NationStates Jolt Archive

Not putting up a poll, just wanted to hear the reaction of some people actually in Massachusetts (if any are awake on this fine Sunday morning)... Mitt Romney signed into law a piece of legislation mandating employers to provide insurance or be fined, and mandating individuals to have health coverage, (similar to that of auto insurance mandates)... I believe the requirement is to be insured by July of 2007 or Mitt Romney comes door to door punching uninsured in the scrotum. Anyhow, how do you Massachusetts people like this? I have studied the plan among others similar to it in detail, and am quite impressed....

Not putting up a poll, just wanted to hear the reaction of some people actually in Massachusetts (if any are awake on this fine Sunday morning)... Mitt Romney signed into law a piece of legislation mandating employers to provide insurance or be fined, and mandating individuals to have health coverage, (similar to that of auto insurance mandates)... I believe the requirement is to be insured by July of 2007 or Mitt Romney comes door to door punching uninsured in the scrotum. Anyhow, how do you Massachusetts people like this? I have studied the plan among others similar to it in detail, and am quite impressed....

At what price to the individual? Some poor shmuck working at Wal-mart for peanuts can't afford to invest half to two-thirds his bi-weekly peanut stash into healthcare. Employers have to provide REASONABLY PRICED healthcare, or it's a horrible law. :nod:

bum, i always thought that US employers that provided health insurence were paying for it too. well i guess it's not mandatory for the employee to sign up for their employer's health insurance scheme so they can shop around if they want to. damn, i thought this sounded like a good thing, i'm glad LG got in there first to elaborate and save me from embarassing myself. i'm really glad i don't pay for my essential health care. well, apart from prescriptions.

to my understanding, the Massachusetts legislation is not going to require additional taxation. Gov. Romney is pretty fiscally conservative, and the documents indicate they spend billions on providing medical care for the currently uninsured, and they plan to allocate those same funds to providing cost-effective coverage for the 500,000 uninsured Massachusetts residents.. I could be wrong, but that is what I have read... (guess its a bit early to get results).

bum, i always thought that US employers that provided health insurence were paying for it too. well i guess it's not mandatory for the employee to sign up for their employer's health insurance scheme so they can shop around if they want to. damn, i thought this sounded like a good thing, i'm glad LG got in there first to elaborate and save me from embarassing myself. i'm really glad i don't pay for my essential health care. well, apart from prescriptions.

currently, employers in the U.S. that offer coverage are paying a large portion of it (like 80% of the actual cost, which is why when the workers quit, and apply for COBRA coverage they get a rude awakening on the cost)... Romney's legislation indicates the workers have to offer insurance, but I believe limits the amount of coverage that has to be offered, or else the employers face a $295 per worker per year fine....

bum, i always thought that US employers that provided health insurence were paying for it too. well i guess it's not mandatory for the employee to sign up for their employer's health insurance scheme so they can shop around if they want to. damn, i thought this sounded like a good thing, i'm glad LG got in there first to elaborate and save me from embarassing myself. i'm really glad i don't pay for my essential health care. well, apart from prescriptions.

An employer may cover part, or all of it. How much they cover and how good the insurance package is depends on the employer. Wal-mart is notoriously expensive for a decent package. *nod*

Not putting up a poll, just wanted to hear the reaction of some people actually in Massachusetts (if any are awake on this fine Sunday morning)... Mitt Romney signed into law a piece of legislation mandating employers to provide insurance or be fined, and mandating individuals to have health coverage, (similar to that of auto insurance mandates)... I believe the requirement is to be insured by July of 2007 or Mitt Romney comes door to door punching uninsured in the scrotum. Anyhow, how do you Massachusetts people like this? I have studied the plan among others similar to it in detail, and am quite impressed....

Not like auto insurance at all. You are only required to have liability auto insurance to protect the other person from loss in the event of an accident. Health insurance mandate requires you to have health insurance to protect you.

