Didn't see this being discussed (forgive me if I've overlooked it), but thought it merited some discussion...

I'm particularly interested to see how the GOPers on TWW feel about a Republican governor bringing socialized health care to the forefront.

Quote :

"Mass. Passes Landmark Health Care Bill BOSTON, April 5, 2006 (CBS/AP) Lawmakers have approved a sweeping health care reform package that dramatically expands coverage for the state's uninsured, a bill that backers hope will become a model for the rest of the nation. The plan would use a combination of financial incentives and penalties to expand access to health care over the next three years and extend coverage to the state's estimated 500,000 uninsured. "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. 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. CBS News correspondent Trish Regan explained how it is expected to work: all residents will be expected to either buy insurance through an employer or the government. Those who can't afford a plan will be subsidized, and can buy insurance through the state for as little as $2.30 a month. On Tuesday, the House approved the bill on a 154-2 vote and 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. Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said the governor, a potential Republican candidate for president in 2008, would sign the bill but would make some changes that wouldn't "affect the main purpose." 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 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 bill requires all residents to be insured beginning July 1, 2007, either by purchasing insurance directly or obtaining it through their employer. 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." McDonough called the bill "promising." "If it can be achieved as outlined, it would be an enormous step forward for Massachusetts," he said. 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. Regan reports the Massachusetts plan is to go into effect July 2007, around the same time Gov. Romney will be considering if he'll run in the 2008 presidential election, where health care is sure to be a major issue "

4/8/2006 8:55:01 PM

Quote :

"Kay_Yow: I'm particularly interested to see how the GOPers on TWW feel about a Republican governor bringing socialized health care to the forefront."

If it weren't for the fact that he's a Massachusetts Republican, I'm sure their reaction would look like this:

4/8/2006 8:58:46 PM

I hope the fucker gets the boot next election. Seeing how the government operates first hand, I NEVER want something as important as my health in the hands of a government employee.

4/8/2006 10:21:08 PM

1. didn't read the first post yet. maybe later.

2. massachusetts can do whatever they want, for all i care.

3. i'm only halfway surprised that a GOP gov is behind it, both b/c it's Massachusetts, and b/c the 2006 GOP is no longer a party of fiscal conservatism or any other sort of limited government.

4. I like how "universal" is the euphamism for "socialist".

4/8/2006 10:35:58 PM

As a republican, I have mixed feelings about this. It is sub-par compared to the optimal policy (deregulating the insurance industry) but it is by FAR superior to the most likely alternative of doing nothing.

As Hayek wrote back in the 1940s, a national industry operates best when free from government control, but the surrest road to collapse is to attempt a mixed system of control, such as we have in health-care.

So, at this point, movement in either direction is progress and will save both lives and mountains of money, even if it isn't the progress I would prefer.

4/8/2006 11:25:19 PM

Quote :

"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."

WTF?

The people who pay taxes get fined if they use the "universal health care" in taxachusetts.

4/8/2006 11:56:06 PM

Quote :

"WTF? The people who pay taxes get fined if they use the "universal health care" in taxachusetts."

if they DONT use it or their own service. its not that complicated.

4/9/2006 11:10:01 AM

So, in this scheme, does Mass. now own all the hospitals in the state? Or are they just siezing the ones they need, such as a dual yet separate public/private system, like in Canada?

The purpose, in my mind, of creating the public system is to distract the public so we can deregulate the private payer system (insurance/etc). I don't have a long term plan to create and then destroy the public system, governments don't work that way, I just want the private system to be free to chase innovation and productivity. If the cost of this is a socialist public health-care system, then so be it.

4/9/2006 11:41:45 AM

So if you decide that you don't want health care, you get fined...

That's kind of sad, if someone doesn't want health care, just let em die.

4/9/2006 11:43:54 AM

you don't have a right to death in america
durr

you have a right to life
durr

4/9/2006 11:44:59 AM

^death penalty....?

4/9/2006 5:31:36 PM

how do they decide who can afford their own insurance? people poor enough to get on medicaid already have government funded health insurance so are they trying to help the people caught in the middle or just come up with more red tape? middle income people have a hard time paying for health insurance if they don't get it at work, so if the limits are low for subsidies, they'll be taxing people who can't pay for the insurance or the extra taxes.

4/9/2006 5:55:17 PM

Quote :

"how do they decide who can afford their own insurance?"

Quote :

"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."

