Massachusetts may require citizens to purchase health insurance?

[Moosepoop]

:wtf:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/28/eveningnews/main1249052.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

Must-Have Health Insurance

<snip>
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has come up with an innovative proposal to combat that: he wants to require every citizen in the state to buy health insurance.

"What the government is saying is, 'no more can you turn and put your cost of health insurance and health care on everybody else.' You have a personal responsibility to either pay for your own health care yourself, or buy an insurance policy, but no more just showing up at the hospital and saying, 'I can't pay, make someone else pay for me,'" Gov. Romney says.

Romney says forcing people to have insurance is fair.

"In my state, you can't drive a car on our roads unless you have automobile insurance, because we don't want people getting in accidents and expecting someone else to pay for their car and for their health," he says. "Same way with our citizens that don't have health insurance."

From an earlier article last November:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/21/health/main1060973.shtml

Health Insurance Or Else In Mass.

<snip>

For thousands of families here struggling to make ends meet, the difficult decision of whether to buy health insurance may soon get easier: They won't have a choice.

Under two major proposals that aim to cover the estimated half million uninsured in Massachusetts, the state would require all residents who can afford it to purchase some type of individual plan or face penalties, such as losing their driver's licenses.

<snip>

Under two separate plans, one proposed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, the other approved by the House, insurance companies would offer lower-cost plans, estimated at $200 a month. Residents making up to $28,710 could receive state subsidies that could further lower that premium. Many analysts say that the individual mandate should be considered only after expanding Medicaid or making premiums more affordable — something Massachusetts is also tackling.

Under the House plan, which requires employers to provide insurance or face a payroll tax, residents could lose driver's licenses for not carrying coverage. A third plan approved by the Senate also expands coverage but does not include an individual mandate. The bills will be considered for compromise in conference committee as early as this week.

The more recent article from Jan. 27 didn't mention the loss of driver's licenses for not purchasing health coverage, so maybe that particular version of this proposed idea didn't get this far. But still -- MANDATORY PURCHASE of health insurance??? This is so... so... Republican!:grr:

[maveric]

1. Some MA residents cant afford $200.00 a month.

Go to my hometown of Lawrence MA and ask around.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. My employer's plan is more expensive than that

I would bet a lot of them are.

I am not saying this is a good idea. Not hardly.

But they need to so something about health care in this country. I get a piddly raise every year and the increase in my health premiums is always higher than my raise. So year after year, I bring home less money on a higher salary because of health insurance. I am grateful I have it. But it is less and less affordable. Of course, this plan proposed in Mass won't do a thing about controlling costs. Too bad.

[tsuki]

20. My plan cost $900 a month per employee. I'd give my employees

$250.00 a month raise to cover it.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

42. Mass-health works fine...

It's a but pricey to high-income taxpayers but it's free to citizens in the Commonwealth and it's state of the art healthcare... ELECT KERRY for more info on true equality in America. You have rights, among these are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[sproutster]

2. I thought about this the otherday without knowing about this

I thought, how could they take away your life for not having insurance?

...holy flipping crap.

[Not_So_Right_Wing]

38. no kidding...

No insurance...? Well, then give your license.

No licnese...? Well, then I can't hire you if you can't get to work.

No job...? Well, then I guess you can't have insurance.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. That really sucks but it doesn't surprise me

You said it all in your last sentence - it's very Republican. They are so all about personal responsibility and all that libertarian crap.

In a way, I say let them do this. The gov of MO kicked 100,000 people off of Medicaid and he is losing his base because of it. Turns out a lot of low income folks on Medicaid voted him into office. Well a year later, he couldn't win an election against Elmer Fudd. It's been kind of fun to watch him slide and know that we on the left haven't had to do a thing to make him the 3rd least popular gov in the USA. He is hanging himself - we didn't even have to give him the rope. LOL

[Selatius]

4. How will poor people afford this???

It sounds like a neat, tidy solution, but you can't honestly expect 100 percent compliance from the bottom 20% as far as wealth and income in the state is concerned. There seems to be no provision to help the poorest out.

