Washington State is among the latest of our sister states to take great strides in expanding access to health care. They earmarked money to cover more children, allowed small employers to purchase coverage at a government-negotiated price and let parents cover dependents up to age 25. Officials in that state are reasonably confident that they can cover all children by 2010 and all residents by 2012.
It’s certainly encouraging to see so many states take hope from what we are achieving in Massachusetts. They are recognizing, as we did earlier, that the problems of caring for the uninsured and the burden they place on the rest of the system have become acute. We can’t wait for the federal government to develop a national plan. States can do the job if the federal government doesn’t make it too difficult with its regulations and helps us along with financial support.
Increasingly, states are realizing what Massachusetts understands, that the taxpayers can’t afford to cover everyone, and that we must rely on participation by insurers, providers, employers and individuals. The Massachusetts prescription for pooling risk for small companies and linking with private insurers has become a model that’s being tested in other states.
In the past, talk at the state level was all about creating a uniform package of coverage that would be the same for all citizens. That’s no longer the case with states seeking to provide adequate coverage of some sort. Defining what the adequate coverage needs to be and how to make it affordable is the challenge that Massachusetts is currently addressing. It seems that with 120,000 previously uninsured signed up for coverage of varying types and with varying levels of state assistance, Massachusetts is on its way.
As Alan Greenblatt wrote in Governing, “The idea that the state would not dictate terms of insurance, but instead act as a sort of broker in a private marketplace, has created a unique political amalgam. The idea of individual responsibility and market competition has drawn support from Republicans and business groups. But using such ideas to provide more coverage has proven acceptable to Democrats and health care advocates. This new approach – saying that government does not have to provide insurance for everybody but will offer ideas for improvement to the private market and some help to individuals in the form of premium subsidies – promises to remove many of the ideological sticking points that have hindered reform efforts in the past.”
This precisely why we were able, in Massachusetts, to forge a consensus around the landmark law that was enacted last year and why many other states are now working to find their own paths to universal health insurance.
Senator Richard T. Moore is the Senate chairman of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing
FYI to get a fuller and less biased understanding of this issue, please visit http://www.masscare.org/chapter-58
And keep in mind the fact that it was the health insurance company Blue Cross Blue Shield (that makes hundreds of thousand$$ in profits every year) that created the “Roadmap to Coverage” blueprint that was used as the design for this MASS. MANDATE TO BUY A PRIVATE INSURANCE PRODUCT LAW.
Visit http://www.masscare.org/chapter-58 to learn the answers to:
“Where did this law come from?
What has happened to similar laws passed in other states?
What will happen?
And how will it affect me?
Find out the answers to these questions in Mass-Care’s comprehensive powerpoint presentation on Chapter 58 at http://www.masscare.org/chapter-58
Senator Richard T. Moore said:
“As Alan Greenblatt wrote in Governing, “The idea that the state would not dictate terms of insurance, but instead act as a sort of broker in a private marketplace, has created a unique political amalgam.”
Not really, the marriage of big business and big government is an old idea from Mussolini’s Italy circa 1930’s. Insurance companies receiving billions of taxpayer dollars to be the agent(for profit) between health care providers and the patient is not “free market.”
See link for more details.
http://www.wbur.org/weblogs/commonhealth/?p=106#comments
The only thing new about this plan are the penalties and fines for those who never had access to health care in the first place. Mussolini never thought to fine people who didn’t buy corporate products that were state sponsored.
Let’s take a look at what Canadians are paying for health care.
British Columbia Ministry of Health
(MSP=Medical Service Plan)
MSP Premiums
In B.C., premiums are payable for MSP coverage and are based on family size and income. The monthly rates are:
$54 for one person
$96 for a family of two
$108 for a family of three or more
For information about the payment of premiums, see the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue’s web site under How to Pay Your Premiums (MSP premium billing is administered by that Ministry, through Revenue Services of British Columbia).
A person who is no longer eligible for benefits (no longer a resident of B.C.) must notify MSP of the reason for cancellation, the date of the departure from B.C. and his/her new address (see the form for Permanent Move Outside B.C.). Failure to pay premiums does not constitute notification to cancel benefits.
Back To Top
Premium Assistance
Assistance with the payment of premiums is available to Canadian citizens or holders of permanent resident status (landed immigrants) who have held that status and been resident in Canada for the past 12 consecutive months.
There are two premium assistance programs that offer subsidies to those in financial need: regular premium assistance and temporary premium assistance.
Regular Premium Assistance
Regular premium assistance offers subsidies ranging from 20 to 100 per cent, based on an individual’s net income (or a couple’s combined net income) for the preceding tax year, less deductions for age, family size and disability. If the resulting amount referred to as “adjusted net income” is $28,000 or below, a subsidy is available. See the Monthly Premium Rates chart below for full details of premium assistance rates.
The current adjusted net income thresholds are:
$20,000 – 100 percent subsidy
$22,000 – 80 percent subsidy
$24,000 – 60 percent subsidy
$26,000 – 40 percent subsidy
$28,000 – 20 percent subsidy
more….http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html
Kingsdale councels tax cheat. During the WBUR show “Your Call” with Bob Oakes John Kingsdale is heard counceling an admitted tax evader on his options for getting cheap health insurance. Slide the player’s time to 43:40 and prepare to get sick if you’re an honest taxpayer. Ironically, if the tax cheat simply under reported his income YOU fund his free insurance. http://www.wbur.org/news/2007/66925_20070504.asp
Mr. Moore,
First of all, let us refer to Chapter 58 by its true name: it is NOT universal healthCARE. It is mandated health insurance. In brief, Universal HealthCARE is affordable, total care and RX, same for all, paid for through income taxes based on one’s adjusted gross income. Furthermore, you seem to think it is acceptable to fine those who cannot afford to purchase these products which are, by the way, crummy, inadequate HMOs with no cost control.
I am astounded that neither you, Deval Patrick, nor any state reps I know are at all concerned that many in this state can barely afford to heat their homes and keep up with the other rapidly rising basic costs of living much less have money left each month for these plans and copays. Neither can they afford to have a portion of their hard-earned money stolen from them by the MA government in the form of penalties.
I ask you, should we stop paying the rent or mortgage, property taxes, heat or food so we can pay for these “state approved” insurance plans? Please, help me out here. I am a loss.
A quick glance at the afforability schedule demonstrates that dollars earned could shift one into a higher premium when, in fact, extra dollars are much needed to pay for basic necessities. So why bother working so hard because instead of being able to use the extra money for heat and food, etc., one will be forced into higher premiums or penalties? Unless one can earn many thousands more, they will be better off quitting one of their part-time jobs or they’ll be further behind than they already are. This law removes all incentive and is oppressive.
I will also mention that there are doctors who will not take Commonwealth Care patients and this includes many fine specialists. That leaves people in a real dilemma with regard to continuum of care and a choice of some of the finest docs/hospitals in MA.
You are playing with peoples’ lives while you try to solve the budget/healthcare problems of this state on the backs of low-to middle income residents. Hopefully, this law will fail sooner than later before it bruises too many people.
Democracy is truly broken when elected officials choose to pledge allegiance to the insurance/medical/big pharma cartel and their own quid pro quos instead of representing the people who employ you – the residents/taxpayers of MA.