It's "Tax Penalty" Day in Massachusetts

Friends of Fred Thompson ^ | November 15, 2007 | Todd Harris

[Aria]

Mitt Romney says his government-mandated health care plan is one of his most important accomplishments as governor. But what does his plan really accomplish, and is this the kind of health care plan YOU would want to be forced to pay for?

Today, November 15th, Massachusetts residents who fail to register with the government and show proof of health care coverage will be slapped with a tax penalty for this year!

For individuals, the amount will be on average $219 this year and they will receive a punitive fine as much as $2,000 over the next year.1

Small business owner? It's even worse; you'll be fined $295 per employee who isn't enrolled in Romney's government-mandated health care plan!2

So what sort of services does Romney's health care pla n provide?

Per the state website:

$50 co-pay for abortions3

While court mandate requires Massachusetts to cover "medically necessary" abortions in state-subsidized health plans4, Mitt Romney's plan covers ALL abortions - no restrictions.5

After it passed, Romney vetoed dental care for Medicaid recipients from his health plan, but did nothing to prevent coverage of abortion on demand for a mere $50.6

Romney has tried to distance himself from his Hillarycare-type plan,7 but you can watch the video where he takes full credit. There's nothing conservative about Mitt Romney's health care plan. It's a government subsidized health care plan that requires citizens to register with the state, slaps working people with tax penalties, and provides $50 abortions on demand.

Contrast this with Fred:

100% pro-life voting record. Has said repeatedly that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Opposes embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. Tuesday, The National Right to Life Committee endorsed Fred. NRLC is the nation's largest pro-life organization representing over 3,000 local chapters in all 50 states.

Help support the true conservative.

https://www.fred08.com/Contribute.aspx

Thanks for your support,

Todd Harris Communications Director Friends of Fred Thompson

[Aria]

Interesting email from Friends of Fred this a.m.

[Aria]

oops....this article isn’t at the link yet, at least that I can find.

[LIConFem]

...for later bump

[freespirited]

Small business owner? It's even worse; you'll be fined $295 per employee who isn't enrolled in Romney's government-mandated health care plan!2

Is this right? It's the employers' fault if employees don't sign up?

Well then, why not fine employers if employees don't get car insurance? If they don't file tax returns? If they don't get their kids immunized? Why not just declare them in loco parentis for their adult "kids." Everyone will either be a ward of the state or a ward of their employer.

[CharlesWayneCT]

So is this the actual campaign, or an independent group?

Need to know who to blame.

I haven’t heard Fred suggest a national law to ban states from fining people who don’t have car insurance.

I think that would probably go against his federalist principles, as well as common sense.

How does Fred suggest we solve the problem of people without insurance leaching off the taxpayers? Does he suggest we lock the doors of our medical facilities to people who can’t pay? Does he suggest the medical profession should be forced to provide pro-bono work at no cost to government for those who can’t pay? Does he suggest simply providing the poor health insurance from the government, so they don’t have to sign up?

I’m not sure the Mass. law is the best law, and I’m certain the way the liberal legislature “fixed” it made it much worse.

But I’m glad a state is trying something different from hillarycare, because eventually we have to do SOMETHING about the problem of people using taxpayers as their “insurance company”.

Requiring people to show proof that they can pay for medical emergencies is a novel idea, and not outside the realm of conservative principles.

BTW, as to abortion, realise that almost EVERY pro-lifer allows for abortion if the mother’s life is in danger. So if you specifically allowed for policies which didn’t cover any abortions (and I’m actually OK with that), then you’d have a problem if a woman HAD to have an abortion to save her life.

I do wish I could get insurance without abortion coverage, but my employer doesn’t offer it, it’s hard to find in most places, because it doesn’t save ANY money to offer it. The cost of including abortion in medical coverage is so small that even if you didn’t WANT abortion coverage it would cost the company more to specifically write the coverage without it than to simply include it at no cost in your coverage.

I’m not saying that it is false to claim Romney included abortion in the health care, or that you COULD have made a different choice. Federal law currently REQUIRES the medicaid/medicare to include abortions in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother. The legislature was NEVER going to prohibit coverage for abortions. And they had the votes to override the veto.

As someone explained about Fred’s vote for CFR, he had some things he thought were really important, and to acheive that he had to compromise by voting for a lot of provisions that were unconstitutional (as the supreme court has ruled).

Romney opposes federal funding for abortion. That’s the important thing.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Because right now we are stuck in a mode where a majority of health insurance is provided by employers. I think an interesting move would be to BAN employer health plans. But that would be government intrusion into private business as well, if a private company WANTs to provide health care why should I oppose it?

The problem is that as long as a majority get their health care that way, the insurance companies operate in a mode that doesn’t appeal to the individual who uses the insurance, but the corporations who have “different” motives for wanting insurance than actual medical care.

