Posted on 04/04/2006 8:49:57 PM PDT by conservative in nyc
Massachusetts is poised to become the first state to provide nearly universal health care coverage with a bill passed overwhelmingly by the legislature Tuesday that Gov. Mitt Romney says he will sign.
The bill does what health experts say no other state has been able to do: provide a mechanism for all of its citizens to obtain health insurance. It accomplishes that in a way that experts say combines several methods and proposals from across the political spectrum, apportioning the cost among businesses, individuals and the government.
"This is probably about as close as you can get to universal," said Paul B. Ginsburg, president of the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington. "It's definitely going to be inspiring to other states about how there was this compromise. They found a way to get to a major expansion of coverage that people could agree on. For a conservative Republican, this is individual responsibility. For a Democrat, this is government helping those that need help."
The bill, which resulted after months of wrangling between legislators and the governor, requires all Massachusetts residents to obtain health coverage by July 1, 2007.
Individuals who can afford private insurance will be penalized on their state income taxes if they do not purchase it. Government subsidies to private insurance plans will allow more of the working poor to buy insurance and will expand the number of children who are eligible for free coverage. Businesses with more than 10 workers that do not provide insurance will be assessed up to $295 per employee per year.
All told, the plan is projected to cover 515,000 uninsured people within three years, about 95 percent of the state's uninsured population, legislators said, leaving less than one percent of the total population unprotected.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Add Vermont, Iowa and New York to the list of states losing popualtion and California is not far behind.
A bit extreme, eh?
For young healthy people, the ideal health insurance is referred to as "catastrophic insurance." You pay for your own doctor's visits and the occasional prescription as needed, but your insurance kicks in if you need to be hospitalized. This is reasonably priced (unless your hobby is sky diving or motorcycle racing).
For young healthy people the ideal health insurance is known as "having a doctor in the family". Even the catastrophic health insurance is a scam... $100+/mo. for a 1/100000 eventuality? Even there, you're paying to subsidize people who drive dangerously, can't control their emotions, or drink too much. Young, healthy people who don't take stupid risks are better off putting the money away for things that are likely.
Nonsense. If you think driving carefully will guarantee that you will not get into a car accident, I just don't know where to begin. And, having a doc in the family will do nothing if you need hospitalization or significant emergency treatment.
Amazingly enough, I have been driving for almost two decades and never had an accident, and likewise I have not needed hospitalization or significant emergency treatment. So either I took a foolish gamble and won, or the insistence on the alleged importance of health insurance is so much hysteria. I count myself something like $50k richer than my peers who spent their hard-earned money on insurance, and oddly enough, I have been much healthier. I would even venture to say that having health insurance makes it more likely that a person will "need" medical care, i.e., consume health care unnecessarily.
You are a thought criminal.
I had a choice early on in life... I could afford food, or I could afford health insurance. Guess which made me healthier?
Only members of the Inner Party are permitted to turn off the telescreen.
Yep--you took a foolish gamble and won. Good for you. And, most people who do the same also "win." But the poor guy or gal who either had an acute appendicitis or serious a car accident is a loser in many ways.
I'd rather make a voluntary charitable contribution to help that person than make a mandatory contribution to the salaries and retirement plans of HMO and government bureaucrats. And oddly enough, my not getting insurance helped to reduce the costs for the unfortunate ones, because I didn't contribute to the unnecessary demand for health care services.
Before that medical costs were expensive, but in line with what charges could be borne by the general populace. - and people weren't dying in the streets, either.
Why do I say this?
I was in the medical provider business as well.
There are always "risks" in life......everyone gets to make their own choices and take their own risks....but MANDATING insurance is just the liberals trying to prevent death at all costs - and we know how well THAT works....
Related
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1609552/posts
Romney to Sign Mandatory Health Bill
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010
I'm not sure what to think of it, either. But this feature above referenced is interesting--.
The chances of ending up in the ICU for a person who takes few risks and takes care of himself are remote; plus I can pay for my own care up to a significant sum, and if necessary, friends and family will help, or in the worst case charity could assist. If the damage is so extreme that it is completely beyond all these means, then it's God's will that I pass on. Over time I have saved more money from not buying health insurance than I would have spent from an extended stint in an ICU, and therefore even if something had happened to me before I was insured, I still would have come out the winner.
I can only surmise that you aren't aware of how much health insurance costs, or you can't do the math, or you have no faith in God. When I pitch in to a health insurance scheme, I am making it possible for others in that insurance pool to be more reckless with themselves at my expense. This is an enabler for destructive social trends such as homosexuality, voluntary single motherhood, reckless driving, and other behaviors that are far less risky with health insurance than without it. I won't participate in it nor be an enabler for others. The only reason I have insurance now is because it comes to me free from my employer; if I had the option to take cash instead of the insurance I would.
Make no mistake though, I will use a lot more health care services now since they don't cost to me what the real cost is. And that is the core of the problem, and why the costs of health care have skyrocketed rather than being affordable for everyone.
Universal Health Care means nobody gets anything and anyone who pays to get it is prosecuted!
This is a hellavu deal. If I were a business, I'd drop my employee healthcare coverage and pay the $295.
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.