Posted on 04/12/2008 8:49:42 PM PDT by neverdem
Associated Press
BOSTON --Two years after the state's landmark health law was signed, the cracks are starting to show.
Costs are soaring and Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing a dollar-a-pack hike in the state's cigarette tax to help pay for a larger-than-expected enrollment in the law's subsidized insurance plans.
But that hasn't dampened enthusiasm at the Statehouse. Leaders there boast that in the two years since former Gov. Mitt Romney signed the law with a choreographed flourish at historic Faneuil Hall, the number of insured residents has soared by nearly 350,000.
Along the way the law has been scrutinized by other states, sparked the ire of critics on the right and left, and drawn the attention of presidential candidates.
"It's the very first question I get when I'm with other governors," said Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. "I don't think anybody is prepared to say that what we have done here in Massachusetts is necessarily the formula for the rest of the country or for a national reform, but at least we are trying."
No other state has launched as comprehensive a plan. California attempted their own health care expansion, but the $14.7 billion program failed to get out of a key Senate committee.
"The Massachusetts reform law remains the focal point for other states and the nation in trying to figure out if state-based reform is possible," said Alan Weil, head of the Maine-based National Academy for State Health Policy. "It's the biggest game in town."
One of the most radical fixtures of the law is the so-called "individual mandate" - the requirement that virtually everyone have health insurance or face tax penalties.
Anyone deemed able to afford health insurance but who refused to buy it during 2007 already faces the loss of a $219 personal tax exemption. New monthly fines that kicked in this year could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by December.
It's not clear how many uninsured residents remain in Massachusetts. At the time the law was signed, estimates started at 500,000.
The law - and its individual mandate - has become a key talking point in the presidential race.
Hillary Clinton has made an individual mandate the centerpiece of her health plan. Fellow Democrat Barack Obama's plan doesn't include an individual mandate for adults, although he would require that children be covered. Republican John McCain wouldn't require universal coverage.
Under the law, anyone making less than the federal poverty level is eligible for free care. Those making up to three times the poverty level can get subsidized plans.
Anyone earning more is required to get health insurance through their employer, on their own, or by purchasing lower-cost plans through the Health Care Connector, the independent state agency overseeing the law.
Businesses are also on the hook. Those with 11 or more full time employees who refuse to offer insurance face $295 annual penalties per employee. Already, 748 employers have failed to meet that threshold and have paid $6.6 million to the state.
Rick Lord, president of the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said the state must be "very mindful of placing burdens on businesses that don't exist in other states."
"It's a delicate balance," he said.
John McDonough, executive director of Health Care For All, a health care advocacy group that pushed for the law, concedes it's become a political punching bag.
Those on the left see the law as a poor substitute for a Canadian-style single-payer model, while those on the right say the law interferes with the free market.
"The two sides agree on nothing accept for one thing: They hate our little ecumenical experiment here in Massachusetts," he said. "It's almost as if they are the health care fundamentalists and we're like the heretics because we are coming together."
Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, said the law has been an unqualified failure.
Tanner was critical of the connector authority, a "super-regulatory agency" which has mandated levels of coverage. He also noted the vast majority of the newly insured are receiving subsidized care.
"They said it would get us universal coverage and reduce costs and it's done neither," Tanner said.
The biggest challenge is rising costs.
In 2006, a legislative committee estimated the law would cost about $725 million in the fiscal year starting in July. In his budget, Patrick set aside $869 million, but those overseeing the law have already acknowledged costs will rise even higher.
Lawmakers are hoping to close the gap in part with a new cigarette tax expected to generate about $154 million a year.
RomneyCare strikes again and again and again....
So let's see: *breaks out the trusty calculator*
For the wife and I, 1824 per month * 12 months per year = $21,888 per year. If we don't need the govt's healthcare for a catastrophic emergency for 10 years, we get to pay the govt $21,888 * 10 = $218,880.00 for "service" that we don't use. If we don't use this "service for 20 years, we get the privilege of paying the overwhelming power of the State $437,760.
That's half a million dollars that's going to disappear out of the civil economy into that black hole of a govt economy for a "service" that we don't use. If we never have to use it, say for 50 years, that's a million bucks for a service that we have absolutely no use for!
And that's disregarding the taxes on the cigarettes that I smoke. Like the $100 billion dollars+ that smokers have paid over the years isn't enough. My home state of Iowa a year ago raised taxes on cigarettes a dollar a pack, just because. They really don't need the money but the smoking gestapo has the ear of the new Dem gov, so what the hell. And now we're going to be hit to support every program for deadbeats that they can dream up.
Someone remind me why I pay taxes again? Oh yeah, they'll send in tanks to kill me and mine like they did in Waco and Ruby Ridge.
THIS is why I always considered people who supported Romney to be total morons!!
Vote for lefty Romney and let Fred, Tom and Duncan crash, then call themselves conservatives. What a bunch of maroons!
“Costs are soaring and Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing a dollar-a-pack hike in the state’s cigarette tax to help pay for a larger-than-expected enrollment in the law’s subsidized insurance plans.
“... the number of insured residents has soared by nearly 350,000.
“... the vast majority of the newly insured are receiving subsidized care.
“... set aside $869 million, but those overseeing the law have already acknowledged costs will rise even higher.”
What a surprise!!!
Almost $2,000 per month per family is a HUGE amount of money that the State is going to squeeze out of families! HUGE!
Scary stuff!
Setting aside for a moment the obvious big-government tyranny of attempting to force private businesses to pay for their employees' health insurance, this sounds like quite a bargain. Only $295 per employee per year? Why would any business located in Massachusetts that doesn't offer to buy employees' health insurance coverage be intimidated by that paltry fine? The cost to insure an employee for a year costs many times that amount.
Like I always say, people deserve exactly what they elect.
I think if you read the article carefully you will see that they probably mean $1824 per YEAR.
Doesn’t a carton of cigarettes in Mass. already cost like $50.00?
Interesting that no one at FR other than myself and nowhere in this story, of course, is there one iota about the possibility of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens in MASS who are mistakenly referred to as “the uninsured” who’ve been using and bankrupting the system? Hmmm?
No matter how carefully you read the article this is a poorly written sentence, open to very different interpretations:
New monthly fines that kicked in this year could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by December.
If I'm an employer, I'd pay the $295 in a New York minute. I'd be cutting my health insurance premium for my company by at least 95%.
I'd drop coverage in a heartbeat as an employer if all it would cost me is $300 hundred a pop!
They'll figure out this loophole and the fine will increase 10 fold. Even still.
IL liberal gov Blago has been working (bribes, dirty tricks, threats, etc) on a state plan for some time now.
Rush covered this last week. Had an example of a 46 year old doctor. She was so bokked up that the next available slot she had for a physical exam was May of 2009. She reportedly was not making any real profit.
Cigarettes will soon be illegal. A few more price hikes and a lot less smokers...and then there won’t be enough people to make a good squawk about it.
And for various reasons, it won’t be like Prohibition in the result. It will not fail.
He sure has. But the good news is *hopefully* he'll be recalled (1) or in Federal Prison first. Fitz has Blago in his sights.
(1) There's a Recall Bill going through the GA now just because of him. It should be named the Blago Recall Bill.
Well, Hillary's plan will even be worse!
As long as hospitals are required to provide free care to less fortunate and illegals then something had to give since people like to use the ER as a walk in clinic.
I don’t fault Romney for demanding that people get some form of insurance. The issue is having a government program which opens up the door to all kinds of BS.
Ummmmm
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.