Posted on 05/13/2009 8:44:57 PM PDT by Maelstorm
WASHINGTON - A key Senate leader appears to be leaning toward proposing a new tax on employer-provided insurance benefits and creating a new federal agency modeled on one in Massachusetts to make it easier for individuals and small groups to buy insurance.
The Senate Finance Committee is discussing a series of policy options for sweeping healthcare legislation scheduled to be completed by mid-June. On Monday, the committee released options for insuring the nation's 47 million uninsured, including expanding Medicaid, subsidizing private insurance for low-income people, and creating a public insurance plan - an idea Republicans have flatly rejected.
Yesterday, the committee debated how to pay for subsidizing insurance for the uninsured, which could cost as much as $1.4 trillion over 10 years. The panel's chairman, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, a Democrat, pointed to the tax exclusion, a rich source of cash. Senators will also consider other options, including "sin" taxes on soda and alcohol and limiting tax breaks for other health benefits, such as tax-preferred health accounts.
"The reforms that we are planning are not cheap," Baucus said.
Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, said lawmakers should try to eliminate wasteful spending before imposing new taxes.
And starting to tax the health benefits the vast majority of Americans get through their workplace could set the stage for a battle with the White House; President Obama spent millions of dollars during the campaign attacking his Republican rival, John McCain, for proposing to end the tax exclusion, which Obama said amounted to taxing health insurance.
Baucus said yesterday that he does not believe the benefit should be eliminated, but that it should be fairer and less regressive. Under current law, those with the most expensive insurance get the largest benefit.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America
The Results in Massachusetts
Although advocates of the Massachusetts plan claimed that it would lower health care costs and achieve universal coverage, it has done neither. Instead, the plan has increased costs for individuals and the state, reduced revenues for doctors and hospitals, and left Massachusetts officials in the awkward position of having to admit that their “universal coverage is not likely to be universal any time soon.”14
Costs have risen for individuals because, under this plan, as under any mandatory insurance scheme, the government must define what constitutes an acceptable insurance policy. As a result, special interest groups have been given both the incentive and the means to lobby politicians to include their pet benefits as part of the government-approved plan. Consequently, the state government requires all patients to purchase “benefits” that are useless to many of them—benefits they would never voluntarily choose to purchase in a free market. For example, Massachusetts currently requires insurance plans to include forty-three mandatory benefits, including in vitro fertilization, blood lead poisoning treatment, and chiropractor services—whether or not customers want them. Residents must purchase alcoholism therapy benefits, even if they are teetotalers. These mandated benefits have raised the costs of health insurance in Massachusetts by 23 to 56 percent.15
Costs to the state government have skyrocketed and are projected to run hundreds of millions of dollars over budget.16 Because the mandated insurance is so expensive, the government has had to subsidize the costs of the premiums not only for lower-income residents, but also for residents with incomes as high as $60,000 for a family of four—which is three times the Federal Poverty Level.17 The state had expected a “significant drop in spending . . . for the uninsured” but has since acknowledged that this “is not going to happen to any large extent in 2009.”18 Instead, overall costs to the state have risen by more than $400 million, 85 percent more than originally projected.19
Because of its own rising costs, the state government has cut payments to doctors and hospitals. According to family physician Dr. Katherine Atkinson, the state insurance reimbursements often do not cover her expenses: “[E]very time I have a Medicaid patient it’s like handing them a $20 bill when they leave.”20
As a result of these rising costs and falling revenues, access to medical care has dwindled for many patients. Fewer doctors are willing to take on new patients for fear of losing even more money. Lee Sampson, a 47-year old medical transcriptionist, had to call fifty doctors’ offices before she could find one that would take her as a new patient.21 Tamar Lewis, a 24-year old hair stylist, called more than two dozen primary care doctors for a checkup. All of them turned her down, leaving her with no choice but to rely on the community free clinic.22 Patients face long waits for basic medical care—in some cases more than a year for a routine physical exam.23 These long waits are not due to a shortage of doctors. As the New England Journal of Medicine notes, Massachusetts “has the highest physician-to-population ratio of any state, in primary care as well as overall.”24 The waits are due to a government policy that discourages physicians from seeing patients—a policy under which seeing patients can mean that physicians lose rather than make money.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mandatory-health-insurance.asp
bump
The cost of health insurance in Mass is very high. Ours has gone up $6000 every year. I just got the new bill for this year and it is $2,500 a month for our family. We are self-employed.
Election2008 Spoiler Mitt Romney chortles,
as he inflicts his socialized medicine (HillaryCARE=ROmneyCARE)
upon the Massachusetts citizens without any of their votes.
"Dem Congresswoman Admits Obama Health Care Plan Will Destroy Private Health Insurance Industry"
Demographics: Elders in Massachusetts Migration of the Older Population in Massachusetts
The net loss of 14,434 individuals aged 65 and over during this time interval is significant not only numerically; the loss also has implications for population composition of seniors living in the state. Within the senior population, Massachusetts disproportionately loses through migration individuals who are younger and wealthier than those who remain in the state. In contrast, those moving to Massachusetts from other states, many of whom are return migrants, are older, poorer, and more disabled than the seniors who are already here. Together, these trends contribute to an older population that is aging more rapidly, in poorer health, and with fewer financial resources than would occur in the absence of migration. These migration patterns potentially place a burden on Massachusetts' safety net programs, especially on Medicaid ( Massachusetts provides half of the financing for Medicaid, with the federal government providing the rest). High-income elders, who might contribute to the funding of these programs through the payment of taxes, are disproportionately lost through migration. In contrast, given their income and disability profiles, a disproportionate share of elders coming to Massachusetts from other states is likely to be dependent on health and long-term care services financed through Medicaid.
That's INSANE! What, do you have 19 kids? Is it even conceivable that in normal, healthy life, people would spend that much a month on doctors? I really hate the way "preventative care" has morphed from common sense taking-care-of-yourself by embracing healthy habits, to having to undergo incredibly expensive screenings on high-tech machines that cost bundles. I often wonder how often those things "caught" in screenings would never develop into problems, and really only serve to scare the hell out of the person being screened, add stress to their lives, and result in more vulnerability to illness? I bet the number is high.
The worst part of this is that people are staying in jobs they hate, which is bad for ALL concerned -- their own mental health, their families, their employers, their co-workers, their customers -- ONLY to hang on to the health insurace. THAT is the most damaging, ugly, horrible thing imaginable.
People should be allowed to live as healthily or unhealthily as they please, pay cash to see the doctor and see the doctor when they want or need to and no other time, and churches and charity (that's you and me, of our own volition and compassion) and kind doctors should be the ones to take care of the poor.
It is sad to see how many people, including conservatives and Republicans, allow themselves sheep-like to be drawn into the ridiculous notion that health care and health insurance have to take priority over everything else in life. My folks raised five kids -- four of them boys -- without health insurance; we paid cash to our family doc. We came out fine, broken arms, flus, and emergencies notwithstanding.
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.