Mass to vote on universal healthcare - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

maleficent · 04-06-2006, 08:31 AM

Massachusetts to Vote on Universal Health Care

Quote:

April 6, 2006 — Joseph Landais, his wife and three children are among the more than 500,000 Massachusetts residents without health insurance.

So when the Landaises need a doctor, they head straight to the emergency room, which isn't a good solution for them or the hospital.

"My sister … broke her leg from about three years ago, and we're still paying off that bill," said Christine Landais, Joseph Landais' daughter.

"It clogs the system up, and we get a backlog," said Dr. David M. Barrett, president and chief executive officer of Lahey Clinic, which is based in Burlington, Mass. "It's not unusual for people to have to wait four, five hours for care."

Under the new system, residents who made less than $9,500 a year would get free health insurance. Those making $54,000 would pay the premium for the new health-care policy, which would be around $200 per month. Those making less than $54,000 would pay only a portion of the premium. For example, someone making $15,000 a year would pay $2.31 a week.

"Everybody pays something. No more entire free rides," Gov. Mitt Romney said. "Everybody pays what they can afford."

The new law also would require small-business owners who didn't provide their employees with health insurance to pay $300 per worker each year into a state fund. That doesn't sit well with Betty Ann Wasilunas.

"You want me to start picking up people's insurance?" said Wasilunas, who owns Vissoi Salon in Westwood, Mass. "I think it's out of this world. I think it's crazy!"

Still, many experts say after years of failed attempts in several states and by the federal government, the Massachusetts bill, which stresses individual responsibility, could serve as a national model — and that's good news for the Landais family.

How can Massachusetts afford to do this?

"We spend roughly $1 billion a year providing free health care to people who don't have insurance, and the cost of helping those people buy insurance is closer to $650 million," Romney said.

The state government would keep any money it saved in a special pool in case it incorrectly calculated the cost of universal health care, according to Romney.

"Ultimately, we believe that people having insurance will mean people can go to their primary-care physician and clinic first and that means better health-care treatment," Romney said. "People who have insurance go to the hospital far less often and have much lower charges than people without it."

Some people are speculating that Romney, a Republican, will run for president in 2008, but Romney said he's "not sure of future plans at this stage."

He said he was pleased that as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, he was able to "introduce a plan to get everybody insured, work with the legislature to come up with a plan … to get the job done."

"People want problem solving at the state and federal level," Romney said. "I hope that [this] is at least passed on to other states."

Quote:

Key Points of the Bill
Legislators say by that by providing every Massachusetts resident with health insurance, the costs of health care are actually lowered.

For instance, the way the system works now, employers who offer insurance also have to pick up part of the tab for the cost of care for the uninsured at hospitals. By having more employers provide insurance, and having fewer uninsured people, these costs to employers go down. Analysts also say that adding more healthy people -- who use less care -- into the insurance system keeps deductibles and premiums down for all.

A look at how the bill would affect employers and individuals:

Individuals
As of July 1, 2007, all individuals must have coverage.

-- Those below 300 percent of the federal poverty level (about $38,500 for a family of three), but not eligible for Medicaid, will have their private insurance plans subsidized at a sliding-scale rate.

-- Children whose families earn below 300 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) will be given free coverage through Medicaid.

-- Individuals with incomes below the FPL ($9,600) will have premiums waived on private insurance. (Currently most childless adults are not eligible for coverage under the state's Medicaid plan.)

-- Those who can afford insurance will be increasingly penalized for not buying coverage. In the first year, they'll lose their state personal income tax exemption.

-- Family coverage will be extended to cover young adults up to the age of 25.

-- Allows the use of "health savings accounts" with cheaper high-deductible "catastrophic" coverage plans. HSAs allow consumers to invest money and withdraw it "tax free" to cover health-care costs.

Businesses
All employers who have more than 10 employees must contribute to employee health-care costs.

-- Employers who don't provide insurance will pay an annual fee of $295 per full-time employee.

-- Encourages private insurers to offer more low-cost options.

-- Creates a "health insurance connector" to help individuals and businesses find affordable private coverage. -

Interesting concept--- I am not sure they've answered all the questions I would have regarding it... Like is that monthly fee, per family -- (if wife works, and husband and kids don't - does the 200 cover the entire family or does she pay 400 a month - if it covers the family, then single people get screwed)

Seems like a nice idea for a guy who's going to runfor president... but in theory i don't see how it will work

Seaver · 04-06-2006, 08:36 AM

I guess we'll see if Universal Health Care works afterall. If it doesn't I'm glad it was not enacted by a state and not the whole US, if it does it can be then used.

However the problem I forsee is they still use vast sums of already Federal money, by using Medicaid for the poor it is using a life raft that could cause false readings of success.

lurkette · 04-06-2006, 08:55 AM

Mal, what are your concerns that make you think it won't worK? It seems to me that having people insured at what is a relatively low cost would lead to more preventive care and therefore lower overall health care costs. It's a lot cheaper to treat bronchitis with a Z-Pak than it is to admit a patient to the ICU with a severe respiratory infection.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-06-2006, 09:04 AM

Why doesn't the government consider regulating and pushing for Insurance company reform. Shit like malpractice fees are so ridiculous that they lead to high premiums which dicks everybody, even those able to pay are getting dicked. Don't quite get how it is legit that since the 90's the price has gone up 1000%, doesn't really sit well because wages haven't increased anywhere close to that figure.

Quote:

"We spend roughly $1 billion a year providing free health care to people who don't have insurance, and the cost of helping those people buy insurance is closer to $650 million," Romney said.

Hopefully that holds up and makes for a successful program, might finally give me some hope and trust for civil services in this country.

maleficent · 04-06-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurkette

Mal, what are your concerns that make you think it won't worK? .