My solution would be this: Get several states together to pool their tax revenue into a single fund, and that fund will serve as the basis of a regional health care system. The federal government will not institute universal health care, but the states can...if they choose to cooperate.

[SPKrazy]

7. They did say that those under 27K (roughly) would have lowered premiums

I wonder if there is a dollar amount at which the state pays for the premium, as they do now.

To me this sounds not very Republican in the traditional Republican view, which is more along the lines of "some people don't want to buy health insurance, so they could save their money in accounts and use it if they needed it", which I think is total crap too.

Why not go to a single payor, non-profit insurance plan that would cover everyone, at a much lower price because of the fact that they aren't trying to make money off of insurance.

I don't know, but this sounds like a LOSER plan to me.

And this Romney guy is planning to run for President.

Watch out, if he succeeds with this (even if just on paper and not reality) it could be a platform for him getting the R nomination.

Romney is from Utah originally, and is a Mormon.

If he does get the R nomination we need to exploit the RW'ers hatred of Mormons (RW fundamentalist Christians)

[Moosepoop]

9. They didn't say those under $28K WOULD have lower premiums...

The quote from the article is (bolding mine):
" Residents making up to $28,710 could receive state subsidies that could further lower that premium."

Too many "coulds" for me.

But I agree with the entire rest of your post!

[SPKrazy]

16. You're right COULD is not WOULD

It sounds like a clusterfuck to me.

[Delphinus]

32. Another Medicare Part D!

(Talk about a clusterfuck!)

I don't think this is a viable idea. An eye doctor, mid-last year, wanted me to have an MRI. I told him I don't have insurance, so it wasn't an option. He basically said, "well, I can't do anything more for you." He acted like I had $1,500 laying around to rush right out and go do his bidding.

If I was quick, I would have told him that if I had $1,500 to spend on an MRI, I would have had enough money to purchase an insurance policy. But, I'm not quick.

[Selatius]

10. This is why I also favor single-payer health care

The purposes of collectivizing people with respect to this issue is this: Collective bargaining power. If people choose to pool their money together and they represent a large enough segment of the population, then they would be able to invoke bargaining power with respect to the price of medicine and other things.

However, given that the federal government will not institute a non-profit single-player plan, a plan Kucinich campaigned on, you are left with having the state legislatures across the land handle the issue. (Federal authority vs. states' rights) Another avenue is to start a non-profit health care corporation outside the purview of any government entity where the shareholders are the customers, and the shares will be divided evenly among the members. The bigger the number of people in this corporation, the more bargaining power it will gain. (See AARP as a similar example)

[SPKrazy]

18. Not only that, but the US spends way more than any other country

on health care, and gets LESS for their health care dollar

Non Profit Single Payor system would REDUCE the costs of health care by getting rid of profit motive for insurance, getting rid of bureaucracy (hopefully) and letting Health Care Practitioners, practice!

Of course this doesn't go over well with the Insurance Lobby, or for that matter those who sell insurance or work for insurance companies.

There would inevitably be job losses. But the end result is we might get a lot more for our dollar, get better health care, and not have to worry about not having insurance and not paying for indigent care.

[eridani]

44. There would not necessarily be job losses

What function of insurance companies actually requires the biggest number of warm bodies to carry out? Claims processing, obviously.

Now, what job is most likely to be outsourced to Bangalore?

The solution sort of writes itself, no? Just make offshoring claims processing illegal (easy to do if it's a government function), and a large part of the jobs problem is solved.

[Nikia]

24. I attended an open house of a non profit insurance company

They offer a variety of insurances. They told me that they are not allowed to offer their insurance for less than their profit making competitors or they would lose their not for profit status. Instead, they sponsor a lot of non profit events and give a lot of money back to the community. Although it is good that they give lots of money back to the community, I don't understand why it is illegal for them to offer a less expensive product.
I think that health insurance and utilities should be not for profit entities anyway since they are things that everyone needs and the product is the same.

[Selatius]

29. It sounds like the law was changed to hurt non-profit insurance companies

The purpose of collective bargaining power is to be able to negotiate a fairer price with producers and providers of medicine and medical services, but if the law puts a floor nobody can go below at the current level, a level that's rapidly pricing people out of the system, then how could the idea of non-profit insurance companies ever significantly get off the ground?

