Posted on 04/06/2006 7:15:00 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had a dream of universal consumer-driven health care. Then he met Beacon Hill and its Democratic legislators. Their plan, introduced this week, is a Frankenstein's monster of tax penalties, expanded government-insurance programs and unfunded mandates. A presidential aspirant, which Mr. Romney certainly is, will decide what is the best he can do for his state. The rest of us, however, should not take this plan for a model.
The fault of this bill is that it really isn't "consumer-driven" at all. The resource-wasting reliance on third-party payers and employers remains intact as existing government-insurance programs are expanded. So are insurance subsidies. Perhaps worst of all, the plan relies on threats of "fees" -- that's Mr. Romney's euphemism for giving up existing tax breaks -- in the amount of $295 for employers and $150 for individuals who fail to comply. Companies hapless enough to employ insurance-less "free riders" who run up big hospital bills must pay anywhere between 10 percent and 100 percent of bills over $50,000. These fees -- sure to make people and employers take the law seriously -- will distort the state's economy and do little or nothing to harness market forces.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Or it could create a few more thousand "jobs that Americans won't do."
Socialism does not work, never has, never will. Libs are not thinkers, they only view short-term power and control. History does not interest the libs either -- the track record of socialized medicine is a disaster at best, providing for care quality that is next to not having any at all -- for openers, just ask the Canadians where they go for good medical care...
I want to hold my fire on this one until I figure it out.
One its face - it ticks me off but, on the other hand, compelling people to insure themselves may save the rest of us money who have been picking up their bills for years.
The question is - how are they going to enforce it? Are there going to be options for the working class that will comply with the requirements but they can still afford?
This will flush itself out - I bet in this forum.
I suppose it's axiomatic that such a thing is also a direct assault on liberty, but I think that deserves a mention.
Which, being interpreted means, compelling the other guy to spend his money your way might be a benefit to you.
I think hospitals and Doctors will see this as more money on the table. This will only inflate the cost of health care.
I guess the EPA would would pass a Greenhouse Gas if we dumped a bunch of dirty bandages in Boston Harbor to protest.
How to compel people to pay for health insurance ? Stop forcing hospitals to give out free medical care - you'd see a lot more people think health insurance was necessary.
Whatever are our elected officials thinking? If Romney were a Democrat, the conservatives would be all over him for forced payments for health care.
It's very science-fictiony. What's next? Solyent green?
It's bad enough that any government is involved in health care or insurance in any way at all. But forced payments...are people going to have to leave MA to not subsidize this?
And what about illegals? Is this going to subsidize them? Ya'll come to MA now; here's another freebie. You just know this is going to end up costing taxpayers much more than the start-up number.
I seriously hope this is unconstitutional.
Three options occur to me:
1) People without coverage will be denied care and will die in the streets.
2) People without coverage will be put in Debtor's Prison.
3) People without coverage will be subsidized by the rest of us.
I'm betting on #3. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. But more expensive.
Don't taxpayers already pick up the tab for the uninsured? What is wrong with making everyone (who can afford it) get insurance? We force drivers to have auto insurance, homeowners to have insurance. How is this different?
Stick a salad fork in Romney, he's done.
We shouldn't be picking up the bills. Alternatives would emerge in the free market if there were people who didn't have much to spend.
Bingo! That is precisely what will happen.
I like the concept of trying to provide for everyone. The execution sucks. I take it as a proven fact, socialism doesn't work. Especially in a global economy. The more burden you put on business, the less likely you'll have businesses to burden.
Consumer driven healthcare seems like a better direction.
And what would your plan be?
"Consumer driven healthcare seems like a better direction."
How would that work?
These kinds of liability insurance are used only to protect others against the actions of the insured. Someone's health insurance doesn't protect anyone else at all. Thus, whether or not a person has health insurance isn't anyone else's business.
"How would that work?"
Instead of making a contract with a hospital, or a hospital group, your insurance carrier pays you the "reasonable and customary" cost for your treatment, (once you submit a bill).
Without the contract, you're free to shop. If you get a doctor to do it in his office, great. In that case, you may be 100% covered. If you go to Mass General, and the procedure costs $10k over reasonable and customary, then you're on the hook.
Incentivize people to shop, and don't limit their choices.
1) Eliminate government subsidies to pay for the care of the uninsured. If you don't have health insurance, and you can't pay for that triple bypass, hello bankruptcy.
