Is this Massachusetts Health Bill a good thing or a bad thing?

[theophilus]

If Romney is for it (and hopes to run for president) how can it be good? I never see "main stream" Repubs wanting anything good for the common people any more. Is he mainstream, i.e. NeoCon controlled?
Thanks for the info.

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. The Democratic-controlled legislature seems to think that it's a good idea

Just because a Republican is for something doesn't automatically mean that it is a bad thing.

[Warpy]

2. Anything a pubbie likes turns out to be a bad idea

In the case of this bill, it will force people who are just barely scraping by to buy their own health insurance. Yes, they say there's a sliding scale, but you can bet that scale only starts to slide as the person approaches destitution. The poor will get socked hard.

Small business owners who can't afford to provide health insurance will start to pay fines for all their uninsured employees. Some of these are mom and pop stores and they're barely scraping by. Some of those will have to close.

This stinker of a plan also left the for profit insurance industry in the catbird seat, maximizing profits by denying care.

If it proves unworkable and serves as a stepping stone to single payer, that's a good thing. If it leads to half the workforce being scofflaws because they think shelter is more important than paying insurance premiums and the system is not fixed, that's another. It could leave people worse off than before.

[shoelace414]

3. It's a totally free solution, so how can it work well?

I have no idea.

[Squatch]

7. Free for whom?

[GrumpyGreg]

4. Kennedy is for it also. Romney is NOT a neocon.

[endarkenment]

15. uh - perhaps not a 'neocon'.

but romney is a hardcore rightwing opportunist. He says and does anything to get to move his personal agenda along.

[debbierlus]

30. No, Romney is a total WHORE

And, he didn't have much to do with it!

The democratic legislature crafted it. Romney just line item vetoed a bunch of important provisions, today. But, it won't matter because the dems will override the veto in a strongly democrat controlled legislature.

However, I don't like the bill.

We need single payer insurance. NOT, bills that force everyone to be included under the current broken system.

However, I think it is a good step. The increasing cost of the program for the state may ultimately force action towards a single payer system in MA.

[papau]

5. The Health plan would have passed over a Romney veto - Dems control

both Mass house and senate by more than 2/3rds.

Getting insurance for most is great - but this is much more costly than single payer and as yet I do not see any advantage over single payer - unless having a choice as to level of reimbursement is worth a 30% to 50% overhead that will cost the state $200 million minimum.

[theophilus]

11. Thank you and thanks to all for the info. I agree that single payer

is best and the sooner the insurance companies can be gotten out of the Healthcare business, the better. We don't really stand a chance with the I.C.s sucking up middleman money. Big pharma is bad enough, but if the people are the policy holders they can call the tune.......I hope. Thanks again.

[endarkenment]

14. huge disadvantage

loose oversight of a plethora of low end plans that will provide little and end up just enriching healthco.

This plan stinks.

[flaminbats]

28. what would your healthcare plan be?

How would you keep the premiums fair while covering everyone? How would you help those who are disabled, who pay $400 a month just to stay healthy, and who are only going more into debt while becoming less able to make money?

How would you provide coverage in a country with a booming demand for a constant supply of healthcare?

[endarkenment]

29. single payer universal pool coverage of course

everyone in, everyone paying via payroll deductions, medicare style efficient fee for service plus a real plan D instead of the crap the bushbots slapped us with.

Cut healthco right out of the picture. buh-bye.

[endarkenment]

6. un(der)funded ill conceived self serving bullshit

just my opinion. Mittens just wanted something to run with as the latest 'compassionate conman'.

[Cosmocat]

8. It is a start ...

I don't think the final product can be a piece meal, state by state thing ... But, it definitely is a start ...

Romney is a repub ... But, he isn't a neocon world hater ... Also, as some note, I assume that the state senate is D controlled ...

[endarkenment]

16. like medicare plan d was a start. nt.

[Nederland]

9. It's a good idea

Any experiment in proving health care for all is worth trying. I'm sick and tired of people saying "that will never work". Let's stop debating ideas and actually implement a bunch of different ideas and settle this argument once and for all.

