Why Massachusetts Healthcare Bill Will Become Law
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Health CareOne word…compromise:
“This is probably about as close as you can get to universal,” said Paul Ginsburg, an economist who is president of the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington. “It’s definitely going to be inspiring to other states about how there was this compromise. They found a way to get to a major expansion of coverage that people could agree on. For a conservative Republican, this is individual responsibility. For a Democrat, this is government helping those that need help.”
Yes Virginia, there is a middle ground.
But again…this doesn’t mean that moderates/centrists/reformers believe compromise is the ultimate solution to every problem. But in cases where the health of our nation is at stake, I wish we’d see more stories like this.
And here’s a good point. If every state requires auto insurance, why not health insurance?
Romney said the bill, modeled on the state’s policy of requiring auto insurance, is intended to end an era in which 550,000 people go without insurance and their hospital and doctor visits are paid for in part with public funds.“We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance,” Romney said in an interview. “And cars are a lot less expensive than people.”
Interesting. Do you think Romney could run on this issue in 2008 and garner support from the middle?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 5th, 2006 and is filed under Health Care. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 5th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
“Do you think Romney could run on this issue in 2008 and garner support from the middle? ”
Nope
April 5th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
two words….insurance lobbyist
April 5th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
This idea has been kicking around for awhile. I first became interested in it three or four years ago. One of the reasons healthcare costs are so high is that many young, healthy people do not bother to get health insurance. This dilutes the payer base but, since young people are generally healthy, doesn’t dilute the patient base. Requiring everyone to have insurance spreads the costs out more.
It also places the responsibility on the people and not on the government. Even with government subsidies to help the poorest afford health insurance, it is not a government run system or entitlement.
I am excited to see if this works out. It’s the best kind of compromise because it’s not a mushy mingling of opposing views but instead a wholly new idea that satisfies key concerns of both sides. If it works, I would hope this kind of solution expands to replace employer-funded healthcare, thus giving workers more flexibility to change jobs and removing the hidden healthcare tax from our economy (lower wages, higher prices, etc.).
Of course, this is all asuming that mandated health insurance is combined with affordable health insurance–which could be an attainable goal with the right mix of government regulation, subsidies and free-market incentives.
April 5th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Owning a car is still voluntary and that is the difference. While you might need a car, it is not forced upon you and therefore, you don’t have to get insurance. Many New Yorkers don’t even have driver’s licenses.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
“Do you think Romney could run on this issue in 2008 and garner support from the middle? �
Yup.
I fully expect Romney to win the Repbulican nomination in ‘08. Here’s why:
1) His strongest competitor, Condi Rice, has all sorts of knee-jerk negatives with the party base, not to mention having to drag her predecessor’s increasingly poor reputation around.
2) Bill Frist has an impressive money machine, but has an amazing knack for looking like a jackass on a nearly weekly basis.
3) John McCain is widely reviled throughout the party’s base, and is trying to asskiss his way to being liked. That’ll work.
4) George Allen - well, I expect him to compete. He’s a fundie Southerner, and that sells. But I expect Romney, and possibly Condi, to whip him.
Beyond all that, Romney is actually making some pretty smart moves. People think he’s weird because he’s a Mormon and from Massachusetts, but he’s going out of his way to win allies among conservative Christians. He’s also going out of his way to win friends among the GOP’s hardworking economic base, the Frank Republicans. Finally, while I wouldn’t expect him to carry Massachusetts, he holds the promise of actually being semicompetitive in the Northeast. That’s worth gold.
April 6th, 2006 at 2:20 am
I agree about Romney. The guy so far . . . looks too good to be true. He is incredibly sharp every which way, clean and competant and personable. Today he got complements from Hillary and Ted, as well as Investors Daily. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20060405/bs_ibd_ibd/200645issues
See c-span.org interview http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1066
and
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/if_policy_agendas_count_in_200.html
April 6th, 2006 at 11:10 am
No one seems to see the obvious outcome of Romney’s plan: it will cause health care costs to further skyrocket, just as they have been since the med. ins. mechanism took commodity cost controls for health care out of the hands of the consumer and handed them to entities that have no incentive to control cost.