2) Automatically insure low-income taxpayers on a sliding scale. Or, better yet, subsidize a payback plan that lets them pay back medical service creditors over time. They pay the principal, the government indemnifies the debt at the prime rate.
3) Tax all lawyers who file medical malpractice suits. Make them pay a fee that covers the cost of all medical procedures necessary to defend against profligate legal action; unless that procedure can be shown to be directly necessatry for the care of a specific condition that afflicts the patient in question.
4) Establish a pool of high-risk patients and apportion them as equitably as possible among licensed insurers.
Nobody needs an MBA to figure out that this is going to make the unemployment rate even worse. Even if the figures don't show it MA has many formerly employed tech workers who are now underemployed, consultants or part-time workers.
Many small companies are never going to hire that 600th worker and many consultants are going to move to New Hampshire.
"Thus, whether or not a person has health insurance isn't anyone else's business."
It's also a basic liberty question. How much are we going to compell people to do? Driving is a privilege. Don't want insurance? Don't drive. Simple.
Is being alive and choosing how you maintain your health a privilege, or a right?
Remember, communism and socialism have as their underpinnings good ideas. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." Sounds great. Absolutely horrible in practice.
We're on the fast track to socialism, and with GWB paving the way for HRC, we're going to be in big trouble.
I happen to work in the industry. You seem to be assuming we control what we are paid, by "jacking up" the price. How quaint.
Almost all our reimbursements are set by statute now, either federal or state.
The government says that donations to the benefit of a specific individual are taxable, so every last dime that was donated to Gerry Felski to help him through the final days of his fight with liver cancer is taxable.
The government, when it enacted the income tax, cut private charity off at the knees, and then rushed in with government health care and provider mandates to fix the problem it created.
Plus the House of Reprehensibles wants to pass the highest minimum wage in the nation. Okay, who wants to start a Small Business in MA? Anyone? Hello?
"We can't be held responsible for under capitalized companies". - Hillery Clinton
The consultant firms and high tech companies that can afford to are going to skip town. Rapidly.
If I had my way, healthcare should be strictly a matter of private enterprise.
Consider laser eye surgery. That is a medical procedure that is handled primarily through the market place. Since then, it's gone from being exotic to becoming routine, the quality has vastly improved and the prices have fallen.
If that can be done with eye surgery, there's no reason it can't be done with knee surgery or heart surgery or any other medical procedure.
This health plan is an initiative of Healthy People 2010.
Go to this link to find out the stage of implementation on YOUR OWN STATE.
http://www.phf.org/HPtools/state.htm
And as soon as this new state agency is formed, those relatives, campaign workers, friends, cronies, and the usual govenment expansion advocates will act as if has been around for decades, that our freedoms and lives depend on it, and that the Earth will stop spinning and we'll all be eaten by giant radioactive scorpions if it is ever abolished.
Ah, but if you have a drivers license you MIGHT drive. So everyone should be compelled to buy auto insurance and the state will decide whether or not you can afford it.
"...doesn't protect anyone else at all."
It would protect taxpayers who pay for other people's health costs.
If you live where there is one hospital and a limited number of specialists, how do you "shop"? Where I live we have one very large hospital. It may work in big cities but not everywhere.
Sounds extremely complicated.
Don't forget what Howie Carr said when the MWRA started -- "They'll also have to hire a few $300 a week typists -- not because there's so much typing, but so they'll have someone to fire when complaints about costs get too loud!"
Many, many people drive without auto insurance and when they have accidents, guess who pays? Same thing with medical expenses. You may not like the MA plan, but something needs to be done. To call it socialism is a stretch. Making people have insurance sounds like a good idea. Many states already cover children free or at very low costs. We are never going to leave people in a hospital parking lot to die because they can't afford medical care. We need some kind of solution. I'll wait and see how this works in MA before complaining. As for employers, I heard it would amount to about $300 per year per employee. If that is too steep for an employer, they can pay employees less I suppose.
So just sit back and wait for the price of a triple bypass to come down? Is that your solution?
We aren't talking about buying a new television - we are talking about human lives.
In 5 years Mass will be asking for a federal bailout...
You beat me to it. It will bankrupt the state and anyone with any sense will move out.
