A Step in the Wrong Direction
The 
headline in the New York Times proclaims "Massachusetts Set to Offer Universal Health Insurance." On the other side of the pond, The Independent is just as enthusiastic — Massachusetts to provide health care for all.
If only it were true.
Yes, the Massachusetts House and Senate passed the bill, and Governor Mitt Romney will sign it. But if you think Massachusetts has come up with a new, more efficient way to provide health care to all its residents, you're wrong. It's the same old bureaucracy-laden system. Only now, all uninsured residents whom the state deems can afford insurance will be required to buy it, and all businesses with over 10 employees will be required to provide it. Those who don't are subject to fines.
Under the law, low-income residents will have some or all of their insurance costs paid for by public funds:
The state's poorest are the biggest winners. Single adults making $9,500 or less a year will have access to health coverage with no premiums or deductibles.
Those living at up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, about $48,000 for a family of three, are also big winners. Under the bill, they will be able to get health coverage on a sliding scale also with no deductibles.
I don't see how this system of subsidized-health-care-for-some can succeed.
First, it's possible that the law might actually encourage employers to eliminate their health benefits, because it could be cheaper to pay the fine — $295 per employee — than pay the insurance premiums.
Second, by doing nothing to fix our inefficient, exorbitantly expensive, for-profit US health care system, the law perpetuates a system that is already far more costly than health care in other countries. What do we get for all that money? Less than you might expect:
In terms of health indicators like life expectancy, infant and maternal mortality and obesity, we rank close to the bottom of the list of Western countries, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The Massachusetts law will provide insurance for those who can least afford it. But it does so by treating the symptoms and not the disease. We'll never cure our ailing health care system that way.
Comments
The plan isn't perfect, but I find myself thinking the same way AARP did about the senior drug plan. It's better than nothing and it can be fine tuned later on.
I agree that the $295 fine is too low, and the article also mentioned that those who fail to pay health insurance but are deemed able to afford it could face fines of up to $1,000 a year. Does this mean the insurance is compulsory - like a tax? If a person earning $12,000 a year doesn't pay the premium and gets sick, can he still get health care? If that's the case, many poor people above the $9500 level will opt out, take their chances, and pay the fine after they need medical care.
It is a start though, and I've sure Mitt Romney will use this as political leverage.
Posted by: Kathy | April 6, 2006 03:07 PM
I came across another article related to your post that supports your concerns. I thought it might interest you.
(Also, if my previous comment was duplicated because the system if holding back comments for your review, please delete the second one for me. Thanks!)
Posted by: Kathy | April 6, 2006 03:45 PM
Kathy, thanks for the link to the Common Dreams post. It's a much more informed version of what I had posted.
Today the Boston Globe is already reporting that health care premiums may be higher than originally estimated. And even supporters are wondering whether the bill is actually financially feasible.
You're right about Romney. No matter what happens, he wins. Even if things go poorly, he will claim that it's because legislators did away with some of the provisions Romney wanted in the bill, which he claims would have kept costs lower.
BTW, I don't review comments. In fact, I'm just grateful for any I do get. ;-) But I guess sometimes comments aren't posted right away for some reason.
Posted by: abi | April 6, 2006 07:55 PM
Oh, and yes - this law does make buying insurance compulsory. It's a little like car insurance that way. It's less universal health insurance than mandatory health insurance.
Posted by: abi | April 6, 2006 08:25 PM