Can I make an out-of-the-box suggestion that doesn’t include handing more money over to the government, or is this the wrong crowd for that?
Here’s a compromise:
1. Outlaw commodity med. insurance plans entirely, as they are *directly* responsible for the dynamics that have caused this problem: http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml . Keep only catastrophic plans for those who feel the need for them, and administer these as group plans through local municipalities (no more broadly).
2. Revert 95% of all monies that were paid by employers to med. ins. companies *back* to employees. Everyone gets an instant annual raise of from a $4,000 to $16,000 per employee / family, or more, depending on the cost of the plan they’re in.
3. Direct the remaining 5% into a fund that’s distributed to health care providers to recoup costs of providing care to those unable to pay, based on the facility’s need and inversely proportional to the tax breaks they may already be getting in their municipality.
4. Let the resulting free market economics of direct-to-consumer commodity goods and services force the cost of day-to-day health care, equipment and pharmaceuticals back to a more reasonable equilibrium through profit reduction, cost cutting, salary reduction and efficiency improvements.
This (4) would include, for instance, things like eliminating the ER as the de facto service point for *all* low-to-no-income, non-life-threatening health problems like sprains, colds, flu, earaches, broken bones, depression, bee stings, animal bites, minor lacerations, etc., and replacing it with health clinics that require far less expensive facilities and personnel. It would include, for instance, replacing the candy-store mentality with which prescription drugs are dispensed by doctors (simply because the insurance will cover it). It would include, for instance, elimination of pharmaceutical marketing junkets aimed at drug prescribers as well as the direct-to-consumer marketing campaigns by drug companies, saving them billion$ and lowering the inflated demand (without changing the actual need) for expensive drugs.
Whatever you subsidize, you get more of. If you subsidize skyrocketing health care costs, well… you get the picture.
April 8th, 2006 at 9:22 am
“We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance,�
His comparison is misplaced. We require drivers to have liability insurance. We don’t require them to insure against damage to their own cars because it’s none of our business. My arthritis is a risk only to me and none of the state’s business.
April 8th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Karen, I think you are absolutely correct.
The sophistry used to support the moral equivalence of health insurance with car insurance implies that the liability and “damage” (in the case of health care costs) is felt by society (i.e., the taxpayers) as a whole. That is, if one needs health care products or services but doesn’t provide for their reimbursement in some way, then society foots the bill.
This sophistry, of course, assumes that (a) the taxpayer should be paying the cost and (b) shouldn’t have any say in controlling the exorbitant costs of these products and services. Without these assumptions - which are both inescapably socialist - the analogy breaks down irretrievably.
This specious thinking passes for reason in the public forum only because we’ve lost the ability, as a culture, to see outside the box we’re trapped in regarding the economics that presently control health care services.
May 30th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
If ever there was a time in history when we should read between the lines, here is as good a place to start. What I see here is a double edged sword. Whatever the reason may be is still unclear to me, but the insurance industry in our country has taken far too much control of our daily lives, and taking away our hard earned money. Whether it is Healthcare, Homeowners, Automobile, or Life Insurance policies. We are being sold a bill of goods that offer less than they promise to provide, especially when lawyers get hold of the claims to be disbursed.
Did this man just promote this legislation to further his political career, or was it for the betterment of the American people. Only time will tell, and if this piece of legislation helps the American people than I will vote for the man: however if there is some impropriety to be found then the American people will vote for anyone the Democratic party has to offer up. My question is why do these important issues have to be separated by the so called party lines, instead of acting in the interests of the people who are to be served?
November 24th, 2006 at 2:04 am
Owning a car is voluntary and that is the main difference. You might need a car but, it is not forced upon you and therefore, you don’t have to get insurance.
November 24th, 2006 at 8:44 am
What if….
What if there was a national health care plan already in place that is NOT insurance?
The Marine Corps, Bank Of America, Wachovia & AT & T provide such plans to their employees.
The best thing is it is NOT INSURANCE!
No tall skyscrapers or loan companies. No commercials on tv every 10 minutes.
No deductibles, exclusions or limits and no longterm contracts.
