Massachusetts to experiment with Universal health care.

[bamacrat]

Source: MSNBC

An experiment is cooking in Massachusetts, which invented everything, or so its residents will tell you. And they can stake an honest claim for basketball, chocolate chip cookies and Technicolor, not to mention the American Revolution. Now Massachusetts is tinkering with universal health insurance. By Dec. 31, nearly everyone in the state will be required to have an insurance card.

The Massachusetts plan is a political experiment, a policy experiment, and a social experiment. It imposes a system of shared responsibility, with new burdens on individuals, on employers, and on the government. The state taxpayer association calls it "a truly noble experiment."

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20255585/

---

States need to start "experimenting" with everything the federal government is too close minded to try. i.e. Universal Health care, legalizing marijuana, choosing not to send its national guard to Iraq.

[dflprincess]

1. As it says in the snp, Massachusetts is experimenting with universal health insurance

which is not the same as universal health care. The Massachusetts plan is just a gift to the insurance companies.

[bamacrat]

2. Yes but in our corporate run society its a start.

Anything that can help the uninsured is good. But at the same time every rose has its thorns. (The last line should be read singing it, or at least thats how I did it.)

[sutz12]

4. How does this help the uninsured?

Most people without insurance are that way because they can't afford it. Requiring them to buy something they can't afford "in their own interest" just increases the burden, even with "government subsidies" and tax credits.

In fact, this will probably cost more for the state by driving tax revenues down and diverting funds from other needs, like infrastructure.

[Donnachaidh]

12. It does NOT help the UNINSURABLE.

You know, the ones with pre-existing conditions that are treated like virtual lepers by the insurance companies? There's LOTS of us out there. We're the victims of the insurance companies no one seems to SEE or care about. We're locked into crappy jobs because of the fear of losing insurance. And if a company switches insurance coverage, there is ALWAYS that moment of holding your breath to see exactly IF you're covered, or IF you have yet more out of pocket expenses because of any number of changes.

Insurance companies deny inhalers to asthmatics, or allow the barest minimum. They pay for insulin for diabetics - but tell the patient they need to buy the syringes. It's all nickel and dime bullshit, but it adds up to people being sicker or even dying for their pinched pennies.

Insurance companies are in business for PROFIT. And they are always going to find a way to cut corners, usually with the people who can't fight back.

When the hell are we going to stop *experimenting* with people's lives?

[Lorien]

3. Yep. big difference. The patient and doctor both suffer when the

insurance companies are still a factor.

[David__77]

5. This is pure editorial. "Tinkering?"

Tinkering definitions:

to busy oneself with a thing without useful results: Stop tinkering with that clock and take it to the repair shop.

to work unskillfully or clumsily at anything.

to do the work of a tinker.

[Vinca]

6. Passing a law that says everyone must buy health insurance

is not universal healthcare. I'm so sick of this BS.

[booley]

7. To be fair

I recall a video where Romney said that those too poor to afford health insurence would be subsidized by te state.

OF course, he also then went on to say that he doesnt' beleive the government should be involved in health care like in Canada.

How exactly what he describes above isnt' just like what Canada does (only ona smaller scale) and the government being involved was asked by some on in the video but Romney ignored him.

Did I mention Romney is a maroon?

[youngdem]

9. Except the 'too poor' threshold is too low

It leaves out HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of working class/lower middle class families.

TERRIBLE plan. It isn't a plan at all. It is simply shifting the poor off of Medicaid and onto publicly paid for private insurance. The ABSOLUTE WORST solution there could be. You have the inefficiency of the federal government and the heartless bureaucracy of the insurance companies in place, the destruction of medicaid/care - the Neo-con goal. Good going there Mitt.

What we need is a single payer system. Private hospitals can still exist. Private practice can still exist. Insurance companies CANNOT. But it is paid by your tax, minus a deductible that increases with income.

Everything else is just window dressing and is complicit in killing more Americans out of simple greed.

[NotGivingUp]

8. this 'plan' is worse than what we've got now...and it's a handout to the insurance companies. n/t

[bluerum]

10. NO! Ma. to experiment with transferring more of our $$$ to grotesquely wealthy

health care executives.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

11. And, it's already failing!! The MA system is already so

overtaxed from everyone trying to get the required health insurance (to avoid tax penalties), that they don't know when they will be able to help those without.

It's aggravating... and all because Mitt needed something to base his presidency on. :banghead:

[jmm]

13. I don't know anybody that's had a positive experience

with any of the new "affordable" plans. Like the article says, it's an "experiment." One that is failing.