[theophilus]

12. I agree. Great point. FDR tried so many different things to help get

us out of the Great Depression. If it works, hold on to it. If it doesn't, stop and start something else. We, as a nation, don't seem to have this common sense any more. Of course for U.H.I., the big Pharma and Insurance Corps. don't want it.....at all. We need to model on global systems that are working and not keep listening to criticism about this or that country's failures, etc. I think most Right Wingers think this is a great country. Surely they can agree that WE can make the best Health care system the world has ever seen if we try. If not, why not? We just have to agree that all deserve Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. You don't have any of that if you don't have your health, imho.

[endarkenment]

13. It is a mandate and a giveaway to healthco.

People who have to get their own insurance will end up with bogus plans that cover virtually nothing and have huge deductables to boot.

it passed through the legislature because they are a bunch of safe seat corrupt asshats, which is why progressive mass voters keep voting in republican governors to keep the corrupt democratic legislature in check.

[TayTay]

18. It is not a good idea

The plan has holes you could drive a truck through, not the least of which is the cost of the thing. One estimate said that a family that was 3 times about the poverty level for a family of 3 (about $50,000) would have to pay between $4000 and $8000 a year for the plan.

Do you have $4000 to $8000 lying around for mandatory coverage?

[Nederland]

26. You assume

...that the estimate is correct. That's the problem. Regardless of what plan you implement, there will be someone out there that does an estimate or a study that shows it's a bad idea. The time for listening to guesses and studies is over. Try stuff and see if it works. If your estimate is right we'll junk it and try again. Enough talk. Let's start trying stuff.

[TayTay]

34. That's foolishness

This health care 'plan' of Mitt Romney's could well be a trojan horse designed to show that any form of universal health care, even one as minimal as the proposed Mass plan, will not work.

You may be willing to play with people's live just because you want action of any sort. I am not. This is very serious business and there are powerful forces that will take any failure and use to slam all efforts at health care reform. There are too many people who can get hurt permanently in that scenario.

[Bake]

24. An experiment that will be paid for

by the lower middle class, I would imagine.

I have my doubts.

BAke

[Nederland]

27. Doubt is good

But until we start trying things we'll never know.

[RB TexLa]

10. if you have chosen to raise a family and complain about singles

not getting on your group plan at work and buying for them less expensive individual insurance. Yes it's a good thing as it forces them by law to join the group plan forcing them to pay more for something they do not want to purchase so it can lower the cost for the family, and of course if they don't do it, then they have to pay more taxes. Just more of American values being thrown in the garbage in favor of "family values."

[Coastie for Truth]

17. Steffi Woolhandler MD and David Himmelstein MD

--both of Harvard Med School - and the leading researchers on single payer health care delivery, had this to say in the New York Times

NY Times LTTE, 4/9/2006

To the Editor:

Your reports about Massachusetts' health reform legislation treat politicians' overblown claims as gospel.

The legislation completely ignores one-third of the uninsured, dismissing the Census Bureau's estimate that 748,000 lack coverage in Massachusetts in favor of an estimate of 500,000 derived from a phone survey.

The linchpin of the promised coverage is a requirement that most of the uninsured buy their own coverage, and assurances that private insurers will offer affordable, comprehensive policies.

But already reports have surfaced that these new policies will be far costlier than promised, putting them out of reach of most of the uninsured and sharply raising the costs of state subsidies to help the very poor.

Predictably, rising costs will force more employers to drop coverage, while state coffers will be drained by the continuing cost increases in Medicaid. When the next recession hits, tax revenues will fall just as a flood of newly unemployed people join the Medicaid program or apply for the insurance subsidies promised in the reform legislation.

The program is simply not sustainable over the long or even short term. In contrast, a single-payer reform could save $9 billion a year on bureaucracy in Massachusetts, more than enough to cover the uninsured and to upgrade coverage for the rest of us.

David U. Himmelstein, M.D.
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D.
Cambridge, Mass., April 6, 2006

The writers, associate professors of medicine at Harvard, co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program.

I am waiting to what Paul Krugman says.

[TayTay]

21. I saw Steffie Woolhandler last year

at a forum at the Mass Dems Convention. She is wonderful and a powerful advocate for single payer health care system. I'm happy to see her letter get published. She should be listened to. She knows her stuff.