Goes where you go no matter whether you are employed or not.
What if…it included everyone at your address of any age for one set price less than your monthly internet bill?
What if…you never had to fret about what benefits you have or don’t have…ever again?
It’s not new, as not many have heard about it simply because they don’t advertise in the media yet it has been published in over 260 publications and featured on PBS, “60 Minutes” and “Your World”
Nationally recognized & Endorsed by prominent associations.
I’ve owned my plan since 2003 and will carry it with me for life.
You cannot insure your health. A car can be replaced. You can’t!
Happy Holidays
Debbie
November 24th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
[...] Why Massachusetts Healthcare Bill Will Become LawDonklephant - 10 hours ago… you think Romney could run on this issue in 2008 … Everyone gets an instant annual raise of from a $4,000 … for *all* low-to-no-income, non-life-threatening health … [...]
November 24th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
[...] Why Massachusetts Healthcare Bill Will Become LawDonklephant - 18 hours ago… stories like this. And here sa good point. If every state requires auto insurance, why not health insurance? Romney said the bill … [...]
November 24th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
My impression is that a big reason that health care costs are sky rocketing is that those of us who DO PAY for healthcare costs, have to also carry the costs of those of us WHO DO NOT.
This bill is a truly conservative method in that it pushes individual responsibility back on those who try to be free riders.
My ideal bill would be one just like the bill above, but that also has more options to responsibly opt-out, if desired.
Options should be:
1) You invest a certain amount of money in a trust fund (e.g. 50k) that can be drawn upon only during an accident.
2) You sign several affidavits saying that the government will provide you with NO assistance whatsoever should you become injured. E.g., no free emergency room care, no medicaid, no welfare, nothing. If you are injured, they take your bleeding body and throw it out on the sidewalk and say “good luck.”
3) You purchase a catastrophe insurance coverage.
If someone is willing to do any of the above, they should be allowed to opt out.
It is no surprise that such an “opt out” plan is not a big part of the plan in Mass. but I think that a more conservative state could create a bill similar to Mass.’s bill but that has the appropriate opt outs.
BTW, I am 100% in favor of Mitt Romney for president… although I hope that he wouldn’t push this at a national level. We need this to be implemented state by state, so that our system doesn’t become frozen in an a one-size fits all. (See “No Child Left Behind” for an example of something NOT to do.) Politics needs to remain local.
November 24th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
[...] Why Massachusetts Healthcare Bill Will Become LawDonklephant - 21 hours ago… you think Romney could run on this issue in 2008 … Everyone gets an instant annual raise of from a $4,000 … for *all* low-to-no-income, non-life-threatening health … [...]
November 25th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Well, actually, Tom, Condi is pretty popular with the rank and file. The base cratered with George Allen’s candidacy. Mitt is trying to go after that with his gay marriage thing. I doubt he’s going to be able to parlay that into the nomination.
Tom, while you sold Condi short, which wasn’t too smart, you completely left out Rudy, which wasn’t smart at all. I know Mitt is a good candidate and has made some very good moves, but I’m not quite sold on him.
There’s something missing there.
November 26th, 2006 at 6:35 am
[...] Why Massachusetts Healthcare Bill Will Become LawDonklephant - Nov 23, 2006… you think Romney could run on this issue in 2008 … Everyone gets an instant annual raise of from a $4,000 … for *all* low-to-no-income, non-life-threatening health … [...]
May 16th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
The mandated health insurance is not going to do anything to change the cost of insured people’s premiums. The insurance companies are going to keep on jacking up the costs whether the currently uninsured in MA become insured or not. This law only serves to continue to feed the beast that is responsible for the ever-mounting cost of health insurance throughout this country and jeopardizes the individuals and families that cannot afford to purchase the plans offered by the MA mandated because the costs are actually not affordable and the coverage has large gaps.
So all of you bloggers who are calling the unisured “free riders” have no business doing so. All of us pay taxes that go toward Mass Health and those who will be receiving the mandated premiums for free and will also be paying for the 60,000 who are exempt from the mandate because there no “affordable” plans could be negotiated with the insurance companies for that income bracket. The only folks who have enrolled thus far for the most part plus a few in the lower-priced plans. Only 4% have enrolled in the other plans because they are not affordable and the coverage is not decent.
