Landmark health care law takes effect in Mass. BY STEVE LEBLANC The Associated Press
BOSTON — The goal was as audacious as it was simple: Plug the holes in Massachusetts’ health care network without resorting to the politically nuclear option of a single government-funded program. The result is a landmark insurance law praised as innovative, derided as a house of cards and touted by former Gov. Mitt Romney as he runs for president. As of today, nearly everyone in Massachusetts must be insured or face a series of increasing tax penalties. The law won’t result in universal coverage immediately, but the deadline is a critical mile marker. “July 1 is really a call to action,” said Leslie Kirwan, chairwoman of the Health Care Connector Authority Board, which oversees implementation of the law. “We are looking to insure people, not penalize them.” The law divides the population into three segments: The poorest, making less than the federal poverty level, are eligible for free care. People making slightly more, up to three times the federal poverty level, can enroll in state subsidized plans. Those making more than three times the federal poverty level — at least $30,630 for an individual and $61,950 for a family of four — can choose their own coverage from new, lower-cost private plans, if they aren’t already insured through work. Massachusetts’ health care experiment could spur or slow health care reform efforts nationally depending on its success or failure, said Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies health policy. Key to that success is whether average people embrace the idea of an “individual mandate” — the requirement that they obtain health care. “It has huge implications for other states, but even more importantly for the push for health care reform building nationally,” said Altman. “It’s the first real-world test of this idea of an individual mandate. This idea is either going to build steam or lose a lot steam.” Amy Cassidy and her family have already taken advantage of the new law. Cassidy, 38, provides day care and her husband runs a small flooring operation. Before the law, they were spending more than $1,200 a month on health care for themselves and their two small children. Now, Cassidy said, they spend about $969 a month with a policy purchased through the Connector, a $250 savings. “That’s grocery money,” she said. “But I still haven’t had to use it yet. It hasn’t been put to the test.” The state already has enrolled about 130,000 formerly uninsured people in health care plans, virtually all of them in the free or subsidized plans. The far more challenging task is persuading the estimated 160,000 still uninsured residents not eligible for subsidized plans to pay monthly premiums. Even the lower cost plans can run several hundred dollars a month. And while one recent poll found nine out of 10 residents were aware of the health care law, 49 percent said residents shouldn’t be required to buy insurance. Even some advocates are reserving judgment. John McDonough, executive director of Health Care for All, said the group pushed to have all health care policies include drug coverage, something businesses fought. Under a deal, a drug mandate will kick in at the start of 2009. McDonough said the group is monitoring businesses’ reactions. Some employers are expected to boost benefits to hold on to workers and others to drop coverage, hoping workers will be eligible for state subsidized programs.
$1,200 a month on health care for themselves and their two small children. Now, Cassidy said, they spend about $969 a month with a policy purchased through the Connector, a $250 savings.
Big freakin' deal....remember the expensive chairs?? this is a 'free' chair--after quantitatively purchasing 10 chairs we now get to have 2, essentially for free...However, it is subsidized by our own collected tax $$ instead of private $$.....I believe this would be called the 'trickle down' effect.....
As dogs at the table of the 'king'......show me the $$ trail.....
Dont forget as the government gets involved--and the tax payers complain as the cost will still go up.....they will legislate the 'proper' procedures for the 'proper' disease---and gene coding patents will become the governments......they will have to 'compel' the general population that to receive certain care, folks will have to 'give' certain tissues(blood, biopsies etc) to SUBSIDIZE research and developement......kind of like that question on our tax forms to 'donate' to the EPA,Campaign fund or NASA.....only we will not have a choice....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Okay Senders....I'm not a fan of government healthcare...but you're scaring me now, because I fear you are correct!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Massachusetts takes new tack on insurance State scrambles to get young adults insured through launch of statewide plan with low premiums
Associated Press First published: Thursday, July 5, 2007
BOSTON -- Paul Bruns is your typical 26-year-old: athletic and ambitious. He's also uninsured. "I definitely think about it when I'm thinking about skiing or snowboarding or doing something else crazy," said Bruns, who's been without health insurance for 10 months. "What would happen if my appendix burst, which is totally reasonable for a guy my age?"
When Massachusetts was crafting a landmark health care law that officially took effect on Sunday, much of the focus was on older residents who typically face larger insurance bills.
