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.
"See, even without Communism, the poor in Russia managed to eat somehow anyway. At least with mandatory State control of the economy, they are able to "even out the bumps" and ensure a fair distribution to all. From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need!"
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.
If you insist on socializing the concept of "charity" from the private sector (churches and other charitable institutions) to The State, then you should provide a bare-bones form of "charity", i.e., no-luxury poverty wards, etc.
If it's good enough for those who shed blood for our country (have you ever been inside a VA hospital?), it's good enough for those who DECIDE to take a free ride on the backs of the rest of us.
But, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "fair" distribution and supply.
If we were talking about "food" instead of "health services delivery" (as a former state HMO Commissioner, I do know the lingo), then we would be giving filet mignon and lobster to "the poor" -- or, more likely, having "the rich" living on rice and beans.
It's socialism, get over it. PLEASE stop trying to pretend it's anything but. The more convoluted the pro-socialism BS apologetics get, the more I feel like clearing my throat and spitting on the monitor.
Ronald Reagan was divorced and he had a homosexual son, is he a scumbag?
Gingrich is a new-age/globalist POS in "conservative" clothing.
Did Reagan wait until his wife was hospitalized with cancer, on the brink of death, to inform her that he was dumping her for some younger meat? And then dump her for some even newer meat?
The guy is a real piece of work. Please stop trying to cast him as some kind of conservative hero.
PS: Nice touch, trying to drape Newt the Serial Wife-Trashing Slug in the flag of "personal responsibility", LOL!
Yeah, whatever.
Put some ice on it.
Neither will anyone else. That boy took himself out of the race early, didn't he?
No need for ice, you couldn't hit a lick with a stick, when it comes to intelligent dialog.
Used to be free alert.
On every small group I work with (usually about 20 ees) there is usually at least one who decides to "wing-it" without health coverage, even if the employer pays the majority.
Bankrupcy used to be the nations unspoken healthcare system for these "working well". However, with tougher laws it will be harder to walk away from those $10k per day (average) hospital bills. If you work at even a moderately low wage, the gov. offers no relief, contrary to popular conception.
Mandatory auto insurance is for liability to others when you are operating a vehicle on state roads. Nobody forces you to insure your own
This is a very different animal.
This needs to be challenged in the SCOTUS. Who the hell do these people think they are?
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.