Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Fri

25

Dec

2009

The Mandate and Massachusetts
Friday, 25 December 2009 14:58
by Jayne Lyn Stahl

Now that the Senate has managed to get the 60 votes needed to pass the so-called health care reform bill, it's the perfect time to consider how a government mandate to buy insurance, or face penalties, has impacted the state on which this insurance "overhaul" has been modeled.

The Massachusetts legislature, more than three years ago, passed what then governor Mitt Romney called "universal health care," a bill requiring state residents to carry health insurance if they can afford it and, if not, pay more in state income tax.

Companies with more than ten employees were henceforth required to provide a "fair and reasonable contribution" to the premium of health insurance for employees, or face penalties, with the employer getting to decide what the words "fair" and "reasonable" mean.    It would seem that, in Massachusetts, the state has passed along the responsibility for providing health care to the employer to the employee, thus essentially "privatizing" health care.

Utilizing a market connector concept in which people price shop from a buffet of private insurance companies, the Massachusetts measure is similar to one currently under consideration in the nation's capital.

As Massachusetts may be seen as the paradigm for the health care overhaul Congress is now contemplating, it might be useful to take a quick look at some of the changes that have occurred in that state since the measure was passed in 2006.

While the foreclosure rate in 2007, nationwide, was nearly 80% higher than it was in 2006, foreclosures just outside of Boston "nearly tripled from January through September compared with the same period" in 2006, according to Boston.com. Hundreds of tenants in foreclosed buildings were evicted, or faced eviction by mortgage companies with the greatest concentration of foreclosures in lower income neighborhood. In a state with an historically expensive housing market, area home auctions hit the roof.
 

When forced, by state law, to buy auto insurance, faced with unwieldy rent, and the escalating cost of food, the mandate to acquire health insurance may be seen as a strong contributing factor to the sharp rise in homelessness in that state.

Granted, Massachusetts is not among the top five states when it comes to foreclosure and mortgage default, but what was an evolutionary trend nationally produced a dramatic, sudden spike in the New England state.

And, importantly, two years after its legislature approved what a former Republican governor likes to call universal health care, the Boston Globe reported the number of homeless people in Massachusetts had reached an all-time high. The demand on the mortgage payer to make their auto insurance premium, pay off their credit cards, feed and clothe their family was only exacerbated by the additional demand of having to allocate a portion of their paycheck to meet their state's mandate for health coverage.

What's more, ironically, a plan that was intended to reduce the number of people turning to hospital emergency rooms instead drove them into homeless shelters, and hotels. When considering that the official unemployment rate in Massachusetts is at 8.9%, below the national average, one can only imagine the havoc a national mandate to carry health insurance will wreak on the rest of the nation.

Reportedly, too, the Romney health care overhaul, in Massachusetts, has increased rather than decreased the overcrowding in hospital emergency rooms.

So, while Massachusetts may now brag that 99% of its residents have some kind of health insurance, it would be prudent for members of Congress, and the president, to take a long, hard look at the state's housing market, and ask -- at what expense?

With an unemployment rate that is expected to grow in the foreseeable future, this is not the time to demand that Americans help shoulder some of the government's burden in covering the uninsured by requiring they carry health insurance, or be fined. It's essential to be perfectly clear that, now more than ever, there is a difference between universal health care, and a government mandate.

Any reform that includes a mandate is reform in name only, and may ultimately prove to accomplish little more than to drive people from hospital emergency rooms into homeless shelters.
More from this author:
Following in the Footsteps... (6157 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl The manic warriors, in Washington, are at it again, only now they've found someone who can manage more than one syllable at...
Worldwide Open Season on the Press (8732 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl On an otherwise quiet street in Istanbul, this morning, a 53 year old Turkish citizen of Armenian descent was gunned down...
On Hillary's announcement... (5225 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl You may have read the transcript of a speech given by George McGovern in The Nation last week in which he rightly...
An Open Letter to "The Decider" (5638 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl While the odds are probably better of getting a response from Santa, there are a few things I'd like to say if you can...
"Notes from the Undergrown: State of the Oilman Address" (5602 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl The president's speech last night was more important for what it didn't say than for what it did. In an address that could...
Related Articles:
A Mandate for Spreading the Wealth (2361 Hits)
by Norman Solomon Two days before he lost the election, John McCain summarized what had become the central message of his campaign:...
Massachusetts School Of Law Holds Conference March 7-8 To Examine Serious Problems Facing The News Media (24358 Hits)
by Sherwood Ross Massachusetts School of Law (MSLAW) Dean Lawrence Velvel is hosting a conference March 7-8 to discuss the serious problems facing...
Normon Solomon: Zero Public Option + One Mandate = Disaster (2194 Hits)
by Normon Solomon Not long ago, the most prominent supporters of the public option were touting it as essential for healthcare reform. Now,...
Massachusetts School Of Law Dean Assails Nomination Of Elena Kagan To The United States Supreme Court. (3092 Hits)
by Sherwood Ross Massachusetts School of Law Dean Lawrence Velvel is of the opinion that Elena Kagan should not have been nominated to the...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (4)add comment

Bill Jones said:

0
If not us then who?
"this is not the time to demand that Americans help shoulder some of the government's burden in covering the uninsured"

As the government has no independent resources, if Americans are not to shoulder the burden then who?
The Chinese?
Our Children?

Who?
 
December 27, 2009
Votes: +0

Teresa said:

0
...
WE THE PEOPLE already carry the burden of the uninsured. Why don't you people realize that? Who do you think pays for the uninsured now? WE DO! Through higher medical costs passsed on to us and higher insurance premiums. Also, in the long run, as people as uninsured they don't receive less expensive preventative care and WE THE PEOPLE end up holiding the bag to pay for their much more costly medical care when the uninsured get serious illnesses. In the long run, it is cheaper for us to pay for everyone to be insured. Certainly, at first, it will seem more costly and cumbersome. Yet, in the end, we will all be better off AND it will be more cost effective over time.
 
December 29, 2009
Votes: -1

Teresa said:

0
...
Also, 70% of the doctors surveyed in a recent study indicated that they supported the Massachusetts health insurance reform while only 13% opposed it. Only 7% of the doctors thought that the law should be repealed and 29% thought that it should be continued as it currently stands. Almost half of them (46%) thought that is should be continued but with some changes made.

That's pretty good for the first experiment with this type of reform.

Doctors Happy with Massachusetts Reform
http://healthcarehacks.com/doctors-happy-with-massachusetts-universal-coverage-law
 
December 29, 2009
Votes: +0

Robert said:

0
...
If the nanny state is going to make the citizen pay for health care insurance they should do the research and put into plan real reform. How about taking a look at how many people acutally used helath care and what it cost for a year. Insurance companies actually estimate the cost of claims. Why not goverment? Then tax everyone to pay for the cost of the health care expense as estimated. Since we are not really talking about insurance, we are really talking about the tax payer paying for everything. - Why not just provide the 'acutal cost of health care' and tell us what it cost to pay for health care per tax payer.
 
January 19, 2010
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top