes, the Cold War is over.

Apparently, we lost.

389 posted on 04/11/2006 6:24:04 AM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority
Newt Gingrich advocates personal responsibility, the end of paper medical records, consumer-directed health care, and mandatory health insurance or a posted bond for everyone as the way to transform the American health care system.

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.

390 posted on 04/11/2006 6:30:20 AM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
"Health care for all and it will cost nobody any extra.
It is an economic miracle."

I've seen something like that happen in a David Copperfield show.

'smoke and mirrors' anyone?

btw, that 'no cost' ... I think they basically took Government spending on health care and re-sliced and diced it.

It's the Communist Manifesto, but without the smoke-filled back rooms and those silly beards. Really.

391 posted on 04/11/2006 6:33:13 AM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal
If all goes as planned, poor people will be offered free or heavily subsidized coverage;

This guy sounds like Hillary.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

392 posted on 04/11/2006 6:34:28 AM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: al_again; pleikumud
As for MD businesses, they support this. The charge of $295 per employee is not a lot, it is less than 3% of minimum wage employee salaries.

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"?

393 posted on 04/11/2006 6:37:19 AM PDT by Don Joe (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe

Dang, Romney ate my tagline! :)


394 posted on 04/11/2006 6:38:22 AM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: benjamin032

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.


395 posted on 04/11/2006 6:46:31 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Pard

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.


396 posted on 04/11/2006 7:01:42 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority

"...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.


397 posted on 04/11/2006 7:09:26 AM PDT by CSM (Liberalism is a disease. FreeRepublic is the antidote. - Mindbender26, 3/29/2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
See, even without mandatory insurance, the poor and the criminal alien get free care anyway. At least with some sort of mandatory insurance, those who are not desperately poor will pay some, and those who have money but refuse to pay for their care will be required to pay for their insurance.

The question is, and no one who claims to be conservative will answer it, is, will you agree or do you agree then, if a poor person has no means to pay or has no health insurance, and the person who has money but not enough to pay for his head injury he caused by not wearing a helmet while getting off hard of his brand new Harley, that they should be denied care and set aside in a dark room waiting for family to come a get them to die at home? Do we as a society deny a reasonable level of health care to those who have not the means to pay? If you agree with that, then you are true to your argument and we therefore can do away with mandatory insurance and care for all. But if you can't articulate what the alternative is, just that mandatory insurance is an affront to your sensitivities, then think some more, and get back to me.
398 posted on 04/11/2006 7:10:40 AM PDT by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
I believe that the Government's role in this is to protect workers from abuse or negligence by enacting laws that enable businesses to provide for health insurance programs, and for workers find their own and to redress grievances(kinda like in the Bill of Rights). It is not the governments role to mandate health care. Not only would premiums be lower, quality would be greater if we introduce competition. The only concern then is the undue influence of the insurance lobby in Congress.
399 posted on 04/11/2006 7:16:11 AM PDT by benjamin032
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe

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?


400 posted on 04/11/2006 7:17:47 AM PDT by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-412 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson