Posted on 04/05/2006 7:05:04 AM PDT by CSM
Tuesday, April 4, 2006 10:54 p.m. EDT Romney to Sign Mandatory Health Bill
BOSTON -- Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill Tuesday that would make Massachusetts the first state to require that all its citizens have some form of health insurance.
The plan — approved just 24 hours after the final details were released — would use a combination of financial incentives and penalties to dramatically expand access to health care over the next three years and extend coverage to the state's estimated 500,000 uninsured.
If all goes as planned, poor people will be offered free or heavily subsidized coverage; those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage; and those already insured will see a modest drop in their premiums.
The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.
The cost was put at $316 million in the first year, and more than a $1 billion by the third year, with much of that money coming from federal reimbursements and existing state spending, officials said.
The House approved the bill on a 154-2 vote. The Senate endorsed it 37-0.
A final procedural vote is needed in both chambers of the Democratic-controlled legislature before the bill can head to the desk of Gov. Mitt Romney, a potential Republican candidate for president in 2008. Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said the governor would sign the bill but would make some changes that wouldn't "affect the main purpose of the bill."
Legislators praised the effort.
"It's only fitting that Massachusetts would set forward and produce the most comprehensive, all-encompassing health care reform bill in the country," said House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a Democrat. "Do we know whether this is perfect or not? No, because it's never been done before."
The only other state to come close to the Massachusetts plan is Maine, which passed a law in 2003 to dramatically expand health care. That plan relies largely on voluntary compliance.
"What Massachusetts is doing, who they are covering, how they're crafting it, especially the individual requirement, that's all unique," said Laura Tobler, a health policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The plan hinges in part on two key sections: the $295-per-employee business assessment and a so-called "individual mandate," requiring every citizen who can afford it to obtain health insurance or face increasing tax penalties.
Liberals typically support employer mandates, while conservatives generally back individual responsibility.
"The novelty of what's happened in this building is that instead of saying, `Let's do neither,' leaders are saying, `Let's do both,'" said John McDonough of Health Care for All. "This will have a ripple effect across the country."
The state's poorest — single adults making $9,500 or less a year — will have access to health coverage with no premiums or deductibles.
Those living at up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $48,000 for a family of three, will be able to get health coverage on a sliding scale, also with no deductibles.
The vast majority of Massachusetts residents who are already insured could see a modest easing of their premiums.
Individuals deemed able but unwilling to purchase health care could face fines of more than $1,000 a year by the state if they don't get insurance.
Romney pushed vigorously for the individual mandate and called the legislation "something historic, truly landmark, a once-in-a-generation opportunity."
One goal of the bill is to protect $385 million pledged by the federal government over each of the next two years if the state can show it is on a path to reducing its number of uninsured.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has threatened to withhold the money if the state does not have a plan up and running by July 1.
Seatbelted amen brother!
"Under the legislation, which is expected to be approved by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, insurance agencies would expand health care coverage by offering state-subsidized, low-cost insurance plans with scaled-back benefits."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060405/pl_nm/massachusetts_dc_5
I know this was meant as sarcasm, but I thought you might want to know that Mormons aren't going to vote for this guy just because he's of the same religion. Just like I don't care for Orrin Hatch's often liberal views, I am not impressed with Romney's record so far either.
I think you posted to the wrong person! ;-)
Defended itself, not install Shi'ite and Afghan theocracies.
Mitt joins Jeb and McCrazy in the washed-out Presidential hopefuls garbage pile.
Cool. Slowly but surely we're paring it down. This is a good thing.
George Allen keeps looking better and better.
I did, but what can you expect with socialized postings?
"The vast majority of Massachusetts residents who are already insured could see a modest easing of their premiums."
When pigs fly. This is another boondoggle certain to explode into unsustainable costs.
On the other hand, people who now use public health facilities and don't pay anything will be forced to pay for insurance, a partial re-imbursement for their health care expenses.
Would you rather he paid nothing, like today?
Open Rebellion is getting closer and closer. Politicians need to be the first to go.
Nothing like passing on the savings to the consumer. I'm in the Army and I pay more for my health care than $295 annually, what kind of "care" are we talking about for these people? What if the bird flu hits the state all at once, how far is that money going to go? What about the unemployed? Is the plan transferable? What about seasonal employees, do the companys pay the same rate for someone who works 3-4 months as opposed to 12?
Yet many refuse to believe what you've cited with their own eyes and ears.
Hey, I just pointed out that Bush is a government guy compared to Clinton. I notice that you don't want to address that point.
the annointed are in possession of the Philosopher's Stone, you know.
My sister brought up Bush's liberal views on immigration before he even announced the run for Prez. I agree that he has been somewhat less than conservative, but the other options are too far out to even think of. What do you think Kerry or Gore would have done, even if 9/11 never happened?
I refer you to post 137. I see a lot of complaining, but not many alternatives.
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.