Damn them, but the for-profit insurance companies were smart to have the law changed to prevent people from collectivizing.

[justabob]

28. Really.... This is one of the more absurd ideas I have heard

200/month would kill me, and my son for that matter. We would starve. That is the plan I guess, just kill off all us pesky poor people.

[smirkymonkey]

6. This is an outrage!

I am so furious I could spit nails :grr: :mad:

I cannot believe what is happening in this country, and it is particularly shocking that it is happening in Massachusetts!

[kineneb]

8. pay or die? How about those on disability?

Or those who are not offered health insuarance with employment (1 employee shops)?

[alarimer]

13. What about those people who CAN'T get insurance?

Because companies won't insure them because they might be to high a risk.

[kineneb]

22. "Let them eat cake"

would apparently be the reply.

Hubby couldn't get insurance either- no one takes diabetics with renal failure...I cut my hours back and we spent down to qualify for state (CA) assistance. Otherwise he would probably be dead by now.

I guess they are just supposed to stay home and die if they can't "afford"/get insurance. And of course, there will be no provisions made for high risk people...that might cut into the profit margin. So much for the "culture of life" crowd.

Bastards. :mad:

[DanCa]

11. I thought Repugs were against Govt . interefering in people's lives.

I am of course being sarcastic. :( :sarcasm:

[Gormy Cuss]

12. Paging current Massachusetts residents..

Would one of you go over to Mitt's place (Belmont?) and extract the silver spoon from his mouth?

[Moosepoop]

14. ... and perhaps reinsert it in a different body cavity of Mr. Romney's?

:evilgrin:

[Gormy Cuss]

31. I was thinking we could hock it and buy some Band-Aids

but I'll let you decide. }(

[LeftCoast]

15. And what about those with pre-existing conditions that can't get coverage?

They're just S.O.L. I guess. I have no doubt this law will be challenged in court. I'm all for everyone having health coverage but this does not seem to be the way to make that happen.

[Yupster]

34. In Texas there is a health insurance

high risk pool for such people.

Insurers are forced to take high risk people through the high risk pool. I think the insurance companies are subsidized by the state for the losses they are sure to incur.

My wife was on it till recently. There's a similar high risk pool for high driving risks.

I assumed that every state had a similar pool since Texas is normally not near the front of any pro-consumer ideas like a high risk pool.

[jmowreader]

17. I've been to Massachusetts. Driving is clearly optional...

if you live anywhere near the Mass Bay Transit Authority's lines. Okay, most people DO drive, which explains why the roads in Boston are as crammed as they are, but you literally do not have to drive if you live in the area serviced by the T.

Getting sick, on the other hand, is NOT optional.

The question I have is, who decides whether you can afford to buy health insurance? I suspect that a whole lot of people are going to fall into sudden affluence...Mitt's people are going to tell you that you can afford to buy health insurance (even though, after you pay your bills, you've got $90 to buy gas and food for three people for the next two weeks) so sign here.

Actually, I hope he DOES get it through...but only if the press promises to report on the disaster it's gonna be.

[Crowdance]

19. Cancer survivors can't buy insurance in the free market

Well, let me amend that: my last quote for insurance for my family was $30,000/year. I understand that, should I survive for 10 years after my cancer diagnosis, I MIGHT be allowed back into the pool if I've been perfectly healthy in every conceivable way in the duration. As my job ends on Friday, I'll be out of luck when COBRA runs out.

So, I guess that in addition to having to deal with the damage of my surgeries, I'd better start beefing up what's left of my leg muscles, if Massachusetts is any indicator of the way things are going to go. I've got a lot of walking ahead of me.

[Vinca]

21. We're in a similar boat. My husband has a chronic condition

that puts us out of the market, despite the fact he's healthy as a horse. $200 a month sounds like the bargain of a lifetime to me.

[Hubert Flottz]

26. "$200 a month sounds like the bargain of a lifetime to me."

Once it becomes a law that you must have coverage the cost will triple in the first year! Just like mandatory car insurance premiums did. The GOP alwas covers up the real cost of anything they come at the public with! Look at Bush's Medicare /Drug bill...

