"Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in most states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to get insurance would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level - about $66,000 for a family of four - would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950."
Currently, Massachusetts’ version of Universal Health Care, which makes up the majority of the Commonwealth’s budget and is repeatedly driving the State into the Red (25% tax increase included), includes a “fee” assessed for those who do not carry some form of coverage under the Commonwealth’s guidelines. These “fees” are paid directly to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (i.e. a tax). Those who fail to pay the “fees” are assessed a penalty on their income tax, which can include garnishment of wages. In addition, citizens of the Commonwealth, their Employers and insurance companies are subject to filing additional forms (bureaucracy in action), with the State – proof of insurance must be attached to one’s tax returns – proof of compliance with a State Mandated program. One must understand that anytime additional forms are required, be it for a health care provider, an insurer or an employer, costs are increased and those costs are passed onto the consumer. Additionally, government mandated benefits (such as coverage for Transgender Surgery and Infertility Benefits – high price tag items – there are 26 State Mandated Benefits, only some of which appear to be non-elective procedures in the real world (elective procedures – those that are not necessary to sustain life or prevent a serious illness) - further drive up the cost of health-care.
Should the Federal Government’s plan come close to what Massachusetts has in place, expect an increase in premiums, an increase in forms, and an increase in intrusion from the Internal Revenue Service, specifically if one cannot afford to carry any one of the versions offered by the particular state in which one resides.
The Massachusetts model could work, without breaking the bank and driving up the costs for consumers if the following we’re implemented: mandatory benefits reviewed to include only those wellness benefits and certain tests (mammograms, etc.) that are proven to save lives, and reduce the cost of healthcare. Allow citizens to purchase coverage across state-lines, which would not only increase the competitive pool, but spread the risks incurred by insurers, thereby reducing costs. Riders could be attached (at an additional cost) to plans, allowing individuals to cherry-pick high priced item coverage. Finally, allow for catastrophic coverage only; a plan that would allow participants to pay a high, yet affordable, out-of-pocket deductible (routine wellness benefits would not be covered – these often cost less annualized than the premium) providing hospitalization and surgical benefits and treatments.
Massachusetts has a public option in place, it would behoove those lawmakers who are so keen on pushing through legislation to investigate the Commonwealth’s programs and its impact on the State’s economy and specifically the impact on the middle class (increased premiums, increased taxes, increased “fees”) prior to writing any legislation that includes a hint of a public option.
References:
Massachusetts Sales Tax
Penalities for Uninsured’s to Rise in 2009
Feeding the Beast, Massachusetts Health Reform Act
4 comments:
Good post, the information in it is very important nowadays, help where you can still find information on this topic?
Thank you for asking, first, if you work in the insurance field, specifically health insurance, you have an understanding of the true cost of rediculous state mandates to the consumer -
it's a lot of work, but digging is worth it - eye-openning in fact.
There are several places to research the Massachusetts Health Insurance Program, the mandated benefits, and the costs
Start with Commonwealth Care
Summary of Mandated Benefits
One of a Million articles on inflation caused by mandated benefits
Massachusetts General Laws
Massachusetts Legislature
2009 Budget
2010 Budget Proposal (Governors)
FY 2010 Budget Summary Final
Obviously most of that needs to be left out. With that said, I'm not entirely against mandating coverage somehow. Reality is that if someone does not have coverage, the public has to pick up the tab. That is part of our problem now. At the very least we should refuse to cover expenses for anyone who chooses not to be covered. They can repay it for the rest of their life if needed.
Great post Tina. I had no idea how many of these "mandated" items were so unnecessary. I will list some of them that are especially suspect in terms of the cost and benefit.
1. Alcoholism - I object to paying hospital or doctor bills for someone's choice being detrimental to his/her health. The reality here as well is this would most likely be a long term commitment.
2. Contraceptive services - Besides being a choice it is also a long term commitment as well. I have had coverage for over 40 years and when my wife and I decided not to have more children we paid for our own contraceptives.
3. Low protein food product...... - I have no clue what that is all about but once again this appears to be a lifetime commitment.
4. Mental health care - Open ended more than likely plus another long term deal often for bogus reasons.
5. Nonprescription enteral formulas - no clue what that is about either except that it probably involves lifetime activity and if it is not prescribed then how does it relate to "health care" except as a personal choice.
6. Infertility treatment - I feel bad for people who desire a child but are unable to have one or more for whatever reason. Nevertheless, what does that have to do with "health insurance" to the individuals. Nothing, nada, zero for sure.
I would bet that if we get Obamacare the dems in congress will make the Mass. model look fiscally responsible. If we could return the mandated portions to some degree of sensibility and have tort reform I believe "health care" insurance costs would be far more reasonable. Thanks again for info.
Post a Comment