On the other hand, we require employers to pay social security for their workers, so the precident is already there. You can always offer your employers less money to work.

Fortunately, car insurance and homeowner’s insurance were never popularized as a worker benefit (life insurance was though). So nobody thinks we should burden them with it.

[Aria]

I believe it’s from the actual campaign - the Friends of Fred division.

[MeanWestTexan]

No, RomneyCare providing $50 co-pay for tax-payer abortion and a mandating that a member of Planned Parenthood be on the Board is the important thing.

I guess that’s $25 for twins, and $16.66 for triplets.

Yeah, Romney is “pro-life.” Pffft.

[freespirited]

Even if the govt requires employers to MAKE HEALTH INSURANCE AVAILABLE, it doesn’t follow that the employer should be fined if the employee doesn’t take advantage of it. A fine assumes blame. If the employee simply isn’t willing, the employer has done nothing wrong abd to fine him is, well, so Masssachusetts.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Socialist laws always fail. This one will fail too.

[kevkrom]

How does Fred suggest we solve the problem of people without insurance leaching off the taxpayers?

I don't know what Fred would say, but this is why we have collections agencies and bankruptcy laws. Since medical providers are required by law to provide treatment, non-recoverable losses should be paid by the taxpayers -- this is preferable to paying subsidies and mandating over-insurance of the entire population.

[massgopguy]

This is a gross violation of the 13th Amendment’s Contracts Clause. It is peonity and indentured servitude to an insurance company.

[freespirited]

Aria, if you have a minute, would you post the footnotes? I would like to read them.

[massgopguy]

How? Bill them. If they don’t pay, get a collection agency after them.

[kevkrom]

BTW, as to abortion, realise that almost EVERY pro-lifer allows for abortion if the mother’s life is in danger.

Read the article again:

While court mandate requires Massachusetts to cover "medically necessary" abortions in state-subsidized health plans, Mitt Romney's plan covers ALL abortions - no restrictions. After it passed, Romney vetoed dental care for Medicaid recipients from his health plan, but did nothing to prevent coverage of abortion on demand for a mere $50.

[CharlesWayneCT]

So instead of collecting a tax from people who don’t have coverage, you want to collect additional taxes from me, who DOES have coverage, to pay so that others don’t have to have coverage?

Do you want to change the bankruptcy laws to be able to collect more money from those who don’t pay? Right now, for anybody who doesn’t have savings, collections for medical catastrophes isn’t really a hazard.

But still, it’s a good conversation to have. Is it better to simply “insurre” all the poor through the government, but with no accountability? That is kind of what you are suggesting — the poor person can’t be turned down for treatment, as a poor person they have no money to collect, and the taxpayer should bail out the provider.

Of course, we better put the rules in place to make sure the provider only performs necessary treatment, and in the end we could end up with hillarycare through the back door.

Should we oppose mandatory car insurance? If a person hits your car and they can’t pay, you can always use a collection agency, and if you can’t collect the taxpayer could foot the bill.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don’t think that is the way the law is written. If the employer has provided insurance, the fine goes to the employee if they don’t sign up. But I’m not sure.

[GOP_Lady]

http://www.hcfama.org/_uploads/documents/live/HCReformFAQ.pdf

[Aria]

here you go...

1. (Michael Tanner, “No Miracle In Massachusetts,” Cato Institute, 6/6/06; Steve LeBlanc, “Timing Of Health Care Law’s Penalties Could Pose Risk For Romney, MA,” Associated Press, 11/9/07; William C. Symonds, “In Massachusetts, Health Care for All?” Business Week, 4/4/06; Geradline A. Collier, “It’s Not an Option.” Telegram & Gazette, 10/24/07)
2. (Steve LeBlanc, “Timing Of Health Care Law’s Penalties Could Pose Risk For Romney, MA,” Associated Press, 11/9/07; William C. Symonds, “In Massachusetts, Health Care for All?” Business Week, 4/4/06 )
3. (Menu of Health Care Services: http://www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf)
4. Planned Par enthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 677 N.E.2d 101 (Mass. 1997)
5. (Menu of Health Care Services: http://www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf)
6. (”Romney’s Health Care Vetoes,” Associated Press, 4/12/06) 7. (Rich Klein, “Romney distances self from Mass health plan,” Boston Globe, 2/3/07)
6. (Chapter 58 Section 3 (q) Section 16M (a), http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060058.htm)

[kevkrom]

So instead of collecting a tax from people who don’t have coverage, you want to collect additional taxes from me, who DOES have coverage, to pay so that others don’t have to have coverage?

Total distortion of what I said. If they have the ability to pay, then the hospital will bill them and send collections agencies after them if they refuse to pay. If they are unable to pay, then RomneyCare™ will also be subsidizing their insurance, so you're paying for it anyway.

If you're paying for it one way or another, why not choose the way that has the least amount of government interference with the people who actually show responsibility in their own lives?