Here's the story:

Link



I find it interesting that this plan seems to have such strong support from the state legislature. I suspect this is because it divides the responsibility for health insurance among the state, businesses, and individuals.

To be debated:

Is this kind of mandatory health insurance coverage for all a good idea?

It seems to me if the state of Massachusetts perceives that there is a public interest in insisting that all state residents be insured for medical problems then they should be the insurer and if necessary provide the basic medical facilities. We don't mandate every child go to school and then demand they sign up with a private facility at their own cost. The Massachusetts legislature has just voted a nice bit of indirect pork for the medical insurers.

I also don't like this business of scaling the private costs based on income. A lot of fun and games can be played around that and it does a run around the more obvious approach to government programs. Tax the public and pay for a basic level of medical care for everybody if they choose to use it. That way the scaling naturally occurs without the fun and games that advertising your poverty entails.

I would much prefer a universal publicly funded health insurance system; however, no such system is politically achievable at this time. If this is what it takes to get public funding for the millions of people that can't afford health insurance, I'm all for it. Not only will insurance costs be reduced by removing emergency care for the uninsured that hospitals are required to provide, but public health generally should improve by providing access to doctors before situations reach the emergency level. Consequently, overall costs should be reduced.

I fully agree. I imagine this juicy bit was thrown to insurance companies as a way to get them to go along with other aspects of the plan.

My view is that only a publicly funded universal plan makes sense. There is a public interest in everyone having access to readily affordable health care. I would be willing to let anyone opt out of participating in it, but not out of paying for it.

To be debated:

Is this kind of mandatory health insurance coverage for all a good idea?

[/quote]


ABsolutely no. I want to be responsible for my health care, and no one else. I also do not want the government to have anything to do with my health care. It is so easy it is frustrating. Medical savings accounts are the answer. Instead of my paying $50 a month to Medicare, I should be putting that money in an MSA for my healthcare, not all the poor and scofflaws that get Medicare. I rarely get sick anyway, why should I be taxed the same as sick people or hypochindriacs that use medical services far more than I. What a travesty

This is an invasion of privacy by the State of Massachusetts. Individuals should be in control of their own health care. I do not have a fundamental principle objection to voluntary health plans but do when it comes to mandated health plans. This legislation is an example where we need an amendment to the Constitution limiting government from interfering with individual's right to privacy including medical decisions. Medical decisions include medication, procedures and the discretionary spending for medical services and products. Such decisions should never be given to other parties and not to the government when a person is able to make those decisions.

A simple point. An MSA is a government subsidized program. Somebody else is being forced to make up for the cost of the government mandated exemption that you are receiving. It is a government handout pure and simple.

As for your present good health that could change in one second and of course it inevitably will get worse as one gets older.

The problem with making medical matters strictly private is similar to trying to make the wind strictly private. Communicable diseases have a funny way of operating in a public fashion and require a variety of public measures including general vaccination and quarantine sometimes in order to avoid a private consequence. Also we aren't going to jettison the publicly payed for emergency ambulance business and leave accident victims bleeding by the side of the road because they lack private medical plans. The indigent, particularly children and the aged, are going to be served at some sort of emergency level at least. So the question is not whether there is going to be a public presence in medical care. There is and will be no matter what your ideological preference. The question is how to get the best bang for your buck for the most people. I prefer a publicly payed system that is publicly run and available for everybody, sort of an extension of the Veterans hospitals. That would not preclude a private option if you wish to use your own money over and above the medical taxes you would be required to pay.

I don't, however, feel governments can insure everybody for everything. Therefore I would like to see, in addition, a group of experts in the medical field who would evaluate the medical budget and then put together a ladder of priorities so everybody would know the cut off point where they will have to find other funds to pay for their uncovered medical costs. Individuals could buy private insurance to cover their special uncovered medical concerns and charities and other local groups would know where to focus their public efforts.


I'm not sure where the right to privacy comes up here. Why would the Massachusets medical plan or a single payer system violate your right to privacy any more than now? You would still have the private option and I have no reason to believe that a public system would give you any less choice as far as doctors or violate your personal privacy any more than say an HMO.