This health care 'plan' is a sham. It won't help those who don't have health care because of the cost of out-of-pocket expenses.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. If you do a DU full text search on "Steffi Woolhandler"

You will see how many times she is cited on DU (especially by me).

[oneold1-4u]

19. At the moment-

I still have choice! I choose not to run to any insurance co. because it is some politically contrived law!
I studied insurance to become licensed and although I had believed the Co. was a good one, I soon found that it was like 99% of all insurance, "the largest racketeering mob in the world!" The other 1% will try their best to get out of paying what they promise, even on paper, for 99% of the time!
Billions of $s are collected daily on worthless AD&D cheap policies that can never be collected on!

[napi21]

20. It sounds good at first, but the devil is in the details again!

If you check the specs, you'll see that anyone earning $30,000 or more will be required to buy their own insurance on the open market. There's NO allowance for what mandatory expenses that person might have, nor is there any control over the prices ins companies are allowed to charge.

I also heard it is VERY similar to the plan Dukakis put in back in the 70's, and it failed in less than 2 years!

By the way, the penalty of anyone earning enough to buy their own ins is that they would loose their tax deduction!!!!

[Cobalt Violet]

22. How many lives need to be saved before it is a good thing?

I don't think you can look at it all one way. It's all just speculation right now. I think it's worth a try.

[endarkenment]

36. There is no indication that this plan saves any lives at all.

You should do some research. For example, the low end coverage will inflict a plethora of low cost high deductible poor coverage plans on the working poor. The theory that this will save lives, based on 'coverage implies access', falls down when the high deductible/poor coverage of these plans doesn't increase access at all. The end result is most likely that more tax money ends up in healthco pockets, with little or no improvement in healthcare delivery. It is a corrupt crippled plan that, like plan D, Democrats and progressives would be better to walk away from than to once again collude with Republicans.

[Cobalt Violet]

38. Were did you get your information?

It's not what I have read.

[merbex]

25. Romney wants to appear to be for it - but he line itemed vetoed the fee

that would be assesed to employers -$295- if they don't offer some kind of health benefit to their employees

Here is the update http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles... /

Here is the headline: Massachusetts governor signs health bill, with vetoes

Romney used his line-item veto power to strike eight portions of the bill, most significant the $295 fee. Administration officials say the fee could actually discourage registration for the new health program, since some employers might consider it cheaper to pay the fee than insure workers. Romney, in his veto, said it was not necessary to implement or finance the reform.

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi called the vetoes disingenuous, saying the law was crafted with concessions and compromise.

"To change anything will disturb the delicate balance that made this law possible," DiMasi said. "Each and every element of this law is critical to accomplishing our intentions and goals."

DiMasi said he wasn't sure if the governor was issuing the vetoes "for purposes of making the bill work or making him look good politically."

Business and hospital leaders also criticized the veto of the fee.

He signed it so he could be for it and against it

The signing ceremony will undoubltably feature prominently in Presidentail campaign ads

But all the credit should go to the Massachusetts State Legislature and the business and hospital communities that worked so hard to craft this Bill

[debbierlus]

31. Dead Right. He will campaign on this, though. He is a whore.

A plastic Ken doll look-alike that would tongue the azz of anyone in power, if thought it would help get him ahead.

Sleazy.

[SmokingJacket]

32. That people don't have health insurance IS a problem...

and if Mass. really does ensure that AFFORDABLE policies are available, it will be a good thing... though not a total answer to everything.

Because honestly, even if people do have insurance, they're paying too much for it, and insurance companies are making out like bandits.

The reason Romney likes it, I suspect, is that it penalizes the "irresponsible," and it doesn't hurt business by requiring THEM to pay for health insurance.

[endarkenment]

37. AFFORDABLE policies have to provide affordable access

That is the part that is lacking. Instead this bad program will indeed provide affordable policies, and funds will be transfered from taxpayer to healthco, but it does not provide affordable access.

[Jim Warren]

33. Mass resident here, it don't look good so far

Hope I'm wrong, but what I've been able to make out of the 145! pages of the damn thing, it looks like a gimme to the insurance industry. It's looking like it will negatively impact my situation.

[Mass]

35. Not that good, apparently

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped...