The Nanny State Knows No End...

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by wartboy, Apr 5, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. wartboy

    wartboy

    Messages:
    390
    "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." -- P.J. O'Rourke
  2. jyris

    jyris

    Messages:
    568
    Seems we pretty much agree, then. I just don't want Big Brother telling me what I can "afford" (can you say daughter starting college in September?).
  3. curious

    curious

    Messages:
    1,872
    Mary Mallon got a raw deal.
  4. Zeek

    Zeek

    Messages:
    62
    Jyris,

    Absolutely. I own a small business so this sort of fee/tax would hit me if I did not already provide health care benefits for my employees. On the other hand, my premium for single employees is currently almost $700 per month and for a family the premium is close to $2,000 per month (some of this attributable to the cost-sharing hospitals do to treat the uninsured, both legal and illegal).

    I say if you don't want to pay for insurance, and are able, don't expect the rest of us to foot the bill for your catastrophic care, and if you're illegal, throw your illegal ass across the border!

    Zeek
  5. thezoos

    thezoos

    Messages:
    499
    I am all for universal healthcare but i dont think the Mass. plan is the right way of going about it. seems like a large PR disaster waiting to happen.

    TZ
  6. jyris

    jyris

    Messages:
    568
    That's fine, but apparently the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does. Tell you what -- I'll buy into your premise as long as we extend it to illegal immigrants (another issue of current general interest). Still agree?

    Yet I bet that Massachusetts will still continue to provide free emergency care to anyone and bill its taxpayers for the cost.

    A couple of asides:

    1. If I understand the bill correctly, employers who choose not to provide insurance get fined (per worker). Then, if one of these employees is "deemed" able to afford private coverage, he gets fined as well. The state, therefore, is fining BOTH parties to a social contract for choosing to act in ways that they are theoretically "free" to do. John Adams must be spinning so fast in his grave that there'll be earthquakes in Springfield for weeks.

    2. It took my local (NYS) paper exactly ONE day to whine about why New Yorkers can't "enjoy" the same "benefits."

    Personally, I think that the Massachusetts plan will be a huge and costly failure, but I guess that time will tell.
  7. Zeek

    Zeek

    Messages:
    62
    Jris,

    I don't have any problem with anyone being FREE and UNINSURED. As long as I know that if they get hit by an automobile they will do the right thing and sit there and die without medical care. On the other hand, if they then want free medical care at the expense of all of the rest of us that pay taxes they're just stealing from us. JMHO.

    Zeek
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2006
  8. jyris

    jyris

    Messages:
    568
  9. wartboy

    wartboy

    Messages:
    390
    Mass. May Make Health Insurance Mandatory

    8:32 PM ET April 5, 2006

    Lawmakers have approved a sweeping health care reform package that dramatically expands coverage for the state's uninsured, a bill that backers hope will become a model for the rest of the nation.

    The plan would use a combination of financial incentives and penalties to expand access to health care over the next three years and extend coverage to the state's estimated 500,000 uninsured.

    "It's only fitting that Massachusetts would set forward and produce the most comprehensive, all-encompassing health care reform bill in the country," said House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a Democrat.

    If all goes as planned, poor people will be offered free or heavily subsidized coverage; those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage; and those already insured will see a modest drop in their premiums.

    On Tuesday, the House approved the bill on a 154-2 vote and the Senate endorsed it 37-0. A final procedural vote is needed in both chambers of the Democratic-controlled legislature before the bill can head to the desk of Gov. Mitt Romney...

    The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.

    The cost was put at $316 million in the first year, and more than a $1 billion by the third year, with much of that money coming from federal reimbursements and existing state spending, officials said.

    The bill requires all residents to be insured beginning July 1, 2007, either by purchasing insurance directly or obtaining it through their employer.

    The plan hinges in part on two key sections: the $295-per-employee business assessment and a so-called "individual mandate," requiring every citizen who can afford it to obtain health insurance or face increasing tax penalties.

    Liberals typically support employer mandates, while conservatives generally back individual responsibility.

    "The novelty of what's happened in this building is that instead of saying, `Let's do neither,' leaders are saying, `Let's do both,'" said John McDonough of Health Care for All. "This will have a ripple effect across the country."

    Individuals deemed able but unwilling to purchase health care could face fines of more than $1,000 a year by the state if they don't get insurance.


    "Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money -- only for wanting to keep your own money." -- Joseph Sobran

    "War is just one more big government program." --Joseph Sobran