belgareth
04-12-2008, 04:50 AM
<The plan described here is nothing more than forcing people to buy healthcare whether they like it or not. This
system is only going to continue to increase the burden on taxpayers, mostly middle class ones, without ever
addressinig the root causes of high health care costs. Belgareth.>
Costs soar for Mass. health care law
By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press WriterSat Apr 12, 2008
Two years after the state's landmark
health law was signed, the cracks are starting to show.
Costs are soaring and Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing
a dollar-a-pack hike in the state's cigarette tax to help pay for a larger-than-expected enrollment in the law's
subsidized insurance plans.
But that hasn't dampened enthusiasm at the Statehouse. Leaders there boast that in the
two years since former Gov. Mitt Romney signed the law with a choreographed flourish at historic Faneuil Hall, the
number of insured residents has soared by nearly 350,000.
Along the way the law has been scrutinized by other
states, sparked the ire of critics on the right and left, and drawn the attention of presidential
candidates.
"It's the very first question I get when I'm with other governors," said Massachusetts Gov. Deval
Patrick. "I don't think anybody is prepared to say that what we have done here in Massachusetts is necessarily the
formula for the rest of the country or for a national reform, but at least we are trying."
No other state has
launched as comprehensive a plan. California attempted their own health care expansion, but the $14.7 billion
program failed to get out of a key Senate committee.
"The Massachusetts reform law remains the focal point for
other states and the nation in trying to figure out if state-based reform is possible," said Alan Weil, head of the
Maine-based National Academy for State Health Policy. "It's the biggest game in town."
One of the most radical
fixtures of the law is the so-called "individual mandate" — the requirement that virtually everyone have health
insurance or face tax penalties.
Anyone deemed able to afford health insurance but who refused to buy it during
2007 already faces the loss of a $219 personal tax exemption. New monthly fines that kicked in this year could total
as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by December.
It's not clear how many uninsured residents
remain in Massachusetts. At the time the law was signed, estimates started at 500,000.
The law — and its individual
mandate — has become a key talking point in the presidential race.
Hillary Clinton has made an individual mandate
the centerpiece of her health plan. Fellow Democrat Barack Obama's plan doesn't include an individual mandate for
adults, although he would require that children be covered. Republican John McCain wouldn't require universal
coverage.
Under the law, anyone making less than the federal poverty level is eligible for free care. Those making
up to three times the poverty level can get subsidized plans.
Anyone earning more is required to get health
insurance through their employer, on their own, or by purchasing lower-cost plans through the Health Care Connector,
the independent state agency overseeing the law.
Businesses are also on the hook. Those with 11 or more full time
employees who refuse to offer insurance face $295 annual penalties per employee. Already, 748 employers have failed
to meet that threshold and have paid $6.6 million to the state.
Rick Lord, president of the Associated Industries
of Massachusetts, said the state must be "very mindful of placing burdens on businesses that don't exist in other
states."
"It's a delicate balance," he said.
John McDonough, executive director of Health Care For All, a
health care advocacy group that pushed for the law, concedes it's become a political punching bag.
Those on the
left see the law as a poor substitute for a Canadian-style single-payer model, while those on the right say the law
interferes with the free market.
"The two sides agree on nothing accept for one thing: They hate our little
ecumenical experiment here in Massachusetts," he said. "It's almost as if they are the health care fundamentalists
and we're like the heretics because we are coming together."
Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the
libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, said the law has been an unqualified failure.
Tanner was critical of the
connector authority, a "super-regulatory agency" which has mandated levels of coverage. He also noted the vast
majority of the newly insured are receiving subsidized care.
"They said it would get us universal coverage and
reduce costs and it's done neither," Tanner said.
The biggest challenge is rising costs.
In 2006, a legislative
committee estimated the law would cost about $725 million in the fiscal year starting in July. In his budget,
Patrick set aside $869 million, but those overseeing the law have already acknowledged costs will rise even higher.
