Can't afford health care? Get fined in Massachusetts.

[readmoreoften]

To add to our Orwellian nightmare, ol' Mitt got the go-ahead from the feds to push his great new program forward. It's the government subsidizes a little piece of your health premium, but if you don't have health insurance you have to pay a fine (think auto liability insurance.)

Way to screw the poor, help the corporations, build a nanny state, and posture like a progressive who cares about "universal health insurance"-- all at the same time! I'm impressed.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2415435&mesg_id=2415435

[cyclezealot]

1. It's not a health care plan.

It is a way to subsidize Hartford. I'd almost consider moving to Rhode Island. Better yet, Canada, if you could.

[mainer]

8. And you think Canada doesn't require you to pay into the system?

Canada has mandated health care coverage too.

[cyclezealot]

17. Sorry, Can't move to Canada.

They have immigration limits. IF you could, your health care costs would unlike here be reasonable.
US citizens, moving to Europe. If you can get the correct visa, you will be allowed to buy into their system. It will be great coverage and 1/10 the costs of US insurance.
Of course you have to pay into an insurance system,no matter how it is administered. There is no such thing as a free lunch. It is just, sometimes you are totally taken advantage of and other systems are run for the public's well being.

[roamer65]

24. Yeah, but Canada doesn't fine people who can't afford it.

Ontario does it the right way. The provincial income tax is a PROGRESSIVE income tax. The more u make, the more u pay. That's the way we should be doing it.

[leesa]

41. It's private insurance and the coverage will be minimal.

It's the same deal as the required car insurance we have in California. The insurance companies pig out and the coverage gets smaller and smaller over time.

Many people still don't have insurance, they either get fines or drive away real fast from the scene. It's a good money-maker for the authorities.

[EFerrari]

19. It's not a health care plan, it's extortion. Or, a body tax.

:wtf:

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. Just wait until the "Hartfords'" get their greedy hooks into the

Canadian health care system. Think it won't happen? Think again.

[RB TexLa]

2. Yep, force young single people and couples to subsidize

families insurance costs. Remember it's no longer American values, it's "family values," they are the only ones that count.

[survivor999]

6. I'm not exactly sure how it works...

At least for now, I have health insurance regardless...

[RB TexLa]

10. if you work for a company that has a group plan

after the law goes in effect you will have to take the group plan. You will have no choice it it. If you are young or single and healthy right now you can get an individual health plan with a high deductible and pay far less money. But that doesn't help to lower the cost for families, in fact it leads to higher costs for families. And that is no longer going to be allowed. And if you refuse they are going to add to your taxes, this is what families want.

They want singles, child free couples and healthy people paying into and spreading the risk on their plans and in Mass. they have got it done. To the point that if you fully refuse to help them, you can be put in jail or have your property seized.

[radfringe]

3. it kinda works

if you don't get health insurance because you can't afford it, you are fined

then you don't pay the fines because you can't afford it - so eventually you'll be thrown in jail where you will get health coverage...

[readmoreoften]

4. great point!

hell, why not give us free doctors that use pliers and drills to begin with.

[rucky]

35. We could feed the homeless this way, too.

Brilliant! Three cheers for creamed chip beef on toast.

[MoseyWalker]

5. Does medicaid pick up what's not covered

I would have thought they would put that in for those unable to afford it.

Anybody know?

[mainer]

7. Sorry, but mandated health care is the only way the plan works

If you truly can't afford health care coverage, MA will cover you. The idea is that HEALTHY PEOPLE who think they don't need health insurance (but who can afford to contribute SOMETHING) will add to the pool of insurance money. Otherwise, all you have in the pool are sick people who force up the cost for a dwindling number of insured. It's called a "death spiral", and once that happens, no one can afford it.

Massachusett's experiment is akin to nationalized health care in Canada. Everyone MUST contribute, otherwise it all falls apart.

[RB TexLa]

16. And if you have a high deductible indiv. plan with an HSA

it won't qualify, you have to join the plan to help lower the cost for families, or you have to join your lower deductible plan at work which costs more to cover the people who's children are going to the doctor every couple of months or the coworker who is having children. Basically if you don't use much health care and simply want insurance to be there to protect against catastrophic things, and can do better with individual underwriting you are screwed. You are going to be forced to help those families lower their costs. Guess it's like the "healthcare Nazi," "NO HSA for YOU!"

[seaglass]

23. An individual can have a plan with a deductible up to $2100,

does that cover the high-deductible plan?

