Comments on: The Massachusetts Mandate http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/04/the_massachusetts_mandate.html Indiana Barrister is the source for local Indianapolis and Indiana news, politics and commentary. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:17:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Marti http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/04/the_massachusetts_mandate.html/comment-page-1#comment-121 Marti Fri, 07 Apr 2006 07:51:59 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/04/the_massachusetts_mandate.html#comment-121 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. ;) 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. ;)

]]> By: Russ http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/04/the_massachusetts_mandate.html/comment-page-1#comment-120 Russ Thu, 06 Apr 2006 20:51:09 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2006/04/the_massachusetts_mandate.html#comment-120 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... 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…

]]>