Lawmakers are hoping to close the gap in part with a new cigarette tax expected to generate about $154 million a
year.
system is only going to continue to increase the burden on taxpayers, mostly middle class ones, without ever
addressinig the root causes of high health care costs. Belgareth.>
Costs soar for Mass. health care law
By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press WriterSat Apr 12, 2008
Two years after the state's landmark
health law was signed, the cracks are starting to show.
Costs are soaring and Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing
a dollar-a-pack hike in the state's cigarette tax to help pay for a larger-than-expected enrollment in the law's
subsidized insurance plans.
But that hasn't dampened enthusiasm at the Statehouse. Leaders there boast that in the
two years since former Gov. Mitt Romney signed the law with a choreographed flourish at historic Faneuil Hall, the
number of insured residents has soared by nearly 350,000.
Along the way the law has been scrutinized by other
states, sparked the ire of critics on the right and left, and drawn the attention of presidential
candidates.
"It's the very first question I get when I'm with other governors," said Massachusetts Gov. Deval
Patrick. "I don't think anybody is prepared to say that what we have done here in Massachusetts is necessarily the
formula for the rest of the country or for a national reform, but at least we are trying."
No other state has
launched as comprehensive a plan. California attempted their own health care expansion, but the $14.7 billion
program failed to get out of a key Senate committee.
"The Massachusetts reform law remains the focal point for
other states and the nation in trying to figure out if state-based reform is possible," said Alan Weil, head of the
Maine-based National Academy for State Health Policy. "It's the biggest game in town."
One of the most radical
fixtures of the law is the so-called "individual mandate" — the requirement that virtually everyone have health
insurance or face tax penalties.
Anyone deemed able to afford health insurance but who refused to buy it during
2007 already faces the loss of a $219 personal tax exemption. New monthly fines that kicked in this year could total
as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by December.
It's not clear how many uninsured residents
remain in Massachusetts. At the time the law was signed, estimates started at 500,000.
The law — and its individual
mandate — has become a key talking point in the presidential race.
Hillary Clinton has made an individual mandate
the centerpiece of her health plan. Fellow Democrat Barack Obama's plan doesn't include an individual mandate for
adults, although he would require that children be covered. Republican John McCain wouldn't require universal
coverage.
Under the law, anyone making less than the federal poverty level is eligible for free care. Those making
up to three times the poverty level can get subsidized plans.
Anyone earning more is required to get health
insurance through their employer, on their own, or by purchasing lower-cost plans through the Health Care Connector,
the independent state agency overseeing the law.
Businesses are also on the hook. Those with 11 or more full time
employees who refuse to offer insurance face $295 annual penalties per employee. Already, 748 employers have failed
to meet that threshold and have paid $6.6 million to the state.
Rick Lord, president of the Associated Industries
of Massachusetts, said the state must be "very mindful of placing burdens on businesses that don't exist in other
states."
"It's a delicate balance," he said.
John McDonough, executive director of Health Care For All, a
health care advocacy group that pushed for the law, concedes it's become a political punching bag.
Those on the
left see the law as a poor substitute for a Canadian-style single-payer model, while those on the right say the law
interferes with the free market.
"The two sides agree on nothing accept for one thing: They hate our little
ecumenical experiment here in Massachusetts," he said. "It's almost as if they are the health care fundamentalists
and we're like the heretics because we are coming together."
Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the
libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, said the law has been an unqualified failure.
Tanner was critical of the
connector authority, a "super-regulatory agency" which has mandated levels of coverage. He also noted the vast
majority of the newly insured are receiving subsidized care.
"They said it would get us universal coverage and
reduce costs and it's done neither," Tanner said.
The biggest challenge is rising costs.
In 2006, a legislative
committee estimated the law would cost about $725 million in the fiscal year starting in July. In his budget,
Patrick set aside $869 million, but those overseeing the law have already acknowledged costs will rise even higher.
Lawmakers are hoping to close the gap in part with a new cigarette tax expected to generate about $154 million a
year.