But those overseeing the law realized they were missing a key demographic -- young adults like Bruns between the ages of 19 and 26, often in low-paying jobs and strapped with debt.
To entice those like Bruns, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, the state agency overseeing the law, worked with private insurers to come up with young adult plans with monthly premiums as low as $106.
Sunday was the deadline for virtually everyone in the state to be insured, although there is a grace period until the end of the year. Anyone without insurance by Dec. 31 faces the loss of a $219 personal exemption when filing state taxes next year.
One of the toughest challenges is simply convincing younger people they need insurance.
"If you're young and healthy, it's not at the top of your mind," said Larry Levitt with the Kaiser Family Foundation, a California-based nonprofit health policy foundation. "Young people frankly don't think about catastrophic coverage and don't think about access to the system for routine coverage."
About 27 percent of Massachusetts residents ages 19 through 26 are uninsured, compared with 10 percent of the under-65 population as a whole, Levitt said, citing U.S. Census figures.
The young adult plans, from $106 to $220 per month, are available for anyone aged 19 through 26 who makes more than $30,630 annually, doesn't get health insurance through work or school, isn't still on a parent's plan, and isn't qualified for subsidized care.
They are being offered by the state's top insurers including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Fallon Community Health Plan, Tufts Health and others.
"These are designed to be affordable," said Dick Powers, a spokesman for the Connector.
But even the low cost can be a burden on some young people, said John McDonough, executive director of Health Care For All, a group that backs universal and comprehensive health care.
"If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck, you're paying off student loans, paying rent, you're in a different situation from someone who isn't already burdened by debt," he said.
The problem isn't unique to Massachusetts.
There are about 13.7 million people in the 19-to-29 age bracket in the U.S. without insurance, according to the New York City-based Commonwealth Fund.
It's the fastest and largest segment of the uninsured population, said Sara Collins, Commonwealth Fund assistant vice president lead author of "Rite of Passage? Why Young Adults Become Uninsured and How New Policies Can Help."
"This age group does tend to be healthier than the population at large, and per capita spending on health care for this age group is about $1,500 per year," she said.
The state has tried to educate the 19-to-26 age bracket with a series of newspaper and television ads and opinion pieces submitted to college newspapers. One print ad featured a photo of a young woman bungee jumping off a bridge. A TV ad has run during Red Sox games, hoping to reach roughly the same demographic.
Not everyone is convinced. Critics say anyone who exceeds the annual maximum benefits -- which can be as low as $50,000 -- may find themselves deep in debt.
"Many of these young adult plans aren't real insurance," said Andrew Cohen, of The Access Project, a Boston-based health care resource center affiliated with Brandeis University. "The real reason for insurance is to protect you from financial burden, and these plans don't do that."
Stiff price to pay for health care reform Updated: 1/2/2008 By: Ryan Burgess
NORTH ADAMS, MA- "The goal was to get every man, woman, and child covered by health care," said Fourth Berkshire District State Representative Smitty Pignatelli (D).
The goal he's talking about is Massachusetts health care reform. And the Bay State means business. If you don't have coverage, you'll pay a fine stiff enough to send you to the Emergency Room. No coverage for 2007 cost violators $219.
"For 2008, the fines could potentially be much higher. They would range between just over $200 a year to $900 a year," said Ecu-Health Executive Director Chip Joffey-Halpern.
That's the fine for an individual. For a couple who remains uninsured, you can expect to pay over $1,800. Remember that's $18,000 in fines. It's big price to pay, but that threat has produced results.
"In Berkshire County, we've enrolled probably a little over eleven-thousand people into subsidized health insurance programs," said Joffey-Halpern.
It's a heavy price to pay for not having health insurance. And as our bureau reporter Ryan Burgess tells us, if you haven't enrolled in health insurance in the Bay State yet, be prepared to pay.
Programs like his help those who can't afford coverage to get enrolled. But it's not just the lowest tax bracket that needs help. What about the middle class or a family that's struggling to make ends meet? Is it fair to make them pay a fine on top of not having health insurance?
"They may not qualify for a subsidized program, but I think there's products out there, based on your income, that show the affordability factor," said Pignatelli.
So with the cost of coverage not affordable for many, is the program working?
"When people ask me if it's successful, it's not an all or nothing deal. It's somewhere in between," said Joffey-Halpern.