I don't live in MA and I haven't studied the program, but I'm not so sure this is such a good thing for several reasons. First, it will increase the cost of doing business for many small businesses. In turn they will have to raise prices to cover the increased cost. Some people who do not make very much money will now be forced to get insurance or pay higher taxes. Now, they will have less disposable income. I don't think the government should be in the business of mandating health insurance, but could work on making low cost health insurance available to those who want it. My 2 cents.

bum, i always thought that US employers that provided health insurence were paying for it too. well i guess it's not mandatory for the employee to sign up for their employer's health insurance scheme so they can shop around if they want to.

Several things here. First, employers do not have to provide any health insurance for the employees. Most larger companies do offer some type of health insurance and who pays varies. Some companies pay 100% of the cost of the employees insurance and the employee pays for his/her family's coverage. Other companies pay a portion of the employees’ premium and the employee pays the rest plus the family premium. Other companies do not pay any of the premiums; the employee pays the whole thing.

An employee can decline the insurance all together. I just declined the insurance from my company, as I am eligible for a government insurance program. My premiums are about $800.00 a year less for the government insurance and all the co-pays are less than the co-pays under the company insurance.

Not like auto insurance at all. You are only required to have liability auto insurance to protect the other person from loss in the event of an accident. Health insurance mandate requires you to have health insurance to protect you.

I don't live in MA and I haven't studied the program, but I'm not so sure this is such a good thing for several reasons. First, it will increase the cost of doing business for many small businesses. In turn they will have to raise prices to cover the increased cost. Some people who do not make very much money will now be forced to get insurance or pay higher taxes. Now, they will have less disposable income. I don't think the government should be in the business of mandating health insurance, but could work on making low cost health insurance available to those who want it. My 2 cents.

First, the tie to auto-insurance: it is similar in that is protects others from the cost of your treatment/repair... If everyone in Massachusetts is covered, the hospitals will be more willing to provide services, and services will first be submitted to the insurance, instead of the burden of paying for medical services being distributed not only to taxpayers, but to other hospital patients, who are forced to pay higher costs. In addition, this seems cost effective, as most (very high percentage to be more specific) of uninsured only get medical care in dire emergencies, thus, where an insured person could have caught an illness at an annual exam, if not prevented it outright, the uninsured wait until the minor illness becomes acute care, and then goes to the ER, which is the most expensive type of services. This makes a $50 procedure in a doctors office cost $2000 in an ER setting once the illness is advanced..

Second, you make a very valid point about the role of government in mandating insurance for citizens. I am quite conservative generally, and feel government should keep its hands out wherever possible. However, in this case, it seems there is a clear market failure, in regards to the fact that the market doesn't cover everyone, and in turn is driving up the cost of healthcare for those who did choose to purchase coverage. This is the tough part of the insurance problem, kind of a catch 22.

I just had to throw my 2 cents in. I work for a company in NJ where they offer insurance but I am wholly reponsible for it. I would have to pay for the whole thing and it's too expensive (roughly $500 a month, I think, for my wife and I....). I mean, what's the point? Apparently, I'm gonna pay one way or another....:headbang:

I think the fact that they're requiring you, on pain of fine, to purchase healthcare, whether you want it or not, is an absolutely terrible idea. That almost sounds like a nation category on NS: Compulsory consumerist state.

Hell, right now I have no need or desire for health insurance. I am healthy, and the worst illness I'll find myself getting is a cold, or maybe some allergies. Stuff I can find a cure for at CVS for 8 dollars for a million pills.

A sad day, it is not proper to FORCE employers to offer health care. As for an NHS I am fully against it, if you cannot afford healthcare I should NOT have to help pay for it out of MY pocket.

I just had to throw my 2 cents in. I work for a company in NJ where they offer insurance but I am wholly reponsible for it. I would have to pay for the whole thing and it's too expensive (roughly $500 a month, I think, for my wife and I....). I mean, what's the point? Apparently, I'm gonna pay one way or another....:headbang:

Well, if you end up in the hospital for 3 to 5 days, your hospital bill can exceed $20,000.00 plus all the docotr bills. However, if you are healthy...

