Home

Join

Main Menu



blog advertising is good for you

Links

The Massachusetts Mandate

The State of Massachusetts is expanding health care coverage to the state’s 500,000 uninsured, in part by making insurance mandatory to all residents. Supporters hope this form of “universal health care” becomes a model for the rest of the country. The plan will offer free or heavily-subsidized coverage to the poor; those who can afford it but refuse to carry it will face fines of over $1,000 a year and increasing tax penalties until they comply. Those already insured will see a small drop in their premiums. No new taxes are called for, as much of the money is expected to come from the state and federal reimbursements. In addition, employers who don’t currently provide health insurance will have to pay nearly $300 per employee. If signed into law, the bill would require all residents to be insured beginning in July 2007.

I guess one way to make sure everyone has insurance is to mandate it. If that’s the logic then one way to fight hunger is mandate everyone eat. One way to fight violence is mandate everyone have a gun. One way to fight racism is to mandate everyone have a friend of a different race or ethnic group. You see where this is going. The problem with the mandate (apart from it being another government mandate) is that employers who don’t offer health insurance will see their costs increase. In order to cover the costs, employers will have to raise prices, cut their own profits, or fire someone to cover the increase. None of these are good options.

If the government truly wanted to bring down the costs of health care, it should ban employers from providing health insurance at all. The costs would drop because people would become a lot more frugal about what they spend their money on. In addition, take out the insurance factor you eliminate the need for administrative costs and for companies to make a profit. See costs start to drop. If someone is irresponsible and won’t pick up their own insurance and they get sick, well, you can’t save everybody.

I am not a big fan of mandates. Inherently they drive up the costs of business and disproportionately hit the smaller guys harder. Also if you think mandates work so well, may I remind you “thou shall not kill” has been on the books for a few thousand years.

  • http://the-russ.blogspot.com Russ

    It’s an unnecessary component of enforcement that the state will have to undertake by tracking down people and forcing them to buy insurance. Here’s an idea: instead of forcing people to buy insurance, they can pass the law in Massachusetts, but medical providers would then have the right to refuse care to people without insurance with no exceptions. If you needed it, you should have gotten it, and it was available to you so there should be no excuses. It shifts the burden of enforcement off of the state and onto the providers. At the very least, it would keep the line moving in the ER whenever somebody gets denied…

  • http://digitaldogmeat.com Marti

    Listening to your show, I found it amusing how you and the callers to your show talked as if the program is already in place and failing. I honestly don’t see that it’s any of you or your callers concern as to what Massachusetts legislators do. Massachusetts is a progressive state to live in. They have one of the lowest divorce rates in the country (while Indiana has one of the highest) even though they allow gay marriage! First it was gay marriage, now it’s health care for all…what’s next?

    But seriously, which is more important:
    Health care or retirement?
    Health care for all or health care for some?
    TANF, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI are all government subsidized programs.

    It’s kinda like the marijuana legalization debate. Which causes more harm to society, marijuana or alcohol? Which one is legal? If one tries to apply logic to the alcohol vs marijuana debate, they will find none.

    I definitely believe that a person’s health is MUCH more important to the nation and the individual than their retirement. Although, if you don’t have health care you probably won’t be needing that SSI retirement benefit. ;)

blog comments powered by Disqus