Massachusetts Health Insurance Bill
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:02:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Massachusetts Health Insurance Bill
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Massachusetts Health Insurance Bill  (Read 1794 times)
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 04, 2006, 08:43:32 PM »

What do you guys think of this bill?

_____________________________________________

Mass. Lawmakers OK Mandatory Health Bill By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer

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 has expressed support for the measure but has not said whether he will sign it.

"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.

Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2006, 09:19:24 PM »

We need to be getting employers out of the business of offering health insurance, not forcing them to do it.  Trying to implement universal health insurance on the backs of business is only going to convince employers to employ in place where they can provide that most flexible of benefits to their employees, cash.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2006, 10:11:52 PM »

Interesting approach. I'm kind of surprised this would pass so easily, and that the Governor is going to sign it.

I guess I'm not really seeing the point of forcing people to get health insurance if they don't want it, though.
Logged
Moooooo
nickshepDEM
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,909


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2006, 10:15:46 PM »

This is the perfect opportunity for Romney to pander to the conservative base.  If he signs this bill, his chances of winning the Republican nomination are nill.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2006, 10:18:46 PM »

This is the perfect opportunity for Romney to pander to the conservative base.  If he signs this bill, his chances of winning the Republican nomination are nill.

romney has been the one pushing this bill.

im undecided.  i have mixed feelings about this legislation.

id prefer a bill clinton 1993 type plan. 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2006, 10:31:48 PM »

Interesting approach. I'm kind of surprised this would pass so easily, and that the Governor is going to sign it.

I guess I'm not really seeing the point of forcing people to get health insurance if they don't want it, though.

Is it really any different from being required to have auto insurance to drive?
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2006, 11:29:48 PM »

Interesting approach. I'm kind of surprised this would pass so easily, and that the Governor is going to sign it.

I guess I'm not really seeing the point of forcing people to get health insurance if they don't want it, though.

Is it really any different from being required to have auto insurance to drive?

I'd say so; the reason auto insurance is required is because you can cause great monetary damage with your automobile to others, so they need to have someone who they can get money from for compensation.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2006, 11:30:20 PM »

This is the perfect opportunity for Romney to pander to the conservative base.  If he signs this bill, his chances of winning the Republican nomination are nill.

romney has been the one pushing this bill.

im undecided.  i have mixed feelings about this legislation.

id prefer a bill clinton 1993 type plan. 

Agreed.
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2006, 12:06:07 AM »

Interesting approach. I'm kind of surprised this would pass so easily, and that the Governor is going to sign it.

I guess I'm not really seeing the point of forcing people to get health insurance if they don't want it, though.

That's how big government works- coercion.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2006, 05:52:55 AM »
« Edited: April 05, 2006, 06:24:06 AM by dazzleman »

Interesting approach. I'm kind of surprised this would pass so easily, and that the Governor is going to sign it.

I guess I'm not really seeing the point of forcing people to get health insurance if they don't want it, though.

Is it really any different from being required to have auto insurance to drive?

I'd say so; the reason auto insurance is required is because you can cause great monetary damage with your automobile to others, so they need to have someone who they can get money from for compensation.

Eric, I think the premise is that those without health insurance who become ill end up having their health care bills, or at least part of them, picked up by the taxpayer.

Therefore, if you can afford health insurance, the thinking seems to go, you have a responsibility to buy it, because the taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the cost of your health care.

In theory, it could bring down premiums, because many of the people who forego health insurance are young and healthy, with a low rate of claims.

I'm ambivalent about the whole thing.  It's interesting, though.  I wonder how it will address people in the 'gap' area -- not poor enough to qualify for subsidized coverage, but not well-off enough to comfortably pay for health care premiums.  I guess they'll just pay the fine of $1,000 per year, and that will, in theory, help defray their medical costs if they get sick.

On the coercion issue, the taxpayers are already being coerced into paying for medical care for people who forego insurance, and then can't cover the bills.  So the coercion thing works both ways.  Still, as I said, I'm highly ambivalent.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,554
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2006, 07:15:07 AM »

And another thing that shouldn't pass.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2006, 07:18:07 AM »

We need to be getting employers out of the business of offering health insurance, not forcing them to do it.  Trying to implement universal health insurance on the backs of business is only going to convince employers to employ in place where they can provide that most flexible of benefits to their employees, cash.

^^^^
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2006, 10:14:33 AM »



Sounds like a bad bill.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2006, 10:51:35 AM »

Interesting approach. I'm kind of surprised this would pass so easily, and that the Governor is going to sign it.

I guess I'm not really seeing the point of forcing people to get health insurance if they don't want it, though.

Is it really any different from being required to have auto insurance to drive?

I'd say so; the reason auto insurance is required is because you can cause great monetary damage with your automobile to others, so they need to have someone who they can get money from for compensation.

Eric, I think the premise is that those without health insurance who become ill end up having their health care bills, or at least part of them, picked up by the taxpayer.

Therefore, if you can afford health insurance, the thinking seems to go, you have a responsibility to buy it, because the taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the cost of your health care.

In theory, it could bring down premiums, because many of the people who forego health insurance are young and healthy, with a low rate of claims.

I'm ambivalent about the whole thing.  It's interesting, though.  I wonder how it will address people in the 'gap' area -- not poor enough to qualify for subsidized coverage, but not well-off enough to comfortably pay for health care premiums.  I guess they'll just pay the fine of $1,000 per year, and that will, in theory, help defray their medical costs if they get sick.

On the coercion issue, the taxpayers are already being coerced into paying for medical care for people who forego insurance, and then can't cover the bills.  So the coercion thing works both ways.  Still, as I said, I'm highly ambivalent.

Thanks. I agree that makes some deal of sense then.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2006, 11:21:52 AM »

Stupid.
If I want to pay from my own pocket, it's my prerogative.
Logged
Kevin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,424
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2006, 11:23:12 AM »

 I think this a great idea from a efective Governor.
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,983
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2006, 11:28:37 AM »

I am so pissed off at big companies shirking their responsibilities to their employees while collecting big payouts and profits for CEO's that I'd be inclined to support this bill.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2006, 12:14:20 PM »

I am so pissed off at big companies shirking their responsibilities to their employees while collecting big payouts and profits for CEO's that I'd be inclined to support this bill.
Why should health care be an employer responsibility in general?  While the employer should definitely be held responsible for health care when the employee is injured on the job, why should it have to provide health care for the spouse and kid?  Employer provided health care is the fundamental flaw in our system today.  Managing health care is not a core competency for most employers, so even when they want to do well, they have difficulties.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2006, 12:29:27 PM »

I am so pissed off at big companies shirking their responsibilities to their employees while collecting big payouts and profits for CEO's that I'd be inclined to support this bill.
Why should health care be an employer responsibility in general?  While the employer should definitely be held responsible for health care when the employee is injured on the job, why should it have to provide health care for the spouse and kid?  Employer provided health care is the fundamental flaw in our system today.  Managing health care is not a core competency for most employers, so even when they want to do well, they have difficulties.

^^^^^^^^
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 05, 2006, 10:17:13 PM »

Looks like Atlasia is debating similar "reforms".
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2006, 08:52:43 AM »

I think this a great idea from a efective Governor.

Stalin is fitting for you. Glad you have him in your signature.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2006, 10:08:30 AM »

I think this a great idea from a efective Governor.

Stalin is fitting for you. Glad you have him in your signature.
lol
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.244 seconds with 12 queries.