If a small company decides it's cheaper to pay the 'fine' rather than insure their workers (in some cases, it might be cheaper to pay the 295 a month per employee than to contribute whatever towards healthcare) they will bail on providing insurance...

Choice of healthcare plans would diminish.. what works for me - might not work for others...

I'm a cheapskate, if a person opts to have 4 kids, their choice-- under this plan, it doesn't seem that they are paying any more for insurance.. they should... I should not be paying the same amount as someone who has more than just themself.

A 25 year old under a family plan is ridiculous - get a job and start paying on their own insurance.

Quality of healthcare I don't see improving...

samcol · 04-06-2006, 09:52 AM

I don't know how this can possibly end up well. Look where Social Security got us, the biggest pyramid scheme around. Now we are going to let employers and the government dictate our healthcare?

kutulu · 04-06-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

Choice of healthcare plans would diminish.. what works for me - might not work for others...

Did they say there is one plan and one plan only or are you assuming that?

Quote:

I'm a cheapskate, if a person opts to have 4 kids, their choice-- under this plan, it doesn't seem that they are paying any more for insurance.. they should... I should not be paying the same amount as someone who has more than just themself.

Check with your employer it's probably like that already to some extent. With mine, I pay for me, my wife, and our daughter. However, any additional kids do not result in more costs. That is quite standard so there isn't much of a change there.

Quote:

A 25 year old under a family plan is ridiculous - get a job and start paying on their own insurance.

Lots of people are able to keep health care under their parents policies into their 20's. I did. This may extend it a bit but not by a lot. Again, how is this that different?

Quote:

Quality of healthcare I don't see improving...

That's a meaningless blanket statement. The intent is to get people covered and penalize them if they don't get coverage (ie, they will lose their personal exemption on their state taxes). Uninsured people are way more likely to get coverage and not pay up. This passes the cost onto everyone else.

I think this is a great idea although I think a fine of 300/year is way too little. It should be more on the order of $2000.

kutulu · 04-06-2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

I don't know how this can possibly end up well. Look where Social Security got us, the biggest pyramid scheme around. Now we are going to let employers and the government dictate our healthcare?

The problems with SS exist because of the baby boomers. They had lots of kids and their kids had less. As a result the group paying will be smaller than the group recieving. this is temporary will the baby boomers die off.

It could also be easily fixed by removing the cap on SS.

Elphaba · 04-06-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

If a small company decides it's cheaper to pay the 'fine' rather than insure their workers (in some cases, it might be cheaper to pay the 295 a month per employee than to contribute whatever towards healthcare) they will bail on providing insurance...

I would still want to continue providing insurance coverage because I can attract and retain quality employees. But I can't afford to provide dependent coverage and probably will never offer it. I wonder how that scenerio would work under the Mass plan?

Ustwo · 04-06-2006, 12:16 PM

"Everybody pays something. No more entire free rides," Gov. Mitt Romney said. "Everybody pays what they can afford."

Hahaha always be afraid of politicans deciding what you can afford.

flstf · 04-06-2006, 03:55 PM

Quote:

"We spend roughly $1 billion a year providing free health care to people who don't have insurance, and the cost of helping those people buy insurance is closer to $650 million," Romney said.

The state government would keep any money it saved in a special pool in case it incorrectly calculated the cost of universal health care, according to Romney.

If this is true then why doesn't the state help provide health insurance to those who don't have it and lower taxes $350 million?

Why the complicated formulas? If the state wants to provide universal healthcare then they should just provide it and raise or lower taxes accordingly. Who knows, maybe the insurance companies will give them a great group rate.

ubertuber · 04-06-2006, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

If this is true then why doesn't the state help provide health insurance to those who don't have it and lower taxes $350 million?

Why the complicated formulas? If the state wants to provide universal healthcare then they should just provide it and raise or lower taxes accordingly. Who knows, maybe the insurance companies will give them a great group rate.

If they did that, how long do you think people would continue to pay for their insurance? Not long, I'd wager. No - I see the point that if you are going to do this it has to be all or nothing. It will be very interesting to see the outcome of this. I'm skeptical, but honestly I wish Massachusetts well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Lots of people are able to keep health care under their parents policies into their 20's. I did. This may extend it a bit but not by a lot. Again, how is this that different?

This may be nitpicking since we've moved on, but I don't know anyone who was covered by their parents' insurance until they were 25. 21 and 23, depending on school status, seem to be the common cutoffs (and are what my insurance provides for any children that I might have). I'm not saying it's impossible for insurance to cover 25, but it must be pretty uncommon. Anyway, it's probably not worth figuring out since the extra 2 years of coverage will hardly be what makes or breaks this plan.

04-06-2006, 08:55 AM	#3 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	Mal, what are your concerns that make you think it won't worK? It seems to me that having people insured at what is a relatively low cost would lead to more preventive care and therefore lower overall health care costs. It's a lot cheaper to treat bronchitis with a Z-Pak than it is to admit a patient to the ICU with a severe respiratory infection. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

04-06-2006, 12:16 PM	#10 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	"Everybody pays something. No more entire free rides," Gov. Mitt Romney said. "Everybody pays what they can afford." Hahaha always be afraid of politicans deciding what you can afford. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

04-06-2006, 08:36 AM	#2 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I guess we'll see if Universal Health Care works afterall. If it doesn't I'm glad it was not enacted by a state and not the whole US, if it does it can be then used. However the problem I forsee is they still use vast sums of already Federal money, by using Medicaid for the poor it is using a life raft that could cause false readings of success.

04-06-2006, 09:52 AM	#6 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I don't know how this can possibly end up well. Look where Social Security got us, the biggest pyramid scheme around. Now we are going to let employers and the government dictate our healthcare?