An additional question if I might. Doctors must undergo a publicly acceptable course of training and evaluation at an accredited institution to enjoy the title of medical doctor or physician. Do the the folks who feel put off by government regulations think public standards should be removed and the matter of medical treatment be strictly a private concern? Should the medical doctor and voodoo doctor be considered equally qualified under public guidelines?

Guess that's the basis of Communism, but in the good Ol' USA, we employ a strategy called Capitalism. Unfortunately, in countries with socialized healthcare, you have rampant inefficiency and horrible track records of success.

I, consequently, do have a healthcare policy that I rarely use. If I (at the behest of the little lady) decided to cancel it, I would save a CHUNK of money each year. Many relatively heathly young men and women chose to do this each year.

Simply put, the gov't can mandate car insurance as it governs the laws of driving and its subsequent legislation. However, the government doesn't mandate our health. I can't wait for the Supreme Court Case on this one...

I would dispute your claim re. "horrible track record of success in countries with socialized healthcare" (e.g. my wife still remembers fondly the healthcare system in Germany), but it's not the point of my post.
The truth is that in the long run the costs for Insurance companies will be lower in Massachussetts - and the savings will trickle down to people as well. When people without health insurance (those who don't have it because they're poor or those who don't have it because they are "healthy now") need medical services, they go to emergency rooms - the most expensive kind of care there is. Who pays for it? You and I, people who pay insurance premiums.
It's cheaper to pay $50 twice a year for teeth cleaning than pay $1000 for a root canal that could have been prevented. That's why insurance companies usually choose to provide all preventive services for free - it saves them money in a long run.
I think this mandatory health coverage in Massachussetts is a great idea. I hope it will catch up in Connecticut as well.

The law contains a segment where persons who do not have an insurance policy would be fined until they have an approved plan. This is the segment which I consider to be a volation of privacy.

Go ahead and dispute the inefficiency claims, that would be an tough row to hoe for you sir.

Secondly, we're not talking about people who can't afford insurance, but everyone. We all know that hospitals won't take people until they're very sick if they don't have insurance. This isn't the issue.

What we're talking about is the government FORCING everyone to have health insurance. Funny enough, if it didn't affect poor people directly, I'd wonder if liberals would even care???

What if a professional couple made $200,000/year together and rarely got sick. They could procure regular dental care via a supplemental policy, but don't go to the doctor much. Should they be required to spend the money on a policy? They obviously can afford to pay the bill for a visit (or whatever other procedure). However, what if they see a regular policy as a waste?

It doesn't matter what it costs or what someone makes, the very nature of the government fining someone for not having healthcare coverage is a socialist notion. What if we forced all people in industries with a higher risk of lay off to get unemployment insurance? It costs Americans to pay for them while unemployed...

Here's a great article...

Like any other industry, if the government gets involved, quality suffers.

If we want to hold people accountable for medical expenses, and want to reform the healthcare for the poor, this isn't the way to do it.

Well I don't much fancy the Massachusetts approach either. How about single payer unless you consider all taxes a violation of privacy?


Well then, how about privatizing the military? We would get rid of their socialistic medical system in the bargain. No more of those commie veterans hospitals.

Dingo, I think the biggest problem with healthcare has been taking it out of the marketplace. I am one of the few, it seems to me, but I think social security has been a failure. It is the program we have in this country where everyone is required to participate in order for government to make saving decisions in regards to retirement for people over their own judgement.

I do not mind having programs to supply minimalist healthcare for those who seek it and can not obtain it on their own.

I have no problem with a government healthcare program voluntarily funded by its users. It you want a single payer system, you should have that option. It just has to be voluntary and funded from within it. If the claims to saving money are true, many will join it. If not, they will not.

The answer should not be to have government set prices and determine which services should be supplied and demanded.

------------

Just for comparison, look at healthcare for animals in the United States. It is mostly free from insurance, huge lawsuits awards, and government regulation of services. It operates fairly free in the marketplace. Is not the healthcare for animals cheaper and more diverse in the levels of treatment than human healthcare? Is this not a good thing? Does not animal healthcare make a better model for services than the socialized medicine?

Not only is Massachusetts invading people's privacy but they are ignoring economic principles.