Universal Health Care in Massachusetts?

Heard a story on CBS Radio News this morning about how Massachusetts will soon ensure health care for all its citizens. Does this mean that "conservatives" will be leaving the state in protest? Thanks Massachusetts. I hope the idea spreads.

But that douchebag of a governor is planning on vetoing parts of it while signing it. Fortunately, the legislature has enough votes to override.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2006/04/romney_announce.html

had a short soundbite from Senator Kennedy patting the Governor on the back and bragging about the great job the legislature had done.

Romney, as well as Kennedy both wanted this legislation. When Romney ran against Kennedy for the Senate, this was a point they both agreed on.

But, he feels that $295 per person for a company to pay once a year for not offering insurance is counterproductive. Considering I as a single person pay $34 26 times a year for my insurance, those companies are getting off easy.

Repug posturing.

everything he's ever done has been aimed at appealing to GOP pres primary voters.

can't wait 'til he's gone.

I like the idea of doing something about health care, but this plan will penalize businesses $200+ if they don't provide health care coverage to their employers - it's horrible for small businesses.

I think the idea is a good one, but the implementation is horrible.

Seems like they're rushing to make it a law.

My HMO costs my employer and myself (70%/30%) over 8,000 a year for me and my kids. (and that is a state program) Universal health care is great, but I think that the cost is being moved from the companies to the people.

ailments.

If the Enzi bill (S. 1955) passes in the Senate, people with chronic health conditions may as well fold up and die.

Nobody is providing anything. They are just requiring people to have insurance.

on a sliding scale, and we all know what that means. Working folks will still have to forego shelter to buy health insurance if their jobs don't provide it, even though this high minded bill offers state copays for poor workers. Ha. Poverty has been defined downward into destitution and that means if you work for a living, be prepared to become homeless so you can afford to buy the damn insurance.

Plus it leaves insurance companies in the catbird seat, denying care whenever they think they can get away with it, their way to maximize profit.

My guess is that this plan will fail miserably because people will rightly choose to become scofflaws rather than become homeless over insurance premiums. If it becomes a stepping stone to single payer in the first state in the country, that's great.

The bill as it exists now is a horror for everyone below the executive level.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/april/massachusetts_health.php

Physicians for a National Health Plan:
>>Second, the linchpin of the plan is the false assumption that uninsured people will be able to find affordable health plans. A typical group policy in Massachusetts costs about $4500 annually for an individual and more than $11,000 for family coverage. A wealthy uninsured person could afford that ・but few of the uninsured are wealthy. A 25 year old fitness instructor can find a cheaper plan. But few of the uninsured are young and healthy. According to Census Bureau figures, only 12.4% of the 748,000 uninsured in Massachusetts are both young enough to qualify for low-premium plans (under age 35) and affluent enough (incomes greater than 499% of poverty) to readily afford them. Yet even this 12.4% figure may be too high if insurers are allowed to charge higher premiums for persons with health problems; only half of uninsured persons in those age and income categories report that they are in 兎xcellent health・

The legislation promises that the uninsured will be offered comprehensive, affordable private health plans. But that痴 like promising chocolate chip cookies with no fat, sugar or calories. The only way to get cheaper plans is to strip down the coverage ・boost copayments, deductibles, uncovered services etc.

Hence, the requirement that most of the uninsured purchase coverage will either require them to pay money they don稚 have, or buy nearly worthless stripped down policies that represent coverage in name only.

>>

and out of pocket costs for health care services. It doesn't sound like a very good deal, since it doesn't guarantee affordable health care for anyone.

I heard an excellent analysis of this disaster but couldn't find the supporting evidence on the net. This is another corrupt Plan D style malfeasant giveaway posing as progressive legislation. Many good people here on DU and elsewhere will get suckered into supporting it because 'its a step in the right direction' etc. but like plan D, like no child's behind left, like the rest of the rightwing doublespeak agenda, this program is designed to be a big fat giveaway to the kleptocracy and to discredit the progressive agenda at the same time.

Please oh please my brothers and sisters please stop getting fooled every damn time.

Rodney is trying to let employers off the hook by forcing residents to buy "an apporved plan" and not requiring employers (imagine hundreds of Walmart-like health plans all over the state) to provide some coverage.

The legislature is at least trying to keep this ridiculous legislation from unfairly burdening the working poor.

IMO this is one small step forward and two big steps backwards.

fee on employers with 11 employees and over who do not provide some form of health insurance benefit to their workers.

$295 per worker( although I've heard it may be $150 higher than that figure)

If you are self employed there will be a sliding scale you must buy into or face penalties

This is going to be a plus for hospitals who treat uninsured and hopefully provide better care for people who need it the most

in a line item veto before he signed it.

But even as he signed the law amid fanfare at Boston's historic Faneuil Hall, Romney faced criticism for vetoing a key portion: a $295 per employee annual fee on businesses that do not provide health insurance.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/13/massachusetts_governor_signs_health_bill_with_vetoes/

Dems need to do their homework on how to develop sound, affordable and workable health care policies so they don't keep getting duped by the GOP.

gets more work:

They will handily override his veto

He wants it both ways

Nice pretty pictures and creds to bring to conservatives by vetoing what made it historic to begin with

Ultimate two faced hack

Many are skeptical about this program because there are so many loopholes that can be exploited in favor of insurance companies.

It could very well end up forcing people to buy health insurance coverage that actually covers very little, called "insurance-lite".

