July 1 marks a milestone in our effort to provide health insurance to virtually every resident of the Commonwealth. It is a call-to-action: if you do not have health insurance, start shopping now, because we can offer new options and, if you don’t, penalties start at the end of this year.
But July 1 is only one date in a year highlighted by fast-paced policy decisions and launches. These include new, subsidized and unsubsidized programs, seal of approval, minimum creditable coverage, Section 125 plans, an affordability schedule and waivers, to name but a few.
There are now over 130,000 insured people who didn’t have coverage a year ago. Commonwealth Care is growing by 10,000 members a month, and the Health Connector is receiving more than 50,000 inquiries a week from people who are learning about and shopping for our products.
This is remarkable progress, thanks in great part to a broad civic campaign of outreach and education, but there is much more to do! Of course, there is anxiety, as individuals and businesses navigate the new requirements. Our partnerships with religious leaders, health plans, labor leaders, hospitals and physicians, consumer advocates, and the business community have been crucial to spreading the word about the value of health security and new, more affordable choices now available.
Flexibility has been at the heart of every policy decision that the Health Connector has made this year. Massachusetts is doing something bold, something that has never been tried before. Of course, there will be bumps along the road. The Board of the Connector has repeatedly stressed that ours is a “learning organization.” When me make mistakes, and we will, we have to be quick to recognize them and willing to listen to others.
So July 1 is upon us. With all that’s happened during the past 12 months, there are a lot of people who can be proud of the work they’ve done to help bring Massachusetts this far and for what they’ve done to put health insurance coverage (and better health) within reach for tens of thousands of our neighbors.
But this no time to rest on our laurels. People desperately want information and options, health plan options must be simplified, administration improved, enforcement needs to be generous and constructive, and budgets must be managed aggressively. While moving ahead with all this, we should also evaluate and re-evaluate, to ensure our forward movement is really helping people.
There’s just too much more work still left to do.
Jon Kingsdale is Executive Director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority
Let the Revolution begin! Say NO to this unfunded government mandate! Say NO to unfair tax schemes! Say NO to making middle income people subsidize the healthcare of the rich! Say NO to corrupt insurance companies and corrupt politicians that are in their pockets! Just say NO!
But we can do more than that. This law can be challenged in the courts. This law can be challenged on the steps of Beacon Hill! And this law can be challenged on the ballot!
We need a fair universal emergency-only health care tax, not health insurance that will bankrupt the young with an unfair burden to prop up the wealthy with their yoga classes and other cushy benefits while the young are stuck with health insurance that will still make them pay thousands of dollars out of pocket in a health emergency. The writers here should all be ashamed of what you have done, not proud.
Young people have had enough of your self righteous, self serving health mandate. There is no confusion here, the old and rich want the young and middle income to pay more than their fair share and get no benefits. With no illusions that this system or level of health care can be sustained for us when we get older.
We aren’t “prepaying” for our health care in the future, just like social security these benefits will not be around when we are older, but unlike social security there is not even a fair tax rate being applied. The young and middle class will pay about 10% of their salaries to subsidize care that they still will not be able to afford with high deductibles and co payments while the rich pay almost nothing relative to their income. The old and middle income may pay even a bigger percentage of their income closer to 16% or 20%
Is a an extra 16% tax fair for a person making 40,000? Oh right, “affordable” has replaced “fairness” in political newspeak. I guess if they can still eat and clothe themselves then the pursuit of happiness can just be buying the occasional lottery ticket or a shot of tequila to dull the pain of hopelessness.
With one single Act, Massachusetts destroys the American dream by creating a new regressive income tax that looks like a bell curve, with the entire weight of the system on those of middle income.
There is nothing healthy about this health mandate.
John, you can take your plan to herd me into the open jaws of the HMO wolves, along with your blow-dried, market-tested appeal above, and shove it up your ripe, sanctimonius keester. Let me be clear: I’m going to lie and game the system to avoid both lining the pockets of the HMO investors and paying your execrable penalties. YOU WILL NOT GET DIME ONE FROM ME UNTIL WE HAVE GOVERNMENT FINANCED SINGLE PAYER WITH NO PROFIT FOR HMOs? Got it, chump?
Good.
Pat posted: Comment posted July 1st, 2007 at 11:22 am
Pat said:
“Is a an extra 16% tax fair for a person making 40,000? Oh right, “affordable” has replaced “fairness” in political newspeak. I guess if they can still eat and clothe themselves then the pursuit of happiness can just be buying the occasional lottery ticket or a shot of tequila to dull the pain of hopelessness.