It's about counting the dollars to make some sense.
"It's definitely working. The long term viability is what's really going to be interesting. We need to make sure the affordability is built for the long run," said Pignatelli.
But for now, the experts say, everyone benefits from having insurance, even if there's a penalty.
"I think it's a small price to pay," said Pignatelli.
It seems pretty simple to me. Just put mandates on the privately owned insurance companies. The insurance companies are controlling everything. And instead of the government setting forth mandates for these insurance companies, as usual, the government just wants to take it over, lock, stock and barrel! That is not the role of the government. The government should be all for privately funded/owned insurance companies with mandates set by each individual state. NOT AT THE COST OF THE TAXPAYER!
But that is liberal Mass. for ya. Let's hope it is not contagious.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
It seems pretty simple to me. Just put mandates on the privately owned insurance companies. The insurance companies are controlling everything. And instead of the government setting forth mandates for these insurance companies, as usual, the government just wants to take it over, lock, stock and barrel! That is not the role of the government. The government should be all for privately funded/owned insurance companies with mandates set by each individual state. NOT AT THE COST OF THE TAXPAYER!
But that is liberal Mass. for ya. Let's hope it is not contagious.
The mandate isn't going to be for the insurance companies, but for the individual.... Much like car insurance.... You cant register a vehicle without having insurance. The government is going to fine you, for not insuring your health. Like being fined for driving without car insurance.
Main Entry: 1in·sur·ance Pronunciation: \in-ˈshu̇r-ən(t)s also ˈin-ˌ\ Function: noun Date: 1651 1 a: the business of insuring persons or property b: coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril c: the sum for which something is insured 2: a means of guaranteeing protection or safety
with health care or car insurance---it is a gamble on our lives....the national healthcare(misnomer) wants to shoulder the entire population in a socialistic method.....inefficient and clogged like any good ole American artery it will become....wait in line, wait in line, wait in line---we all know how we like to do that....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Recession will test unique Mass. health system BY STEVE LEBLANC The Associated Press
BOSTON — Massachusetts’ pioneering health care system, which requires nearly everyone to carry insurance or face fines, is about to be put to the test by this bad economy. Unemployment in the state has climbed over the past three years from around 4.8 percent to close to 7 percent, meaning 72,000 more people are out of work now than when the law was signed in 2006. Many of the newly jobless may have to buy their own insurance. Will they do it? Will the state penalize those who don’t? And will this recession-battered state be able to bear the added costs of supporting the program? With the Obama administration hoping to expand health care nationally, the fate of Massachusetts’ program is being watched closely. “People are going to be watching how it fares in the recession and how resilient it is and whether people will continue to be able to afford health care when they face other economic pressures,” said Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy think tank. Officials said they are confident those who have lost their jobs will do the right thing and obtain insurance. The law guarantees virtually free insurance for the poorest of the poor, creates subsidized plans for those making up to three times the poverty level and offers lower-cost private coverage for those earning more. “The fact that Massachusetts has so many options for people to obtain and maintain health care is a great comfort,” said Leslie Kirwan, head of the Health Care Connector Authority Board, which oversees the law. For example, a family of four earning $42,400 in the Boston area could get a subsidized health care plan for a premium of $39 a month. A Boston family of four who earn too much to qualify for a subsidy can get a basic private plan for about $766 a month. Also, for some people who have lost their jobs, the state covers nearly the entire cost of maintaining their insurance as long as they are collecting unemployment, which lasts up to 46 weeks in Massachusetts. People who fail to obtain insurance can be hit with fines that could top $1,000 for an individual during the 2009 tax year. The fine is deducted from the individual’s tax refund. If the refund isn’t enough to cover the fine, the state bills the taxpayer for the balance. About 60,000 people had to pay a penalty for not having insurance in tax year 2007, according to the state Revenue Department. The penalty for that year was $219 for an individual, $338 for the head of a household. But the penalty was waived for tens of thousands of other taxpayers. “We said from the outset that we are looking to insure people, not penalize them, and the general and flexible process has reflected that philosophy,” said Richard Powers, a spokesman for the Connector. A report by the Revenue Department in December found that in 2007 only 1.4 percent of tax fi lers required to have insurance failed to have it. In this economy, the state is getting ready for an increase in the number of people relying on subsidized plans. The governor and the top two leaders in....................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar00702
Logged
