Romney to Sign Mandatory Health Bill

NewsMax.com ^ | April 4, 2006 | NewsMax Staff

[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.

[Boardwalk]

I have a brother in Massachusetts who is sooooo cheap. How cheap is he? He has a job that pays for most of his health insurance but he refuses that option because he is too cheap to pay the co-paymment each month ($20). This has been going on for 9 years with him. As soon as he has a health problem he will be in on whatever free stuff he can get, although he can pay. He just won't. I wonder how many people there are like him?

[Psycho_Bunny]

The plan — approved just 24 hours after the final details were released

That's shorter than the cooling off period for buying a gun.

[Antoninus]

Oooh, great. Another socialist Northeastern governor who thinks he's going to get the GOP nomination for president.

[Wallace T.]

Don't bet that Mitt Romney will continue to campaign. He does not have a compromised personal history, like Giuliani, and does not have health and temper issues, like McCain. He is also photogenic and articulate, qualities neither Giuliani and McCain have. The RINOs may look to him as their champion if it looks like the other two are going nowhere, much like their predecessors supported his father as their champion against Goldwater in 1964.

[CSM]

"That's shorter than the cooling off period for buying a gun."

Excellent point! I need to keep that in mind for all of their follies!

[republicanwizard]

Yeah, and unfortuantely, Romney did not get the nomination. Instead, we were stuck with a guy who could not keep his foot out of his mouth and drove the Republican Party to one of its worst defeats since the 30's. Keep trying.

[Calpernia]

>>>The problem is that the uninsured do cost everybody in the form of increases in our premiums.

Really? I don't own health insurance. We have a personal medical account.

Not owning health insurance doesn't not instantly equal deadbeat. There are other options besides insurance.

[adam_az]

"Yeah, this guy is presidential timber all right."

Yup, and his presidential aspirations just went up in flames.

[Calpernia]

doesn't not instantly = doesn't instantly

[Between the Lines]

and those already insured will see a modest drop in their premiums.

And a not so modest rise in their taxes.

[Protagoras]

He really ISN'T running for President, is he? At least not on the Republican ticket.

Why not? He is a typical Republican.

[maryz]

"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."

Uh, Sal, there's a reason it's never been done before . . . because it's INCREDIBLY STUPID! But you're right about it's being fitting that MA would be first with something like that . . . just like gay "marriage"!

[adam_az]

"An unbelievable socialistic state of affairs...unbelievably. The great banner state of liberty from the 1770s is going down (and has been for a long time) a socialistic path which is nothing more than communism/marxism light and is intended to lead there."

Ironically these idiots think that "free" health insurance is freedom!

Taxing people who don't want insurance?

Shouldn't that be their choice to make?

Now the government not only taxes because they know how to spend your money better than you - they're going to punish people for spending it on things that are higher valued to them than the things biggumbint thinks they should spend it on.
Every member of the Mass legislature should be thrown into Boston Harbor bodily!

[Realism]

My landlord doesn't carry health insurance. He pays cash, and probably saves alot in the long run.

So what happens if he develops cancer? If a one day stay in the hospital is nearly $10,000 not to mention all other costs surgery, etc... Who pays if he doesn't have the cash? Non-participation will not decrease health-care costs, it drives them up.

[Captain Kirk]

Just following in the footsteps of the sainted George Bush, who, assisted by the sainted Tom Delay, pushed through the most rapid increase in the welfare state since LBJ via prescription drugs.

[Final Authority]

Based on your 30 reply, what do you think about mandatory auto insurance? Is it a socialist plan or is it ordered to insure personal responsibility?

What I see here, on this thread, and I think over time as Mitt explains his position and folks like you begin to actually think about the issue and not respond reflexively, is that a plan such as was passed in Massachusetts will eventually be appreciated, because it promotes personal responsibility actually diminishes the need for socialist health insurance plans, because it keeps private insurers in the business of insuring private individuals, just as auto insurers are private.

There is a choice. Do we require people to be responsible for their actions? Do we cause them to think about the life they lead? Do we wish for individuals to be invested in their personal decisions such as their health? Or, do we wish to be the nanny government and provide health services cradle to grave? Actions which cause people to be responsible for their health care financially, even if it is a token payment for the very poor (there are relatively few very poor people in Massachusetts) is good because it promotes responsibility, it causes individuals to look to themselves for financial responsibility, not the governments responsibility.

The big issue becomes, how do we cause the criminal alien population to be involved with paying for the health care they receive? We can't even get them to insure a car they might drive.

You will become, over time, a proponent of such legislation because it promotes personal responsibility and maintains privatization. It is actually a stopgap to a national socialist health insurance plan. It is good, as I see it.

[Eagle of Liberty]

Someone, ANY FREEPER, please explain to me why this guy is even remotely a possible Presidential candidate.

Nobody has been able to explain why I would vote for a person who was put into office by the same people who continue to vote for Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry.

[sitetest]

Dear visualops,

"My guess is this will have a detrimental effect on business, and employers will think twice about hiring that extra hand."

Perhaps not in that way.

A lot of smaller businesses may be tempted to drop their health insurance plans, pay the $295 per year per employee, and dump the problem on the state, as the state seems to be so explicitly inviting. That could actually cause some employers to hire more folks.

The difference for me would be a 90% reduction in the cost of providing health insurance to my employees. Yippee! I could hire an extra person under those circumstances.

In the overall scheme of things, I suspect that as smaller businesses do this, and the costs to the state start to skyrocket, the state will have to raise taxes somewhere, somehow. Maybe the $295/employee annual tax goes up. Maybe something else has to give.

But then the cost of health care will likely be socialized across the broader tax-base, rather than being borne principally, and directly by business.

I don't think folks will like the eventual outcome, but I'm not sure that it will especially depress hiring by employers.


sitetest

[Peach]

There goes his presidential aspirations. Right out the window.

[Wallace T.]

George Romney was a "me too" Republicans who caved in to labor unions and minority pressure groups in his home state of Michigan. Had he been elected president, there would have been little difference between his administration and that of LBJ, next to FDR, the most disastrous Administration in American history with regard to expansion of government power. Barry Goldwater spoke the truth without compromise, and was pilloried by the liberal media of his day. In 1964, there was no conservative talk radio, the Internet did not exist, and evangelical Christians were still self-isolating from the mainstream, so liberal bias was even more a factor then than it is now. Additionally, Johnson benefited from widespread public sympathy as a result of the Kennedy assassination.

Although Goldwater lost, he was the first Republican since Reconstruction to carry the Deep South, even though his opponent was a native Texan of Anglo-Southern origin. His campaign was the first major step in ending Democratic dominance in the South. Additionally, the Goldwater campaign provided a platform for Ronald Reagan to achieve national prominence. The Great Communicator leveraged this prominence into the California governorship and the White House.