Ahh, we have just pointed out the reason why people get insurance.... uncertainty... It may hurt to pay a couple hundred dollars a month for insurance, but ya never know if you are going to run up a $100,000 medical bill, which would hurt wayyyy worse if you were uninsured. Just like auto-insurance.. If you knew for a fact that you weren't going to get in an accident, or for that matter weren't going to get sick/injured, no one would have insurance...but we don't so insurance is a necessary evil.

A sad day, it is not proper to FORCE employers to offer health care. As for an NHS I am fully against it, if you cannot afford healthcare I should NOT have to help pay for it out of MY pocket.

You already are. :p

It's better than nothing, but it might hurt a lot of small businesses and low-paid workers.

What would be better would be a state health coverage programme paid for by taxes.

Why don't they just adopt a system like we have in Canada, where you're covered for basic care even if you don't have a job.

You already are. :p

very good point....I know it is a rough transition here in the U.S. but if we actually could get a national health insurance to cover the 46 million uninsured Americans, much less the 25 million or so underinsured, the cost on taxpayers would actually go DOWN....

A sad day, it is not proper to FORCE employers to offer health care. As for an NHS I am fully against it, if you cannot afford healthcare I should NOT have to help pay for it out of MY pocket.
So people deserve to die because of your greed?

Why don't they just adopt a system like we have in Canada, where you're covered for basic care even if you don't have a job.

ahh, the lovely Dakini has a response.... (long time no speak buddy) This is a popular sentiment, but in the U.S. there is debate as to what actually constitutes "minimum coverage" we have to learn to get along before we can make those simple decisions....

very good point....I know it is a rough transition here in the U.S. but if we actually could get a national health insurance to cover the 46 million uninsured Americans, much less the 25 million or so underinsured, the cost on taxpayers would actually go DOWN....

Exactly. The only difference between paying customers eating the cost of people who are sick and can't afford medical expenses and national health care is that the incentive for more frequent visits and preventative medicine instead of emergency medicine will increase. Sounds to me like a considerable savings.
Which is probably why so many pharmaceutical and health care organizations are against it. Why would they want to us to save money?

So people deserve to die because of your greed?

A better question is do I deserve to have my property taken to insure that someone I do not know does not die? Why should I after getting a good education and working hard have to give my hard earned money to someone who did not. I would not expect someone to fund me to keep me alive and well if I was to lose what money I have because I am willing to take responsibility for my actions. If I make a mistake and lose everything(or come close to losing everything as my father did) I will not depend on someone else.

Part of the collapse of the Heath Security Act of 1993 (under President Clinton) was the inability to work with private insurance companies. What is important is a public/private partnership, the Insurance companies such as United Healthcare and Aetna could actually benefit from this service, as they will be paying out less costly claims for the most part, but will take on higher administrative duties.

ahh, the lovely Dakini has a response.... (long time no speak buddy) This is a popular sentiment, but in the U.S. there is debate as to what actually constitutes "minimum coverage" we have to learn to get along before we can make those simple decisions....
Well, things like a doctor's visit a year, er trips, trips to walk in clinics... basically everything but perscriptions, elective surgery, eyeglasses and dentist trips are covered here. Well, they recently delisted physiotherapy and optometrist visits which was dumb.

A better question is do I deserve to have my property taken to insure that someone I do not know does not die? Why should I after getting a good education and working hard have to give my hard earned money to someone who did not. I would not expect someone to fund me to keep me alive and well if I was to lose what money I have because I am willing to take responsibility for my actions. If I make a mistake and lose everything(or come close to losing everything as my father did) I will not depend on someone else.

You make a very valid point: I too have worked hard, and am completing my masters thesis in Political Science (emphasis in Health Care Policy), and even though we earn every penny we make, we are unfortunately paying for the 46 million (and growing) uninsured Americans right now through higher prices and higher premiums, so this could in fact ensure access for all Americans, but save us money at the same time, believe it or not..

