assachusetts is poised to become the first state to provide nearly universal health care coverage with a bill passed overwhelmingly by the legislature Tuesday that Gov. Mitt Romney says he will sign.
The bill does what health experts say no other state has been able to do: provide a mechanism for all of its citizens to obtain health insurance. It accomplishes that in a way that experts say combines methods and proposals from across the political spectrum, apportioning the cost among businesses, individuals and the government.
"This is probably about as close as you can get to universal," said Paul B. Ginsburg, 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."
The bill, the product of months of wrangling between legislators and the governor, requires all Massachusetts residents to obtain health coverage by July 1, 2007.
Individuals who can afford private insurance will be penalized on their state income taxes if they do not purchase it. Government subsidies to private insurance plans will allow more of the working poor to buy insurance and will expand the number of children who are eligible for free coverage. Businesses with more than 10 workers that do not provide insurance will be assessed up to $295 per employee per year.
All told, the plan is expected to cover 515,000 uninsured people within three years, about 95 percent of the state's uninsured population, legislators said, leaving less than 1 percent of the population unprotected.
More at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/us/05mass.html
― someone let this mitya out! (mitya), Wednesday, 5 April 2006 19:19 (twenty years ago)
Insurance, good. But my guess is that most people without insurance don't have it because they can't afford it. And my guess is the government will disagree with some people on that question.
― someone let this mitya out! (mitya), Wednesday, 5 April 2006 19:23 (twenty years ago)
"Businesses with more than 10 workers that do not provide insurance will be assessed up to $295 per employee per year..."
Big wow, we pay $200+ per month for each employee... I don't see how $295 a year is going to pay for any coverage at all.
It seems like too much of a 'compromise' and as more companies are moving away from providing health insurance -- and the move towards unmatched 'health savings accounts'-- this is no compromise at all. It's still the wealthiest nation in history that won't fork out to offer minimum coverage to all citizens. Penalizing people who don't have insurance is fucked.
― andy --, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 19:36 (twenty years ago)