Posted on 06/22/2005 4:47:29 PM PDT by inquest
Massachusetts residents who choose not to obtain health insurance would face tax penalties and even the garnishing of their wages under a proposal Governor Mitt Romney unveiled yesterday.
-snip-
Under Romney's proposal, uninsured Massachusetts residents would be asked to enroll in a plan when they seek care.
If they refuse, the state could recoup the medical costs in several ways, Romney said yesterday: The state might cancel the personal tax exemption on their state income taxes, which is worth about $175. It could withhold some or all of their state income tax refund and deposit it in what Romney called a ''personal healthcare spending account." Or, it might take money out of the person's paycheck, as it does now to collect child support.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Interesting place to put the money. One would think it should go to the hospital in payment of the bill. Or is this policy going to apply to all uninsured persons whether they pay their hospital bills or not?
IIRC, They tried this once before but, the plan was declared unconstitutional.
Can't you just hear the liberal outcry over this? "Romney's against the poor! Health care is a RIGHT!"
I know many people who have no health insurance, yet have the best cars, travel all the time, you get the idea.
I don't begrudge them their pleasures, but why should I have to pay when they incur bills they can't pay out of pocket?
And of course, up here in Massachusetts, the answer the State pushes is: MassHealth, aka welfare. I've been hearing advertising lately on AM radio for food stamps. Really upbeat ads that make welfare seem like no big deal....everyone's doing it! Advertising welfare. Only in Massachusetts.
It must be nice to be in charge of billions of dollars of philanthropy money. You can bet that if Hillary had proposed the same thing, this woman would be fawning all over her. I doubt that the creators of the Commonwealth Fund would be impressed with the socialists who control it now.
Why not just give 100% to the government and let them take care of everything? I did not read the rest of this article, are the illegals exempt from this? Should we just give Mass. to Canada?
The concept of Liberty is foreign to some people.
To carry it a bit further (logically), the government could just choose which work we are best at, place us in the right spot, and tell us when to breathe in, and out.
And children could be raised in state nurseries.
Next, you will face penalties and/or jail time for not making your bed, failing to take out the trash, and leaving the seat up. This is yet another power grab by insurance companies hand-in-glove with nanny staters, pure and simple.
A bloated bureaucracy gets the money any way you cut it. I say keep government out of anything, whenever possible.
Some of these people honestly cant afford insurance and food too. You cant get blood out of a turnip.
He might as well team up with his west coast twin, Senator Gordon Smith.
Nothing like moderate Republicans to bring on the upchuck response.
Blechh.
Some of these people right here on FR.
Mrs LJ and I can't afford health insurance. If we had health insurance, we'd sure need it, after a month or so without eating.
The poorest of the poor qualify for Medicaid. I come across people all the time who essentially "roll the dice" by not carrrying any insurance, even though they can afford it. They are usually young and appear healthy, so they choose not to spend any money on monthly premiums that they believe are unnecessary. The problem is that when these people DO get sick, they often can't afford their hospital and physician bills. It's not uncommon for patients to rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in hospital bills which will never be collected. Who pays those bills? The state/municipality picks up some of it, but most of it is passed on to you and I in the form on higher insurance premiums, (since hospitals charge significantly more than the actual costs of services in order to recoup the cost of treating uninsured patients).
It's essentially the same things as requiring drivers to have liability insurance, and I fully support this move.
By the way, for people who don't get insurance from their work, their is no reason not to have a new Health Savings Account. It's essentially an IRA that's used for health care costs. You have to have a high deductible insurance policy, which are available for under $500/month for a family of 4. (My family's premium is $408/month, with a 55 yo husband and 52 yo wife and two college students).
California is also considering a similar proposal:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340285/posts
And children could be raised in state nurseries."
"Brave New World" ?
Dear MedNole,
"...a new Health Savings Account. It's essentially an IRA that's used for health care costs. You have to have a high deductible insurance policy,..."
A wonderful idea!
Unfortunately, these are not readily available in all states. In Maryland, the state insurance laws pretty much make these illegal. I've been asking my insurance agent about them for several years (and about MSAs, as well) for my small business. The savings in premiums would easily cover our HSA contributions. But, this is Maryland. No can do.
I'm glad that where you are, this is a reality. Maybe the lame-brained dumba$$es who run this state will eventually get a clue.
sitetest
Not even close. Driving was never considered a right, and the insurance is mandated not for your own protection, but for the protection of the people you might harm.
No comparison at all to simply living your life and minding your own business. Don't push things down the slippery slope any faster than they're going.
Oh this is good, let's start a NEW trend of Governmental Confiscation of personal income.
This country needs far more than an enama I think, it needs a real solid house cleaning!
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.