With one single Act, Massachusetts destroys the American dream by creating a new regressive income tax that looks like a bell curve, with the entire weight of the system on those of middle income.”
Pat you’re right on the money, the new mandatory law is nothing more than a regressive income tax. But let’s look at their reasons why our politicians know they can pull this off. The group that will get stuck paying high insurance premiums is less than 1% of the state’s population, about 50,000 people. Hardly a mass movement to be feared by politicians — they won’t lose any votes or any sleep.
A brief review of what has already been said on this board about the word games for the benefit of those coming to this board for the first time.
Of the 1/2 million uninsured 90% had access to health care before the new law. The only difference for this group will be their health care providers will now get check from an insurance company and not the state. As somebody simply said — it’s just a matter of pressing a computer button.
Being one of the 50,000 people who will have to pay $5,000 to $10,000 a year I’ve considering my options, as I’m sure the other hard-headed people in our group have. Mentioning one’s options in public will probably make one subject to criminal penalties as in conspiring to bypass a law, so it’s probably best that that they’re not mentioned. Finally, I’m even reluctant to even get in touch with the connector fearing I would be placed on a list.
Pat also said:
“Let the Revolution begin! Say NO to this unfunded government mandate! Say NO to unfair tax schemes! Say NO to making middle income people subsidize the healthcare of the rich! Say NO to corrupt insurance companies and corrupt politicians that are in their pockets! Just say NO!
But we can do more than that. This law can be challenged in the courts. This law can be challenged on the steps of Beacon Hill! And this law can be challenged on the ballot!”
I don’t know? But I don’t think the numbers are there to reverse this law. Most people I’ve talked to were not even aware there was a new law, and even a few doctors that I asked were not aware of it. Most people even thought it was great thing that everyone would now have health insurance, without knowing the details to be sure. Unfortunately, the only time the majority of the people will get politically involved in this issue is when insurance companies down the line raise their premiums and they’re forced to look at the situation.
It is hardly the case that this mandate will only negatively effect a few tens of thousands of people. It is a simple matter of supply and demand, forcing tens of thousands of people to become consumers of health insurance against their will, will certainly increase demand for health care. Pouring money into health care will just allow the medical industry to keep its hyper inflationary yearly cost increases going a few more years until the health care economic bubble bursts. People and society have finite resources and it is just a matter of time before the growing portion of people’s lives that the Medical Industry takes will be too much for people to sustain.
Luckily in their haste, the legislature didn’t give this law the legal foundation for it to survive. But I’ve even heard rumblings of changing the constitution to allow a “progressive” income tax in Massachusetts, but when I hear that I know it is really this regressive tax which they are seeking to protect.
The health mandate is clearly unconstitutional under the Massachusetts State Constitution. If you are compelled by the government to pay money, regardless whether it is to a third party, then that is a tax. And if the rate you are forced to pay is related to your income then that is an income tax. The Massachusetts constitution only allows a flat rate income tax and won’t allow an income tax that is regressively applied to the middle class. This is the legal ground on which this law will be overturned. No need for secrecy about legal strategy here. It is very simple.
The proponents of this mandate are right about one thing, this isn’t a liberal law. And I think a liberal Massachusetts Supreme Court will see just how regressive this new tax is which will give them more than enough reason to overturn the law on legal and moral grounds.
I beg to differ, I believe the MSC will uphold the law with perhaps a few provisions for hardship cases, not because their heart’s will ache, but to prevent wrongful death lawsuits against the state that would shame them in the public arena.
Wrongful death lawsuits? No one is being denied emergency health care in Massachusetts before or after this law.
This new law is just a matter of how it is to be paid for. I believe that if society decides something is a universal public good, then society should pay for it with a just and fair tax. A free society does not force the week to pay a greater tax than the strong. This health mandate is medieval, or maybe just evil.
I don’t want to die for this cause, but I would rather die than to let this law stand unchallenged.
Most wrongful deaths in our health system happen beyond the emergency room because of bad decisions. But my bigger point was that judges will not reverse a political decision, except in very few cases.
Menonites in Ohio and Americans along the Mexican border take bus trips into Mexico daily to seek medical care they can afford in America, and at the same time, any Mexican can enter the US illegally and get free health care anywhere in America. How absurd is that? What a waste of resources in time and money all because we have a for profit health care system.
That was bad enough, and will continue, but now they’re asking the group slightly above the poverty line most of whom never used the medical system in the first place to fund the absurdity.