[qanda]

36. Same here.

Because my husband has asthma and takes steroids to control it, there's no one willing to insure him. There are people who don't mind paying a fair amount of money for health insurance. However, when you cannot get insured or the price is so far out of reach that it's either have health insurance or eat then the choice is very easy-- Roll the dice and pray for good health.

[Hubert Flottz]

23. What the guy wants to do is the same thing as putting a $200. per

month or a $2,400.00 a year tax on poor people and call it insurance. It's kind of how Bush sneaks around and makes us pay out more of our income to the oil companies who pay him and the GOP under the table in return. The hike on your fuel bill and heating bill are just back door tax hikes, disguised as other things. The effect is exactly the same as if Bush raised your taxes, you pay out more of your earnings and you get nothing more for your money.

[Nikia]

25. If they really offer a comprehensive plan for $200/month

This might not be a terrible idea provided that this insurance is available to all state residents regardless of age or pre existing conditions and that this insurance is easy to sign up for and deducted directly from paychecks for those who work before taxes and low income people would get it at a reduced rate. This would be better than what most private insurance offers.

[jarab]

40. Can't be done at that price!

The legislature needs a guarantee that that number is firm; later, the excuse will be an "oops!" - and 400 might be the magic number.

...O...

[SoCalDem]

27. result?..lots of folks driving around wirth no license

and since they can;t get a license, why bother to pay for car insurance either..or to even register the thing.. If they are in big trouble for no license, lots will play the odds and just drop all of it to save more money..

DMV will have a record now of auto and health insurance?? That doesn;t sound like such a good idea to me..

[CTLawGuy]

30. forcing people to buy health insurance on their own

will send premiums sky high. Companies will know you have no choice and will charge whatever they want.

[raysr]

33. They need to lose

that POS, and soon.

[WinkyDink]

35. WHAT A MORAN! AND CRUEL!

Driving isn't the same as BEING ALIVE, YOU A#####E!!

[Momgonepostal]

37. What a horrible idea! nt

[LizW]

39. Lunatic.

Does he really think there are a significant number of people who could afford health insurance, but just DON'T buy it?

The people who don't have insurance don't have it because they can't afford it, or because no one will sell it to them.

Get a clue, Governor Doofus.

[nickinSTL]

41. that's absurd!

and to compare it to car insurance is...well, how f*ing out of touch can they BE?

People have an option to NOT OWN A CAR if they can't afford car insurance. They don't have the option to...not have health (whether it's good, bad, whatever).

:puke:

$200 a month? How the F* is someone, particularly the poor or unemployed going to afford that? I'd have a hell of a time with it, and I work 2 jobs. My fiancee makes about $50 a month coloring an online comic. How would she afford something that costs 4x what she makes in a month?

:mad:

[ninkasi]

43. What the Republican Party is doing

is making it a crime to be poor. By writing laws forcing people to purchase insurance, whether they can afford it or not, Mass. is guaranteeing that some people will become criminals because they can't afford to obey the law. So what's next...work houses, debtor's jails? Break the law, and you can enlist in Chimp's army, and go spread freedom and democracy in other countries, since you've been forced to give up your own freedom in America.

The Republicans don't do anything to keep jobs in this country, they don't do anything to keep the oil companies from ripping us off, they don't do anything to help the average citizen, and now they want us to pay for their neglect. I really hope it's worth it to the people who vote Republican. With Alito on the Supreme Court we're going to end up with a dictator instead of a president, and Republicans are going to penalize the hell out of us for daring to be the victims in Bush's America, and this WILL affect many Bush voters, but they can comfort themselves with the knowledge that gays can't marry, and 12 year old girls will be forced to bear their own half-siblings if raped by their fathers.

Once we accept laws that make it illegal to be poor, then we have opened the door to abuses like never before. Before, we tried to use tax money to try to alleviate poverty; you know that part about "promote the general welfare" of citizens; now, Republicans will merely make anything that we would normally try to do to help the most vulnerable among us unnecessary by making poverty illegal. This is their agenda, this is the world they want us to live in.