I can guarantee you, it will work very well for the insurance companies, though.

That's what the 15 second ads and the doorhangers will say.

What they won't say is that the coverage is woefully inadequate for a great many people and that it's really just a gift to Big Insurance.

sorry, I forget which one - that indicated there are no controls on what insurance companies can charge for premiums. The quote was something about they hope the savings in Massachusetts for health care services will encourage health insurance companies to lower there premiums to the $200 a month range (currently $800 for a single - $1,000 for a family on average). My jaw dropped. What is Mitt smoking that makes him think the benevolent insurance companies will do such a thing? I'm seeing more corporate jets, more corporate condos, more golden parachutes as a result of companies having the entire population forced to buy their policies. This is another Republican "serve-the-corporation" law. I don't know why Dems in Massachusetts went along.

Those $200 per month policies that low income workers are forced to buy won't cover very much either. If they get really sick, they'll be paying out of pocket.

(and it will be guaranteed), insurers will be able to offer plans that are yes, "affordable," but don't cover such things as testing supplies for diabetics and other "maintenance" equipment of chronic illness.

It's Big Insurance's wet dream.

high co-pays, increased premiums for pre-existing conditions....lots more out of pocket costs.


Dems deserve credit for trying to put something realistic together, but they're going to be trying to fix the holes in this progam for years to come.

Romney only went with this when he found out that signing this bill will make a nice little commercial for his Presidential campaign. He doesn't give a crap about the people who need health care in the State. (He doesn't give a crap about the the state, actually.) The actual bill was crafted by the Democrats in the legislature. Romney is trying to vampire his way into saying that he brought health care reform to the Commonwealth by sucking up the work of others and while vetoing anything that wouldn't look good to the RW conservatives in South Carolina.

Just because it says health care reform or universal coverage doesn't make it so. Romney is a master liar and his involvement with this bill is one more instance of him doing anything he can to further Romney and to hell with the actual citizens who might need governmental help. And that's the truth.

Many will only be able to purchase the bare minimum of plans, which are hideously inadequate (and usually unattainable) for those with pre-existing medical condition.

This means that "affordable plans" will not cover such things as insulin syringes and testing supplies for diabetics--especially if the Enzi bill passes in the Senate (S. 1955), which strips state requirements that force insurers to cover such things.

It's good to see that many DUers can cut through the fog of bullshit and see that this is gonna be the way the Repugs steal our as-yet-to-be discovered thunder on health care "reform."

Fercripe'ssakes, DUers--if the Republicans like it, you have gor to know it's gonna screw SOME little guy or gal. In this case, it';s the working class--and possibly already ill--little guy or gal.

a sure indication something is wrong with it and that they've found some way to "game" the system.

On edit: the health insurance industry is a huge backer of the GOP and actually has greater influence on GOP policy than the pharma industry. They'll never allow the GOP to support and pass health insurance reform that doesn't benefit their bottom line.

The more I read about what Mass implemented, the more whacked it seems.

fish in the office microwave.

You are going to see more such legislation pass in states if the Enzi bill )S. 1066) passes.

I've written several OPs about the Enzi bill so I won't repeat myself here, but check out this site ofr great info on Romney's plan and S. 1955.

Deconstruction of Romney's bill here (note--PNHP offers arguments on both sides, plus comment from health care professionals):
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/april/massachusetts_to_fun.php

Enzi Bill, S, 1955 (WHICH IS DUE FOR A VOTE VERY SHORTLY, BTW; call your senators to oppose this, please):
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/march/ahps_for_the_blues.php

I like the idea of making health insurance mandatory. After all, auto insurance is mandatory.

But as one who suffers from a chronic illnness, I have been in and out of the health insurance mess from every direction.

The problem with this plan is that it's a slippery slope.It looks good on paper, but coupled with the Enzi bill (S. 1955) it will actually hurt a great many people who are in no shape to defend themselves.

I've talked about both endlessly on the boards, so I will leave it to you to educate yourself (searching my user name would be a good start), but again--the easiest thing to remember is that if the Republicans' favor a social program, it isn't us who are being favored.

But from your avatar, I doubt I can change your mind.

Just be aware there are weaknesses in every plan. This one is chock -a-block with them.

However, I do believe that this legislation was drafted and enacted by Democrats.

and this is bad legislation.

Once it's at Romney's desk, he's going to make deals upon deals to make it even worse.

And Romney wants it badly--he's frothing at the mouth for it to run his prez campaign on.

And as I say, if the Enzi bill passes, people like me in MA are FUCKED. It's that simple.

Would be "Massachutsetts Insurance Industry Subsidy Act of 2006", for it amounts to nothing more than setting up that industry as a sort of taxing authority to which the whole populace is conscripoted to make payments it sets itself without review.

That term "subsidy" can be used for so very much this administration has done.

"The Hurrican Katrina Restoration Contractors Subsidy Act of 2005" says a lot, don't you think?

I'm going to remember that evocative term, "subsidy," by golly!

Their perincipal activity is "subsidizing" various industries that provide them funds for campaigns, and their personal bank accounts....

"LET's GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

credit for this on one hand and the notion of universal care for all on the other.

It's prickly.

Can we throw Mitt Romney into the Everglades and then move forward on universal health care coverage?

That would be an appealing plan, I believe.

We'd have to do the dump in the middle of the night, though. Pollution control laws and all, etc.