4/9/2006 5:59:11 PM

Quote :

"and b/c the 2006 GOP is no longer a party of fiscal conservatism or any other sort of limited government."

money was actually part of what went into the decision. it breaks down to this: poor people are going to get healthcare whether they can pay for it or not. instead of spending a billion dollars for them, why not take the money to start a program that helps them pay for it themselves.

4/9/2006 6:04:36 PM

good for them.

provide the money for it, and let the individual decide where he goes.

too bad so many people here are too greedy to give up a little so those w/o can get some.

[Edited on April 9, 2006 at 6:16 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2006 6:14:40 PM

Sounds like sticking it to the middle-class to me. But it's Massachusetts and that's what they do.

4/9/2006 6:17:14 PM

^it doesn't raise taxes (except on businesses), so I don't really see how it is sticking it to the middle class.

This plan would only work in a state like Massachusetts, where ~10% of the population is uninsured. They are forcing those who can afford it to get insurance, and forcing businesses to subsidize the program for those who can't afford it. It's a decent medium between personal responsibility and socialistic redistribution of resources. Unfortunately, it would never work in a state like California, where more like 25% of the population is uninsured.

4/9/2006 7:09:14 PM

I've always said that if socialized health care had to be, it should be implimented at a state or local level. Still there are certainly things I don't like:

Quote :

"those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage"

Why? Why should I have to buy health care? Certainly I shouldn't be able to cash in on the state's health care plan if I can afford my own but don't want it, but why should I be forced to buy health care? For that matter, who determines "able to afford health care"? Technicaly speaking, I could afford my own private insurance, but I've got better things to spend $80+ / month on right now.

Quote :

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

This I don't understand. How do they expect premiums to go down? More people are going to be covered which I guess could reduce costs, but won't claims go up now too?

Quote :

"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. "

That's a load of crap. Especialy if they're not making any exceptions for small businesses or the like. You think wal-mart is taking over now, just wait till all the mom and pop stores are shelling out an additional $300 / year / employee

Quote :

"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."

What federal reimbursements?

4/9/2006 8:35:39 PM

Quote :

"What federal reimbursements?"

the amount that already goes to the state for medicaid and medicare.

Quote :

"This I don't understand. How do they expect premiums to go down? More people are going to be covered which I guess could reduce costs, but won't claims go up now too?"

thats a good question. i would guess that it has something to do with the preventative(sp?) care vs emergency care, but im not sure. my guess is that the claims that are really expensive are going to be made no matter what, so more money will be coming in. but im not certain.

4/9/2006 9:28:07 PM

First they allow gay marraige. Now they give health care to people who can't afford it

Jesus must really hate Massachusetts now

4/9/2006 9:52:02 PM

Quote :

" "What federal reimbursements?" the amount that already goes to the state for medicaid and medicare. "

Actually, Massachusetts is set to lose $362 million in federal aid if they don't lower the number of uninsured. I'm pretty sure thats what they are referring to.

4/9/2006 11:37:39 PM

Quote :

"Jesus must really hate Massachusetts now"

have you been there between say november and march? trust me, the jesus hate is nothing new.

4/10/2006 1:40:55 AM

Quote :

"I'm particularly interested to see how the GOPers on TWW feel about a Republican governor bringing socialized health care to the forefront."

Well, at the risk of repeating myself, I think I've made my position on socialized (or, at least, more socialized) healthcare clear many times before:

I'm for it.

Every human being has certain basic rights, including life. If we can save you, we should, and nobody's attachment to their wealth will convince me otherwise.

4/10/2006 2:21:59 AM

Here you go Kay ... From Bob Parks, Black and Right...

Quote :