It’s a choice of heating and eating for most of us in this country at this point and to penalize individuals and families that do not earn enough to purchase a specific product is aggregious. Decent jobs are sorely lacking in MA, particularly outside of the Boston area, housing is some of the most expensive in the country and property taxes, etc. are also extremely high in this state. So don’t blame the working people. Take a look at the underlying reasons they cannot afford health insurance and realize as well that in this country at the present time, the middle class has become the working poor. Gas and oil companies are soaking every one of us as their profits rise higher and higher. Big Pharma is soaking seniors under the fairly new Medicare Part D with meds marked up as much as 200% from the retail cost at a pharmacy in FL per a speech from a senator during a recent debate on C-span.
The MA mandated is just another takeover of the insurance/medical/big pharma and they will continue to grab more from you each year while they lower benefits. If the mandated is a success then you all will be in line for whatever they come up with next, so don’t be so hasty to criticize hard-working people. As for Romney’s statement that motor vehicle insurance is mandatory so why not healthcare? Well, it’s simple. If you can’t afford vehicle insurance you have a choice: don’t own a vehicle, take it off the road or don’t drive. With the mandated health insurance you have no choice. You don’t buy, you get fined.
The new campaign for MA should be: Welcome to Masasachusetts. The state that makes your choices for you, manages those choices and fines you when you can’t afford to comply.
This mandate is playing with people’s lives and will put individuals and families in financial peril if they are not already there.
If the government of MA truly wanted to provide healthcare (not insurance) to its residents, they would go directly to single-payer with everyone having the same comprehensive coverage and private insurance companies would be out of the picture - less beaurocracy, hence. less cost. But that won’t happen because there is too much lobbying - money talks and corporations rule. It’s the same as what goes on in Washington.
Bottomline: This is a money-grab and the gov’t trying to balance the budget on people’s backs. Romney herded it through - he was going to use it on the stump (and probably the insurance companies filled his campaign coffers). The week he signed it into law, he was on numerous news-talk shows touting Healthcare for All in MA. But he never mentioned the penalties. And now, out there in prez-campaign land, he doesn’t talk about healthcare unless asked and then skirts the issue. Maybe the RNC doesn’t like it or they haven’t figured out how to spin a bad piece of legislature yet. According to an article in the Globe, Romney has already claimed that if it doesn’t work, he’ll blame it on the Democrats, if it succeeds, he’ll claim the success for himself. Well, he can try to blame it on the Democrats but he appointed the people who are implementing this law, so there you have it.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Mutual Funds and Market Research…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
December 10th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
“My impression is that a big reason that health care costs are sky rocketing is that those of us who DO PAY for healthcare costs, have to also carry the costs of those of us WHO DO NOT.
This bill is a truly conservative method in that it pushes individual responsibility back on those who try to be free riders.”
Ben, I read your words, a year after they were posted. It’s a shame, that many of us, were unaware of this bill until the summer of 2007.
Don’t know if cling to the same opinion, but your impression was wrong then and it’s wrong now.
By demanding that everyone purchase health insurance individually, rather than through an employer, the cost is magnified. Prior to this law, insured or not, we paid via our taxes. What has changed is the adding of a new TAX against our wills.
Do you forget that “those whose insurance costs” we cover by our taxes, we’ll continue to carry even after we are strong armed to purchase an insurance many of us don’t need or want?
My husband and I have (for years) paid for medical services out of pocket. We are healthy and therefore rarely use the services. BUT, when we do, WE are responsible.
As a conservative, I believe this law flies in the face of freedom of choice and privacy.
I don’t support the baloney behind its creation or implementation. Nor should anyone that claims to be a conservative. Romeny, is a RINO.
It’s time for another Tea Party!!
December 10th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
To Tom Strong ~
I was a Romeny supporter, even though I am an evangelical Christian….up to the time I learned he pushed for the mandated insurance.
He is free to believe in anything he wants, but the moment he stepped out and punished the citizens of Massachusetts for not having medical insurance, he lost my support.
