My monthly health payment will soon put me into forclosure.also It’s made my health go down cause of incompatance of the people running this system.

a conspiracy or just Idiots?

1. Thank you, AnnS, for the detailed and sobering analysis above. The fact of having to go through these complex and tortured analyses is, to me, strong evidence that this law really misses the mark and worsens an already excessively complicated healthcare non-system. What a waste. Yes, it’s good that more poor and low-income people under the new law now have state subsidized coverage. But the financing IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. Plus this approach still LEAVES HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS WITHOUT COVERAGE AND NEEDED CARE. These facts are very disturbing. In full balance this law is not “reform”; in major ways it makes things worse. How tragic.

2. Hi Martha – Ann here. I appreciate your reply and I do regret that as one individual you personify “wbur” in relation to this blog on MA HC “Reform”. I know you do not make all the decisions on behalf of wbur. But there certainly is a need for more investigative reporting and analysis of the facts on how this law is unfolding, in response to your comment: “If you have any other tips to pass along…”

I did pass along some useful data/tips in my above comment and I’ll repeat them here. And once you’re on the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) site, you can find many items analyzing the failings of the mandate approach.

“Massachusetts Mandatory Health Insurance Purchase Law Is No Model for California” report from FTCR at: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/pr/?postId=8676&pageTitle=Massachusetts+Mandatory+Health+Insurance+Purchase+Law+Is+No+Model+for+California

These seems to be a counter-intutive statement as people whose employer offers insurance coverage are not eligible for Commonwealth Care regardless of the employee’s share of the cost.

It would seem what that is meant is:

(1) some whose income would otherwise qualify them for Commonwealth Care are disqualified because their empoyer offers coverage; and that they will lack coverage because they can not afford their share of the premiums for the employer poicy. So long as the employer plan premiums are in excess ofthe premium amount speicifed in the income/premium tables, they are not subject to the mandate.

(2) some can not afford the employer plan premiums. If the employer plan premiums or the Commonwealth Choice plan premiums are higher than the premium specified in the income/premium tables, they are exempt from the mandate.

(3) some can not afford the Commonwealth Care premiums of $35, 70 or $106+/-. For a considerable number, it should not be difficult to establish financial hardship per the regulations as there are many loopholes to the mandate. These grounds include, among others, having a shutoff notice for a utility or being 30 days in arrears on rent or mortgage. (And these 2 which are listed are easy to arrange if needed as an excuse from the mandate.)

More can not afford the Commonwealth Choice premiums. The GBIO affordability study is very instructive on this issue. Many (and my numbers put it closer to 60-70% of those above 300% FPL as compared to the Connector’s estimate of 20%) are going to be exempt from the mandate under the premium/income schedules.

Looks like the bottom line is going to be that a fair number of those between 200 -300% FPL will not be able to afford the $70-106+/- premiums. FPL is an outdated and misleading indicator of financial sufficency as it does not accurately reflect the cost of housing and necessities. The Commonwealth Choice plans are not a solution for most above 300% FPL. They may be affordable for an individual under the age of 35 -39 but they arenotaffordable for a couple, a family or most people over 40. The deductibles are a killer on the cheapest plans (and the lower dedcutible plans merely incorporate the deductible difference into the premiums.) It leaves a choice of buying the cheapest plan but not being able to afford the dedcuctible or not buying the plan and using that money to pay out-of-pocket for care.

Best, Martha

Best, Martha

Jarrett Barrios, President
Valerie Bassett, Director of Policy and Research
The Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation.

And members of the public.

Re: “Outreach and education alone are not enough. Decisionmakers and those of us invested in access need to understand these barriers and craft solutions.”

The biggest barrier to people getting the CARE THEY NEED is the status quo of health insurance as a corporate-commodity (and a royal rip-off, even from the so-called “non-profits” like BCBS and Tufts).

So let’s stop the double speak about “barriers” and “asking experts”, shall we? How much are you two being paid by BCBS, by the way? What you’re selling is “access” to an overpriced product, not to health care.

I am ashamed to be a nurse and a citizen in the state that created such a wasteful, punitive and backwards mandate law to purchase private insurance.

The public is in need of rigorous investigative journalism on this issue of how this law came to be. It should include a critical examination of the role of Blue Cross Blue Shield, Partners Health Care and other inside players who run a joint “MassHealthReform” website (Gimmeabreak!! as they say). wbur doesn’t seem to be up to the task nor the Boston Globe; gee, could they have any vested interests in keeping their advertising revenue flowing for health insurance products and hospital competition???

Taxpayers are getting soaked. The dominant players are cloaked. As usual. And too many people continue to have their health needs go unmet or go into bankruptcy trying to take care of their loved ones.

Analysts in other states are providing much better coverage and analysis on this bogus law than our own media, as in this excellent piece and the pdf document within it:
Massachusetts Mandatory Health Insurance Purchase Law Is No Model for California
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/pr/?postId=8676&pageTitle=Massachusetts+Mandatory+Health+Insurance+Purchase+Law+Is+No+Model+for+California