Posted on 12/31/2007 3:40:22 PM PST by Reagan Man
Massachusetts residents who remain uninsured in 2008 will begin facing monthly fines based on their age and income, according to new regulations unveiled by the Department of Revenue on Monday.
Here are how much different people may have to pay:
— The highest fines are leveled at those earning three times the annual federal poverty level, or $30,636 for an individual. Individuals aged 27 or older who are over that income threshold will pay the top fine of $76 a month, or $912 a year.
— Married couples earning more than $41,076 would each have to pay the top fine for a combined penalty of $1,824 if they are both uninsured for the entire year.
— Those aged 18-26 earning more than $30,636 will pay $56 a month or $672 a year.
— Individuals earning between $20,425 and $25,536 face a $420 fine for the year. Those earning between $15,325 and $20,424 face a $210 fine.
— There are no fines for individuals earning less than $15,325.
• The consumer-centered approach lets people direct how health care is funded
• With consumers making the purchasing decisions, as opposed to Government, we get better results at better prices
• It’s a similar concept to school vouchers. If parents could direct the funding of education, efficient schools would thrive, while inefficient ones would have to improve or go under.
• Romney did not propose a health insurance mandate. What he proposed was that those who still insisted on going without coverage in a reformed system demonstrate proof of their willingness and ability to pay their own bills by posting a bond or establishing an escrow account.
• Current programs have no transparency and prop up inefficient programs. Today the cost to America’s citizens is over $40 billion annually.
• Our current system relies on publicly funded subsidies for its survival and is allowed to overcharge private patients, regardless of the cost structures or the quality of care provided.
• Our current system uses emergency room care to treat the uninsured instead of lower-cost, better alternatives such as preventative care.
• Massachusetts citizens have 42 plans to choose from instead of the 1 plan 80 percent of Americans have through their employers.
• Pre-reform, the lowest premium for a typical uninsured 37-year-old in Boston was $335 per month with a $5,000 annual deductible. Now, the same individual can get health coverage for $184 per month ($118 pre-tax) with a $2,000 deductible. Most can get a health plan worth twice the value at half the price.
• The number of uninsured in Massachusetts has been reduced by nearly half.
It's about ending the free ride on taxpayers' dollars. It's about personal responsibility and free markets. Both, very conservative principles.
"Mitt Romney, an architect of Massachusetts’ universal health coverage plan, is unveiling his proposal for overhauling the nation’s health care system, calling for a state-by-state approach that he says will help millions of uninsured in this country gain access to affordable medical coverage."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/us/politics/24romney.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin
Wrong. Romney proposes it state by state.
“Mitt Romney, an architect of Massachusetts’ universal health coverage plan, is unveiling his proposal for overhauling the nation’s health care system, calling for a state-by-state approach that he says will help millions of uninsured in this country gain access to affordable medical coverage.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/us/politics/24romney.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin
RomneyCare is nationalized health care insurance and the first step towards socialized medicine. It’s mandated, subsidized and controlled by the government. Forcing people to purchase a service against their will is called tyranny. Subsidizing the premiums for those who can’t afford it is called socialism.
Romney on Hillarycare
"Sen. Clinton has a very different view about the changes we need to make. Her plan has several weaknesses and should be distinguished from the reforms I led in Massachusetts and the reform plan I have proposed. So let's take a closer look at what her new proposal would really do:
"Raise taxes. The new plan is slated to cost $110 billion a year. And to pay for the new entitlement – a tax hike. That in turn will slow down the economy and make the cost of her system grow even higher. By contrast, both the reforms I led in Massachusetts and the federalist reform plan I recently proposed do not raise taxes or increase spending.
... "Expand government insurance. People who don't obtain insurance through their employer are invited to buy a government-run, Medicare-like plan or enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). And so, more Americans will end up in government-run insurance. It's the gentle slope to a single payer, socialized medicine model. My plan in Massachusetts instead allowed the uninsured to choose a private insurance product from one of the many private insurance companies.
"Impose a national model on everyone. Sen. Clinton fundamentally distrusts state governments. But the states are closer to the people, and more responsive to them. They are also the laboratories of democracy – the best ideas can come from 50 states each doing their best work. The senator's plan is a one-size-fits-all approach. It ignores significant differences between people and the needs of the 50 different states. Federalism is the right approach. The national reforms I have proposed give states financial flexibility to craft their own program to cover the uninsured, a program tailored to the specific needs of their citizens.....
When people are FINED because they don’t participate that is MANDATED health care. I don’t care how the Romney camp spins it.
Social Security and Taxes are “voluntary” by law but good luck if you don’t “voluntarily” participate in them.
I am not aware, ever, of any conservative for any reason ever supporting private citizens prove themselves to the government. It is repugnant. Nazi(ish).
Ah, the big lie technique.
Willard and Hillary and you want to impose socialized medicine on the country, not I.
It’s either, get on your knees and be saved by Saint Willard, or the Devil.
Either or. No choice.
Romneyite rhetoric reeks of Orwell.
Hey, if the government wants to force you to buy insurance, what are you going to do?
After all, it’s “the government”. They are our leaders and guardians and de facto parents.
What’s repugnant is the people who leave us, or the hospitals, holding the bag for the payment of their medical care resulting in closed hospitals, increased medical costs and skyrocketing insurance fees. Something’s got to give. Do we all wish it hadn’t come to this? Of course. Better a conservative figures it out than Hillary & Co.
Yes, let's get rid of that horrible system of free enterprise. Bring on socialized Hllary-Care and Willard-Care!
I guess the question then is what to do with people who show up at the Emergency Room with life threatening conditions and no health insurance?
Trust them to pay? Make the taxpayers or those who do pay for health insurance pick up the tab? Let them die?
"yenmor, yenmor, yenmor, YENMOR!, YENMOR!!!"
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.