"Wednesday morning's Boston Globe headline read, "Romney gets health care bill." I know most of you out there are jumping up and down in sheer joy because FINALLY, Massachusetts is going to have as close to universal health care as one can have. But the devil is always in the details. First, I guess it's okay to say formally "Welcome to Election Year 2006!" With a Democratic super-majority controlled House and a governor with delusions of becoming president, Massachusetts politicians, liberals, have once again come up with a plan so grand, people are going to be forced to obey it as they really don't know what's good for them. According to this bill 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 poor. Some people are poor because either bad things happened to them or they made bad life choices. We, as a society, have an obligation to help them out. But a lot of younger workers choose not to get health insurance because they are relatively healthy and don't want to throw away their money. According to the AP, "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." Isn't it funny how liberals always have to force people to do things they consider so wonderful? Also, the measure doesn't call for new taxes, yet, but would require businesses that don't offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee. Hear that? Maybe now you see why more businesses are leaving Massachusetts than coming in. It doesn't matter whether you're a big conglomerate or a mom and pop. The State of Massachusetts is going to force your employer to either pay an insurance premium for every employee, or pay the commonwealth. I know I've been accused of being an ideologue, but here goes. When a person goes into business for themselves, they do so because they want the independence and want to create financial security for their families. Liberals believe people go into business so they can become employers and give their workers prevailing wage and all the benefits they want. The bottom line be damned. But alas, it is an election year. The House approved the bill 154-2, and the Senate endorsed it 37 to zip. Democrat House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi gloated, "It's only fitting that Massachusetts would set forward and produce the most comprehensive, all-encompassing health care reform bill in the country. Do we know whether this is perfect or not? No, because it's never been done before." Great. Oh, and there's a small matter of the cost of this plan. "Officials" said, "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." And these are probably the same "officials" that promised us the Big Dig would only cost us five billion dollars. So while businesses continue to move out of state and with them, jobs, thank your legislators at the ballot box this November. You may not have a job, but at least the rest of us who do will have the honor of paying for your free health care. We all have our priorities...."

A few more thoughts ..

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -Daniel Webster

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." - C.S Lewis

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt


Being republican hardly means you're conservative.

4/10/2006 10:36:47 AM

so what keeps companies from just passing the extra fees on to their empoyees?

4/10/2006 11:20:55 AM

^ That takes time. Employers cannot just declare tomorrow "Ok, everyones salary is hereby cut $295" (assuming that is the full cost per employee, which it won't be). The workers signed a contract, their employer cannot just cut it arbitrarily without jumping through the contractural hoops.

That said, employees come to expect a certain salary. If costs suddenly jump, businesses that cut salaries to be more in line with productivity may be unable to fill needed positions. It takes time for unemployed workers to get the message.

So, in the long run everyone affected will just end up offsetting the costs with lower wages. But in the short term, loss of business and unemployment are the only avenues available.

This must be tempered, of course, with the observation that this law doesn't affect most employees, only the low skilled low salaried workers. So, just like the minimum wage, the law will be popular because it only hurts the down-trodden while helping the sense of justice of middle and high income people.

4/10/2006 12:25:30 PM

Quote :

"That takes time. Employers cannot just declare tomorrow "Ok, everyones salary is hereby cut $295" (assuming that is the full cost per employee, which it won't be). The workers signed a contract, their employer cannot just cut it arbitrarily without jumping through the contractural hoops. "

But anyone who's employed on an hourly basis can watch their hours be cut and cut until enough people quit to make employing the remaining employees feasable. And all of a sudden a lot of borderline employees are no longer going to be worth their expense.

There's other ways the costs can be passed to the employees. Some business health care plans basicaly work in a way such that the basic health care package is free and if you opt out of it, you get a bit more in your pay check each month (but not enough to = the cost of having your own health care). It wouldn't be too hard to change the bennefits package so that now the bennefits are still availible but you have to pay a deduction from your paycheck's base salary rather than the bennefits money.

[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 4:30 PM. Reason : llj]

4/10/2006 4:27:26 PM

or they just wont get a raise equal to inflation.

4/10/2006 7:25:09 PM

Quote :

"so what keeps companies from just passing the extra fees on to their empoyees?"

Businesses will pass these additional costs on, not to employees, but to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.

The U.S. had a pretty good health care system up until the federal gov't moved in during the 1960s. Get politicians out of the healthcare system, and let prices go back to market levels.

4/10/2006 8:28:22 PM

Quote :

"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."

There are some insurance plans that just aren't worth the money.
My father's current health benefits have a 20K limit for the entire family for everything per year, and it would have cost ~$450/mo. He's earning 800-1100 a month. When one family member's prescriptions are 1K/month... yeah...

Are folks who are considered uninsurable (by the insurance companies), and are currently uninsured, going to be eligible for the gov't insurance?

It'd be nice to see some basic minimum threshold for benefits set in the very near future.

4/10/2006 9:14:24 PM

bitch of a bill
http://www.hcfama.org/_uploads/documents/live/Health%20Reform%20Conference%20Committee%20Bill%20Final.pdf
145 pages of adobe goodness

eligibility guidlines are around 65 or so.

[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 10:16 PM. Reason : 65 not 165 dumbass.]

4/10/2006 10:16:20 PM