In my case, I’m in my late forties, I have some very serious health issues. A few weeks ago I got a full head X- ray scan and was told I need 6 root canals. It’s serious because infection from the mouth can spread to other areas of the body and people have died from such infections. Within the next 2 years I’ll have to come up with $20,000+ to pay for this. Sure the teeth can be pulled, but in future I would still need bridges or spend a lifetime retrofitting dentures, so there’s no getting around this.
Dental insurance plans have caps and deductibles that in my case would end up costing me more to buy a health plan than not. In sum, I can’t afford to join the new health plan because I have serious health issues.
If the costs goes beyond what I expect I have considered the possibility of going to Mexico.
Pat,
I believe you’re right, this law is unconstitutional. Overturning it in the courts may prove difficult and expensive, though. I think we need to start attacking it on the political end. If we can get ten or twelve people with signs expressing their outrage outside of every state representative or senator’s office we will get their attention. One of the things that bothers me so much about this personal mandate is that we, the people, had very little opportunity to comment on the law, and mo chance to vote on it. This clearly, then, is taxation without representation! It time we stood up to this kind of political arrogance and remind our elected officials that they are supposed to represent us. We need to take back the power that is rightfully ours!
Ron,
You’re on the money and we are already on top of this. Need to know how to find you. I posted a similar request on the page about your Boston Tea Party.
Listen to the 08 prez candidates – scary people. But Romney is strangely quiet on the health care front for obvious reasons.
By the way, the Boston Tea Party must have media coverage from other parts of MA and the entire nation. If you have seen some of the NY Times articles you will understand why. May be able to help you with that.
d.bridges,
I will be setting up an e-mail account specifically for the purpose of furthering this cause. Once I have in place I’ll post the address. As Ann said, what we do here will have national implications, and I agree media coverage is key. I’m encouraged that the momentum is growing here!
D, Ron, Is there already a web site to coordinate opposition to this mandate? An email list? I think protesting legislators will be mostly ineffective and might harden their resolve and time consuming so I wouldn’t be so interested in holding a sign, though a tax protest next year on patriot’s day could be a good thing to plan for and I wouldn’t mind putting up flyers in the legislator’s home districts around election time next year, for example “Steven Walsh is a dishonest politician” or “Paul Casey raised your taxes” on every telephone pole in Lynn or Stoneham for instance.
But I think we really need to push the legal front, Peterson v. Commissioner of Revenue proved that the SJC would not roll over on tax fairness issues just because it would cause problems for the legislature. And in that case it was mostly a bunch of wealthier people that were the ones hurt by the capital gains tax rate changing mid year, while in this case it is the middle class that is hurt, which seemingly would be a much easier case to make to a liberal court, that a 10% extra income tax on the middle class is unfair and unjust. It will be important to show that the public good could have been achieved in a way consistent with the taxing power in the constitution and then I think the court has little choice but to agree.
Challenge is trying to find a libertarian leaning lawyer to do some pro bono work or to find the time to file pro se, but it could be a pretty straightforward type of case since it will be easy to establish standing for a person or a group of people that will be forced to pay this tax or be fined if they don’t and then it is a pretty straightforward argument to make that this is a tax, that it is related to income, and that it is not an equal rate. Throw in some precedent like Peterson and this won’t require a lot of extra legal work. Just need to write the brief and show up to court to argue… and maybe make a few press statements.
Dave, Pat, et al.
I can now be contacted via e-mail at nomandate@hotmail.com
I’ll do you one better. Unless something already exists, then I’ve just created a Google Group at http://groups.google.com/group/fair-health and I can be reached at fairhealth@gmail.com
Please go sign up and maybe we can organize a bit. Otherwise, please let me know if something already exists.
Great Pat,
We’re shaping up into a real organization!
Funny. An Army of two! I’ll post this when and wherever I can.
Think positive, our organization doubled in size overnight.
Trust me, folks. We aren’t going to able to fix this overnight, but once people see how little they are actually getting under these policies and next year when the penalties escalate (Sorry kids, no Christmas this year, Daddy has to pay the taxman.), the ranks will grow.
The biggest challenge will be to confront those that try to paint this as a “best effort” approach which is “better than nothing”. We need to drive home the fact that this is an unfair tax on the middle class. A tax which will really distort society for the worse by creating a new barrier to bettering your life, especially as you get older and your are forced to pay an ever increasing and regressive tax.
Pat,
That’s the thing, this isn’t only bad medicine, it is all bad economics. By robbing the price of low quality medical insurance from citizens, government diminishes our discretionary spending on consumer goods and makes it more difficult to afford homes and save for our retirement. Defying the mandate seems like a no-brainer, because you at least you get to keep half of your own money.