Yes, lower-income families (less than 60,000 for a family of 4) will be subsidized by those who are able to pay - that, I think, is a step in the right direction.

[RB TexLa]

30. I'm talking about forcing people on the group plan

instead of plans with deductibles up to 5,000, after you have the HSA built up you can even go to 10,000 and cut your cost of the insurance to next to nothing. But with this plan you have to go on your employer's group plan with your co-worker who is covering their spouse and children. This is to lower your co-workers cost at your higher expense. Many employers pay part of the spousal and dependant coverage spreading that cost out to singles and the child free. Under this plan singles and the child free are forced to pay more than what their coverage costs to pay for their coverage.

[seaglass]

36. Can you tell me where it says people are forced to go on the

company health plan rather than an individual plan? A link maybe?

Because the way you are saying that company health plans work is the way it already works.

[cyclezealot]

18. It is not like a national health care plan.

No one in the world has such a system. It was hoisted on the people of Massachusetts, by monopolies administered via con artists- out to fleece your wallets.
The US healht care system has no cost control mechanism since multiple of private interests look at you as a 'profit center,' instead of a patient. When you line the pockets of excess numbers of middle men, reasonable costs is highly unlikely. That goes from insurance companies to pharmeutical giants, to service providers charging outrageous prices for services they control.

[readmoreoften]

28. Who are all these "healthy people who don't think they need insurance"?

And who "can afford to contribute SOMETHING". Who are we talking about here? People with 40hr a week jobs are generally covered through work. Are we talking about freelancers? Business owners? Who are all these people who have extra cash for insurance but just don't want to fork over the dough?

If they can get the rates down to a reasonable number ($25-50 a month) they won't HAVE to fine people for not having it because enough people will get it to make it work. If you're forcing people to buy something they can't afford, I'm sorry then it's a shitty deal.

[cyclezealot]

34. The average family of 3 in the US pays close to $1000/Mo.

This bill's effect might lower it $100. Got an extra $900 to subsidize Hartford with. State might not call you broke, but there goes you kid's college fund. However the state defines poor, they might get a subsidy. Still an outrageously expensive system. No country in the world does health care costs come near what the average American pays.

[Solon]

43. This isn't like Canada's system at all...

Its an insult to Canada's system to even compare this to that system. Canada's system is single payer, for most citizens, there ARE no insurance companies to deal with. Everybody contributes through progressive taxation, and even then, the poorest and those down on their luck that can't pay are STILL covered. In addition to that, all medical decisions are based not ability to pay, but medical nessicity instead. For example, my pinched nerve, in Canada, if I gained Citizenship today, wouldn't cost me over 10 grand in out of pocket expenses straight off, but any insurance I get in any company or plan here in the states will NOT cover it, under "preexisting conditions".

[anarch]

9. why not just go ahead and round up the poor,

toss them into work camps, or maybe put them in the army or something...chances are they'll get blown up in some conflict or other, and then presto!, no more worries about health care.

[MoseyWalker]

12. I really don't think, after doing some reading about it

that the intent is to hurt the poor. It seems to me, as the other poster upthread noted, that the intent is to get those who can afford to pay into the system - pay into the system. The poor and disabled would continued to be covered.

[walldude]

13. I'm sure there are think tanks working on that

while we speak...

[cyclezealot]

21. Question about think tanks. Whose funding them?

The US system is breaking down. US business can no longer afford private health care coverage. Citizens can't . NO one else would buy the fraudulant policies, unless employers are foolish enough too.
Since no one can afford these questionable policies with their gatekeepers, the last resort is cohersion.

[Jim Warren]

11. Trouble with this from the beginning

Pegged to filing income tax with the state DOR. Because I fall under the minimum requirement for filing and as a subsistance farmer I haven't filed in years, I am SOOL.

[MoseyWalker]

15. but you could file

and that would place you in possibly the category where your needs would be taken care of?

[mainer]

14. If you're against it, I suggest you leave MA and move to Texas

Where they have a GREAT system for taking care of the poor.

[Telly Savalas]

26. By that logic, people dissatisfied with the U.S. should move to Uganda.

[Fleshdancer]

20. I'm putting a lot of hope in the San Francisco plan....

I hope their plan is as good as the Mayor says it will be. Only time will tell I guess. As for the Massachusetts plan, I can see how it would start off well but what happens if the state can no longer afford to susidize portions of the health care for families who can not afford it? Last time I checked, being poor wasn't a crime and being sick wasn't a crime. Charging someone MORE money because they can't afford something is extremely short sighted...especially when it's something as important as basic health care.

