Posted on 03/12/2010 5:12:28 AM PST by reaganaut1
State regulators said yesterday that they will probably change the complex formula they use to determine how many Massachusetts residents face a tax penalty for not having health insurance, because spiraling costs are making coverage unaffordable for too many people.
Each year, the Massachusetts Health Insurance Connector Authority board updates the formula it uses to determine whether health insurance is affordable for individuals, couples, and families and whether people in each group should face a tax penalty for not having coverage.
The state’s landmark 2006 health law requires nearly everyone to have health insurance or to pay a stiff tax penalty.
But several board members said that since 2006, insurance costs have risen much faster than incomes. The affordability formula the board uses is pegged to income and the cost of health insurance plans that are available in each region.
“We need to look at how the percentage of income we are asking people to contribute to insurance has changed over time,’’ said Nancy Turnbull, an associate dean at Harvard’s School of Public Health and a member of the authority’s board. “Health care costs and premiums keep going up, and we will rapidly approach a cost that is beyond what everyone is willing to pass on.’’
Turnbull and others said it would be fairer to link the formula to the percentage of income a resident is paying toward health insurance. That is similar to the approach proposed by President Obama and the US Senate.
In the past, some board members have worried that loosening the rules too much would undermine the state’s health law, because it would result in fewer people being required to purchase health insurance.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Its all about power, forcing the masses to do what politicos mandate.
Once healthcare is in place, they can then threaten to withdraw healthcare unless even more government squandering is accepted without criticism.
And remember, they will have your checking account information and can see if you give money to Democrats or Republicans, Tea Party movements, etc.
Get the picture?
Is anyone (besides me, of course!) suggesting just repealing RomneyCare?
Government is supposed to protect us from force and fraud. Government is supposed to shield us from those who would make life inappropriately difficult. That's all.
What we have is a government which is itself nothing but force and fraud. And that government is constantly in our way, putting up barriers, and making our lives inappropriately difficult.
Obviously that's not what happened.
Instead, we have more money going after the same or fewer resources, and that ALWAYS increases the price folks have to pay.
It would appear that the only way we can bring down health insurance premiums is to let some people go uninsured! In effect, that lets the public, in general, bid down the price.
Socialism doesn't work folks.
Yes, and Mass. voters sent a Republican to fill Teddy Kennedy’s shoes in celebration of their good fortune.
Are you sure it’s even socialism? It sounds like extortion, namely “show me how much money you have and I’ll take what I want.”
The highest court in Massachusetts just ruled that requiring people to put locks on their firearms somehow does not violate the 2A. I highly doubt the same court would rule that Romneycare is illegal.
It’s both ~ two “isms in one”~ Socialism to steal your vote and Gangsterism to steal your money.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
In recent days, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) has tried to simultaneously tear down President Obama’s proposals to reform healthcare, while defending his own legacy of reforming healthcare in Massachusetts. Romney’s health plan includes an expansion of Medicaid using $385 million in annual Federal money, as well as an individual mandate and a sliding scale of subsidies. Today, 98% of Bay State residents have quality, highly regulated coverage. Defending his plan last night, Romney told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren that the only way the Massachusetts “system can work” is by having an individual mandate.
Fighting to kill health reform, the right-wing has attacked the individual mandate as unconstitutional. Along with a cadre of Republican Congressmen, Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC), John Ensign (R-NV), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) have said that the individual mandate violates the constitution. Similarly, as a ThinkProgress investigation has found, insurance company lobbyists have orchestrated an effort to use state legislatures to pass resolutions condemning the individual mandate as unconstitutional. An individual mandate is absolutely necessary for health reform to work. Simply put, the right has hoped to kill health reform by undermining the individual mandate.
Today at the Press Club, Romney again tore into Obama’s efforts on health reform. After the speech, ThinkProgress caught up with Romney to ask him about the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Romney refused to answer if the individual mandate, which underpins his own Massachusetts system, is even constitutional:
TP: What do you think about the current effort to declare the individual mandate as unconstitutional?
ROMNEY: You know I’ve got a long discussion that I could give you on that, but I’m in too harp hay of a hurry right now but I think we have that on the site.
TP: Do you think it’s constitutional though, I mean just as a quick answer.
ROMNEY: I think I’ve answered that the best way I can right now which is it’s a big topic and I’m happy to discuss it at length but I just can’t do it in the hall going to the elevator.
TP: Well I mean it is constitutional though, right?
The solutions is simple. Let the free market rule. If you can’t afford health insurance, you shouldn’t have to buy it (at any level of coverage), and physicians and hospitals should be able to refuse you service if you can’t pay.
Think about the truth of what you just wrote. We have to have permission not to be a slave to others now in this country? ( Which, is true. ) We are not freemen, nor citizens. We are semi serfs, slaves, 'resources', to be ordered about, commanded.
Great post; OUTSTANDING thread!
“Are you sure it’s even socialism? It sounds like extortion, namely “show me how much money you have and I’ll take what I want.””
Socialism is extortion.
Would you refuse a sick child medical assistance?
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.