As it is with veterinary care? Last time I had a pet who needed serious treatment (surgery, ICU), it was expensive, but manageable. (I had an aunt in the hospital at the same time; seeing the cat's care and hearing about my aunt's, on the whole, I'd rather be treated at Angell Memorial!)
I don't know whether pet health insurance, which I think has been available for 10 or 20 years now, is widespread enough to distort the market.
Re: Forcing people to insure themselves
My contention is if you disallow a discharge of debt of medical expenses in bankruptcy if you are not insured, it would drive the uninsured who often make a bet that they will not need insurance toward buying insurance.
"...compelling people to insure themselves may save the rest of us money who have been picking up their bills for years."
You're still going to be picking up the bills. This legislation compels those with money to subsidize low-cost (below-cost) health policies for those who can't afford the full price tag.
"I suppose it's axiomatic that such a thing is also a direct assault on liberty, but I think that deserves a mention."
Hear, hear! It most certainly is an assault on liberty, and it deserves more than a mention; it deserves to be front and center.
"...so the good old Dem controlled legislature will find a way to build a new state agency that they can fill up with their relatives, campaign workers, friends and cronies, at what Mike Dukakis used to call "Good jobs at good wages".
Absolutely. A huge new bureaucracy will emerge, paid for by higher taxes in a state in which taxes are already an outrage.
"And what about illegals? Is this going to subsidize them? Ya'll come to MA now; here's another freebie."
It will most certainly subsidize them, and they'll come in droves.
"The question is - how are they going to enforce it?"
With the Marxists' favorite tool – coercion; in this case, financial coercion backed by all the power of state law enforcement.
"We force drivers to have auto insurance, homeowners to have insurance. How is this different?"
Precisely because medical care is, like all goods and services, limited in supply. When you limit access via the free market, goods and services float to market value. Eliminate the free market, and supplies are overwhelmed by demand. People with unlimited access will flood demand, and the system will crash. Look for the quality then to plummet. Got a hangnail? See a doctor. Backache? See a doctor. Feeling restless? See a doctor. Lonely? See a doctor. Medical care is a service, like any other. Remove price controls, and the supply is overwhelmed by demand.
"Massachusetts employers will pass any costs onto the consumer, the poor will end up using more of the services because it's "free," and middle-class will just leave the state."
Exactly right.
"Stick a salad fork in Romney, he's done."
He's just flushed his career down the crapper.
"Mitt will reject this bill, it's to radical IMO."
He's expressed for the record his intention to sign.
"Expect everything in Mass. related to health care to get way more expensive."
And very, very lousy.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: "You can please some of the people all of the time, but this is a shambles." It doesn't do the job, it fully satisfies no one, and a Quisling Republican (sorry, RINO), will never appease the Democrats; he will, however, lose his own political base. This, plainly speaking, stinks out loud – and will prove, in years to come, to be far more expensive than anyone anticipates; will trash Massachusetts health care; is an enormous political power grab by state Democrats; will create a vast new bureaucracy; and... possibly worst of all.... won't even provide adequate health care for those who can't afford it – just English-style socialized medicine, which is a disaster. And an expensive disaster, at that.
Bye, bye Romney.
You ever notice that the people complaining the most about the plight of the uninsured are the same ones who think it is great that more millions more uninsured come tromping across our border to the South and aggravating the problem?
Right now we have insurance but it is so expensive we are insurance poor. But it was our CHOICE. And how are they going to pay for all of this insurance for those who can't? Raise taxes,but people in Mass. are used to that. The government does not pay for anything we do. So does that mean I pay high prices for insurance then pay high taxes for those who can't. Or does that mean it will help drive insurance prices down? No because people will be going to the hospital more than ever.Maybe we should have higher paying jobs so that we can afford health insurance.
I'm sure the citizens of Mass. will take great pride in their new Soviet-style health care system.
If healthcare insurance is to be provided by small business, it would have to be instead of wages. For those who pay near minimum wage there would be no alternative but to close up shop leaving the field to corporations. If there is an inadvertent conspiracy behind this, it is the corporations through their frontmen in the legislatures taking over more and more of the commerce of the country. Eventually there would be no such thing as a private business with employees.
This is what happens when RINOs and RATs work together.
Allow me to propose a worthy variant on a LIB/RAT bumper sticker:
HEALTH CARE IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT.
As to those overwrought RATS who exclaim "But what about the children!?" ... I say don't have 'em if you can't afford 'em.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.