[Cleita]

22. So how are you supposed to get health insurance if you are

turned down for it?

[Freedom_Aflaim]

25. Thinking of it as a breathing tax

If you breath Massachutes air everyday, then its only fair that you pay a reasonable tax for that privledge.

Once you stop breathing in Massachutes, either by death or exodus, then no more tax!

[readmoreoften]

27. This isn't "socialized medicine" or anything close.

This is being forced to pay a premium that you can't afford so that insurance companies get wealthier. Who are all these healthy people who "don't think they need" health insurance? They can't afford it! When your student loan bills and credit card bills are sky high and your job has been outsourced to India... you're not being obstinate, you're struggling.

[mtnester]

29. We have an MD in our area who has a new approach that I have not

heard of before. He is literally a one man office, and charges a flat rate annually of $2500.00 to his patients. He is a DO, takes no insurance, no credit cards, has no receptionist, and runs his own labs, draws his own blood work, etc. You call his number (it is not in the book, you get it with your fee) and you get him directly. You or your family members (spouse, sons, daughters) come to his office however many times a year you need to, for whatever reason. If you have a questions, you call and you get HIM. His wife helps with lab work and keeps his files and his books.

He is not taking any new patients right now. He has as many as he can handle. His patients love him. I heard of him from one of his patients, and was intrigued so I asked more questions. He will make a house call if he needs to, and hospital visits as necessary. Of course, prescription costs and any hospital stays would be the responsibility of the patient, but...he deals with no HMO's, he is qualified to make a referral if your HMO requires it as a licensed physician, etc.

Has anyone else heard of any doc's going this route? Right now, it does not sound like too bad of a deal...unlimited office visits, a better one on one relationship with a physician...I betcha he has a better handle on his patients than most other doctors do. I am having a hard time finding a reason this would be a bad idea.

[Kat45]

33. Isn't that what they call "boutique medicine"?

A lot of people wouldn't be able to afford an upfront cost of $2500. Another problem with the plan: This is fine for your routine care done by your PCP, but what happens when you need a specialist? Every woman needs a gynecologist, ie a specialist. Plus, anyone could develop a problem that could require a specialist: a urologist, cardiologist, etc. And as you mentioned, hospital stays and prescription costs would be the responsibility of the patient--that means mucho $$$$$, which most people could not afford. Boutique medicine. Another tier of care, the best care only for those who can afford it.

[Vidar]

32. Just more corporate welfare.

[Theyareallthesame]

37. I thought the Massachusetts state legislature was controlled by Democrats.

[GreenArrow]

38. Eat That Rat!

One-two-three-four

You don't want to share with anyone else You got all the money, you got all the wealth
You got all the buildings and the factories You got all the power and the ceremonies

You wanna play a game of cat and mouse With the President in the White House
This is a hungry world, there are months to feed There are millionaires with more than they need

Eat that rat Eat that rat Eat that rat Eat that rat

One-two-three-four

Don't believe what you've been told You can't change a turd into gold
Somehow we get all these creeps in control It makes me throw up in the toilet bowl

You thieving whore, you hustle for bucks You take the money and you shoot it up
That's the breaks, it's the chance you take Get it together for your children's sake

Eat that rat Eat that rat Eat that rat Eat that rat

(Courtesy of the Ramones)

[rman]

39. "nanny state"?

(aside from the question whether or not this particular program is any good)

Do you call it "nanny state" because the government subsidizes some of the cost?
If so, don't you realize that anything the state subsidizes is in fact the people subsidizing the people by means of tax money, that it's a way to share the risk involved with the cost of getting ill?
If you're opposed to that, then i'd guess you're also opposed to "universal healthcare" aka nationalized healthcare, aka tax-funded healthcare.

[cyclezealot]

40. You are subsidizing private insurance companies

not the people.

[rman]

42. I know that, but it doesn't answer my question

[cyclezealot]

44. I favor universal health care

That is why I am against this plan.

[rman]

45. I'd still like to know where readmoreoften's "nanny state" accusation

comes from.
(I don't actually expect you to answer that)

on edit:
The term "Nanny State" is used by the RW to signify tax-funded social programs.
Scamming to funnel tax money to corporations is an entirely different beast. So where does "nanny state" come in here?

[cyclezealot]

46. This plan has 1 thing in common with S.S.-Part D.

It will bankrupt the national treasury.