It’s hypocritical for him to decry Hillary’s socialized ‘healthcare’ when he participated in this kettle of fish.
Imagine Massachusetts as a blueprint for the country if he became our next CIC?
Hillary, Edwards, Romney: a difference without a distinction!
December 11th, 2007 at 10:33 am
“Do you think Romney could run on this issue in 2008 and garner support from the middle? ”
Nope
GN, your foresight was on the money.
Moreover, he doesn’t have the support of the right, either. How many times has he bragged about his mandated insurance? I briefly heard him mention it during one of the debates a month ago, leaving out all the horrid details. No one has taken him on!
Why hasn’t he touted his MANDATED insurance as an achievement and an example to be followed?
Because it’s nothing to be proud of and ex Gov. Romney would rather bury it under the rug. Pardon me, he has.
The residents of Massachusetts that understand the ins & out of this scheme, better yet Ponzi scheme (as someone in this thread or the previous one labeled it) are up in arms.
Unfortunately for us, this fiasco is here today and God knows what it’ll take to repeal it.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Ben said: “This bill is a truly conservative method in that it pushes individual responsibility back on those who try to be free riders.”
Out of the Twilight Zone, Ben!
The Romney Rip Off (perfect tag!) doesn’t deal with the “free riders” as you call them. I assume by free riders, you intend the people that are a true burden to society. You know, the irresponsible ones we keep bailing out as they continue to make the wrong decisions or those that prefer to depend on others who pay taxes they don’t, and still demand a tax cut!?
Those free loaders will continue to enjoy free healthcare whether 95% or 100% of the people are forced to purchase medical insurance. That’s because the state protects them no matter what.
Otoh, the uninsured, such as my husband and I, expect nothing and get nothing from the State of Massachusetts.
That’s not all. In addition of paying for our own services - out-of-pocket - fully and completely, WE have to support the free loaders.
Hope the fog is cleared. Thanks.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:08 am
It’s clear to me that the Cons far outweigh the purported benefits, but don’t let my opinion sway you. Read and decide for yourself.
Pros & Cons of Massachusetts’ Mandatory Health Insurance Program
From Deborah White, http://myhealthinsurancenews.blogspot.com/2007/03/pros-cons-of-massachusetts-mandatory.html
Pros
The overwhelming positive of Massachusetts’ Mandatory Health-Insurance program is that all state residents will have health care insurance and services, regardless of household income levels. Health insurance for all will cause an appreciable increase in the quality of life in Massachusetts, including an increase in life expectancy and decrease in infant mortality.
Public health betterment is commonly associated with a corresponding increase in work productivity for adults and increased school attendance for children.
The other major positive of Massachusetts’ Mandatory Health-Insurance program is the groundswell of popular and broad political support for this innovative initiative. Both liberals and conservatives found that the merits of the program outweighed negative elements, and voted to pass this major legislative reform. Additionally, Governor Romney wisely enlisted a bipartisan coalition from the worlds of business, academia and government to craft the legislation. Thus, goals and concerns from various constituencies were integrated in the design of Massachusetts’ Mandatory Health Insurance program.
Cons
This is a brief list of important concerns about Massachusetts’ new Mandatory Health Insurance program.
– Looming questions remain about the long-term financial viability of the plan.
– The program grants enormous power to special interest groups to collect health care data on all citizens, and imposes stiff fines on health care providers who fail to fully share “confidential” patient data. It’s unclear with whom patient data may be shared or who holds legal ownership of the data.
– The program ensures public access to basic health care, but it doesn’t grant equal access to high-quality health care. Inevitably under any “personal payment” plan, the wealthy will obtain higher quality and timelier health care services, and will have access to a broader range of services and tests.
– As health costs rise, services for the poor under this plan could be cut, and for those paying the partially-subsidized premiums, costs and deductibles could significantly rise .
– The program is administered by a “health-care quality and cost council” composed entirely of unelected bureaucrats and political appointments. The council does not answer to the state Health & Human Services department.
– Libertarians, who are usually fiscal and political conservatives but social moderates, balk at government mandates that override individual decision-making freedoms.