A better question is do I deserve to have my property taken to insure that someone I do not know does not die? Why should I after getting a good education and working hard have to give my hard earned money to someone who did not. I would not expect someone to fund me to keep me alive and well if I was to lose what money I have because I am willing to take responsibility for my actions. If I make a mistake and lose everything(or come close to losing everything as my father did) I will not depend on someone else.
Perhaps you fail to understand that it costs less in taxes to give basic health coverage to everyone than it does to only allow health coverage to those who can afford it.
i.e. less of your property is taken if everyone can see the doctor once a year.

Well, things like a doctor's visit a year, er trips, trips to walk in clinics... basically everything but perscriptions, elective surgery, eyeglasses and dentist trips are covered here. Well, they recently delisted physiotherapy and optometrist visits which was dumb.

You definitely have something going there Dakini, the problem here in the States is that the Chiropractic Lobby is HUGE, as are other lobbyist groups, and everyone claims their particular profession is a "needed" basic medical care..
That makes narrowing to a few select necessities difficult.. more so than in Canada, where the government plays more of a big brother role, and makes those decisions for you.

You definitely have something going there Dakini, the problem here in the States is that the Chiropractic Lobby is HUGE, as are other lobbyist groups, and everyone claims their particular profession is a "needed" basic medical care..
That makes narrowing to a few select necessities difficult.. more so than in Canada, where the government plays more of a big brother role, and makes those decisions for you.
Ha, chiropractors aren't covered here. And I don't know why a group would be pushing for their profession to be put on the list, I mean, more people will use it, but they'll get paid less per patient and can't barter their services for other services... like there are dentists who get their plumbing checked for free (or relatively cheap) in exchange for checking a plumber's teeth for relatively cheap or free.

It is just sheer numbers here....As to where Canada has a pretty large space for such few inhabitants, the US as a whole is to populated (just reached 300 million, woohooo) that the physicians make up for discounts with quantity. Plus, imagine if it were a public/private partnership where large private companies like United Health Care administered the insurance under government regulation. They currently have 70 million members (twice as many as Medicare) and would have no problem absorbing another 46 million, with very little additional administrative costs. Thus, they could afford to pay the physicians an agreed upon amount which is guaranteed, as to where the uninsured most likely arent going to pay AT ALL. Thus, there are lots of reasons to sign up for a profession.

A better question is do I deserve to have my property taken to insure that someone I do not know does not die? Why should I after getting a good education and working hard have to give my hard earned money to someone who did not. I would not expect someone to fund me to keep me alive and well if I was to lose what money I have because I am willing to take responsibility for my actions. If I make a mistake and lose everything(or come close to losing everything as my father did) I will not depend on someone else.

When you say you have a good education I presume you went to college. Did you receive any government grants while going to college?

Ha, chiropractors aren't covered here. And I don't know why a group would be pushing for their profession to be put on the list, I mean, more people will use it, but they'll get paid less per patient and can't barter their services for other services... like there are dentists who get their plumbing checked for free (or relatively cheap) in exchange for checking a plumber's teeth for relatively cheap or free.

Do they have to declair barter payments on their tax?

A better question is do I deserve to have my property taken to insure that someone I do not know does not die?
Yes, absolutely. The right to life is the most important right.

Why should I after getting a good education and working hard have to give my hard earned money to someone who did not.
I'm not in favour of so much tax that you will be impoverished.

BTW, sickness affects all people, not just the poor or uneducated.

When you say you have a good education I presume you went to college. Did you receive any government grants while going to college?
You think he would admit it at this stage?

A better question is do I deserve to have my property taken to insure that someone I do not know does not die?

Because in a society where people have some guarantee that they'll be helped and taken care of in their hour of need, they'll be less likely to want to take what's yours, for fear of their own future lack? Because there will be more people likely to help you at some point?

Heh... I'm suspecting that you don't really live in a society truly based on "every man for himself." And you'd probably find it very stressful, unless you are a _very_ unusual person.

Why should I after getting a good education and working hard have to give my hard earned money to someone who did not.

