Posted on 04/25/2006 10:21:14 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
An Assembly committee approved a bill Tuesday that would mandate Californians buy health insurance coverage much like drivers are required to purchase auto insurance.
Although California voters and politicians repeatedly have rejected forcing individuals and employers to pay for a universal insurance program, lawmakers are seeking to capitalize on the momentum from a new Massachusetts law that will make that state the first in the country to establish mandatory health insurance.
"We have a choice about whether we're going to stay stuck in the mud," said Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael. "We have a situation where we have 20 percent of the population without health insurance."
The Assembly Health Committee on Tuesday held the first hearings on two proposals from Nation and Assemblyman Keith Richman, R-Chatsworth, that both lawmakers said would insure the estimated 6.5 million Californians who lack health insurance. The committee approved Nation's bill 9-3 but rejected Richman's bill 10-1.
At the center of both bills is a mandate that individuals be responsible for getting themselves health insurance - a controversial proposal that taxpayer and consumer groups warned could lead to higher premiums, more uninsured people and increased medical bankruptcies.
"The problem with the health care system is that health insurance is unaffordable or unavailable," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access, a statewide health care consumer advocacy coalition of more than 200 groups. "It's not that there's people who don't want coverage."
Both bills would require that health insurance companies offer an essential benefit plan, which would cover medically necessary services to the country's largest population of uninsured. But that's where similarities appear to end.
Nation's bill would create a benefits fund that would be financed by employers that do not offer health insurance to their workers, individual premiums and state-appropriated dollars.
Meanwhile, Richman said individuals alone should be asked to pay for their health insurance. Aside from low-income families who would qualify for assistance, Richman's bill would mandate Californians buy coverage that carries at least a $5,000 deductible.
Critics said both bills fail to address the problem - skyrocketing health care costs and barriers that preclude individuals with pre-existing medical conditions from buying affordable coverage.
"Requiring something people cannot afford is not a solution to solving the health care crisis," said Jerry Flanagan, health care advocate at The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.
Committee chair Wilma Chan endorsed Nation's bill, crediting him for amending his bill to exempt individuals who cannot afford health insurance. Nevertheless, she cautioned the bill needs more work.
California voters have been opposed to forcing private employers from paying health insurance costs.
In 2004, voters narrowly nullified a state law that would have required large and midsize employers to help pay for health insurance for their workers.
Meanwhile, state lawmakers have blocked legislation in the past that would have created a state-run health care program.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney last week approved legislation requiring all individuals to obtain health insurance by July 2007. Those who can afford to buy insurance but fail to sign up will face increasing state tax penalties and a fine.
However, Romney, a Republican, vetoed eight elements of the law, including a $295 per employee fee levied on employers that do not offer insurance. The Democrat-controlled state House and Senate are expected to override the governor's vetoes as early as this week.
California lawmakers say the task facing their state is much greater because there are an estimated 6.5 million people without health insurance, a number greater than the entire population of Massachusetts, which has 6.3 million residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Wow. That's the sound of capital and people breaking the *LIGHTSPEED* barrier to leave California.
Holy Crap!!!!!!!!!
Gee, the obvious contribution of CA's huge illegal population to the uninsured problem was not mentioned at all!
"It's not that there's people who don't want coverage."
From NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS:
BEING UNINSURED REMAINS A "CRISIS" OF INCOME
10-Year Census Figures Show Health Insurance Often Is a Matter of Choice
August 30, 2005
DALLAS (August 30, 2005) – The number of Americans with health insurance grew by more than 2 million people last year, but the percentage of Americans without health insurance continues to grow among higher-income households, according to the latest report released today by the Census Bureau.
"Being uninsured in America is largely a matter of choice," said NCPA Senior Fellow Devon Herrick, who also compiled a 10-year analysis of Census Bureau figures. "The greatest and growing problem of the uninsured is among those families who can afford health insurance."
The number of uninsured among higher-income households continued to grow last year, even though the percentage of uninsured has remained stable, according to this year's Census report:
Between 1995 and 2004 (data for the 2005 report), the number of uninsured with family incomes of less than $50,000 actually fell by 8 percent. The number of uninsured in households earning less than $25,000 fell by an estimated 19 percent.
But over the same 10-year period in households earning $25,000 or more, nearly 90 percent of the increase in the uninsured has occurred among higher-income households ($50,000 or more). And the number of uninsured Americans in families earning more than $75,000 has increased by 153 percent.
"An alarming change over the past decade is the growth in the number of Americans who choose not to be insured," Herrick said. "Among low-income households the number of Americans without coverage has changed little."
40.6 million Americans were uninsured in 1995, or 15.4 percent of the population. In this year's Census report, 15.7 percent of Americans (45.8 million) were without health insurance.
In addition, about 10 million of the uninsured have access to Medicaid and government-sponsored health care coverage, but have not enrolled.
Approximately one-third of foreign-born residents are without health insurance. In today's Census report that accounted for about one-fourth of the uninsured population.
Dr. Herrick's analysis found that the rise in the number of people with and without health insurance is mostly explained by growth in the overall population.
Are they all Americans or did they count 12 million illegal aliens as well?
The Mass. bill is an empty shell, because nobody has determined the benefits that will be required. Expect that they will require benefits that will be beyond the ability of anyone to afford them.
Currently, bankrupcy is the nation's last ditch healthcare system for those who work. Plenty of people choose this route rather than actually paying for insurance.
Still, auto insurance is mandated and at least 20 percent of people out there drive without it.
Mandates are only a small part of the solution.
The Great, Historic CA Recall has turned out to be sorta like what a constitutional convention would turn out like. A bunch of crappy changes that would only make things worse than they are now!!!
He may have vetoed the gay marriage thing, but with sMitten Romney signing that piece of crappola in MA, the big talker will eagerly sign this one, just to "do something, even if it's wrong!!!"
Yep, with the mess they're already in out there this is definitely something they DON'T need!
Yup, FiRst Massachusetts and then on to New or should I say West Massachusetts.
and
All the Kennedys shouted Hip Hip Hoorah!!!
As an undocumented guest patient I say muy bien.
That'll go over like a fart in prayermeeting!!!
Based on personal and professional experience in the last decade, I would say much of this has to do with the shift away from higher income workers working predicable jobs for one company or corporation. The work force, especially in the higher income range has drastically changed their relationship to where and how they work. There is much more freelancing and self employment since the internet/pc revolution. This would also explain why the figures aren't that drastic in lower income folks. Many of them don't have the option to leave a manufacturing job and move into freelance type work or even start their own home/or otherwise business. JMO for what it is worth.
My husband and I are both self employed and work from home. We pay a horrendous price for our Blue Cross with a deductible of $2500 each person. The only reason we eventually decided to take such a hit was the concern of what it would do to our finances if something really bad happened to one of us medically.
Having said all this I believe health insurance shouldn't be dictated by government. The insurance companies are probably putting the squeeze on politicians as the higher income folks have been giving the insurance industry the finger. And well the government socialists, anything that gets them closer to socialism is darn good!
How much sense does that make? Many will choose even bigger deductibles because they will save a few bucks here and now. Then, when they need medical treatments, will have to foot a deductible that they can't pay...
Over-population is such a drag on the death culture.
"Having said all this I believe health insurance shouldn't be dictated by government. The insurance companies are probably putting the squeeze on politicians as the higher income folks have been giving the insurance industry the finger. And well the government socialists, anything that gets them closer to socialism is darn good!"
I couldn't have said it better! :-)
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.