Okay, that's a two-parter:
A: Until college, your good education was paid for by someone other than yourself. You either had parents who paid for it on your behalf, or you went to a public school that someone you don't even know paid for. But yes, you did do the work inherent in being educated, and hopefully, you earned whatever degrees you have through good work and adequate comprehension. But even there, you'll have had lots of things that got you where you are without any basis in merit on your part, and that were given to you by other people, genetics, or the cirucmstances of your birth.

But let's say that your argument that the amount of work someone put into their own education has merit, and that someone who works hard at such should be deserving of health care.

I worked _very_ hard for the education I got. I attended public school for the most part, and it was pretty terrible, and since I actually wanted to learn things, I did it on my own time, with my own study. I went out of my way to learn my trade... several ones, actually. I went to school, and studied as an apprentice, and trained myself with my own time and money to be a programmer, a printer, a color seperator, and actually quite a few other things just because I wanted to know how to do them. I've learned a lot, and spent years doing it.

I don't have health care, and not only did I work a lot to educate myself, but any energy that got spent for my education, even if I "earned" it, came from somewhere. Every acre of food, and every pound of flesh, and ever gallon of fuel and every other resource I used while educating myself is wasted if I die and take my education, skills and talents with me. Multiply that by a lot of other people, and that's a lot of waste.

B: If working hard is a merit someone should have in order to be deserving of health care, I _am_ a hard worker. I regularly worked 14-16 hours days, five to six days a week, both for myself, and as time donated to my community. I'm a workaholic. But I worked my butt off, and now I'm sick, and I can't work any more.

Now see... while I _could_ make some kind of fluffy argument, that everyone deserves nice things just because they had the good graces to be born, and we should all be altrustic to everyone all the time just because it's nice... I'm not going to.

The fact is, sick people, even when they're taken care of poorly or not at all, still use up resources until they die, and even a little _when_ they die. And sick people are less able to give back to the very society that benefits you. They also make it more likely you'll get a disease, or suffer a shortage.

Some of them are even more likely to do desperate or selfish things, when they realize that nobody will be there for them, and that nobody cares.

And when groups, governments, or corporations can count on having any extra leverage over masses of people by controlling their basic needs, you can be _sure_ that in a society based on "every man for himself," that they will use that leverage in ways that ultimately endanger you too. Even if you're at the very top, someone will be looking to take what you have.

You can't base healthy, long-lasting societies, on short-term and selfish goals for a very few, that require highly-specialized skills and meta-skills to attain. What you'll get is a lot of people good at grabbing, shoving, and sneaking.

I would not expect someone to fund me to keep me alive and well if I was to lose what money I have because I am willing to take responsibility for my actions. If I make a mistake and lose everything(or come close to losing everything as my father did) I will not depend on someone else.

Sometimes what happens to you isn't a mistake. Sometimes when it does happen, it's not _your_ mistake. That's the danger of living in a society where you must cooperate with others. In my case, a guy who was a cheapskate refused to spend a few dollars on a part for a machine, and a few hundred dollars of a company budget on safety equipment that would have kept the broken part from vaporizing poisonous chemicals into the building and making people sick. This person also had a policy of paying people as little as he could get away with, using the desperation of others who were in bad straits as leverage, and convincing people that they were worthless, so that they'd put up with crap. He also was good at making sure people who worked for him _stayed_ in desperate straits, so that he didn't have to find better help. He was good at all this mean stuff... but the worst part was that he wasn't actually good at running the mechanics of the business, or allowing the people who made things happen to do so. So he ran the business at a loss (it was part of a state college, by the way... your tax dollars at work). He was an amazing example of someone who got wealthy by being good at screwing others, or his own company.

And he created a health problem for me, and possibly other people. Last I heard, he actually died of kidney failure as a result of the chemicals he exposed us all too. That seems like poetic justice, but it's of little comfort, since he's the main person who'd have to be subpeonaed if I even tried to get recompense. But he died rather well-off and financially secure.

My point is that in a social system where people can't depend on each other, and are encouraged to follow an every man for himself philosophy, you _encourage_ things like this, and make it less safe for everyone.

In a system where you reward people for being cooperative and supportive of one another, I think you get a lot less. At least that's how it's worked in my life. The main reason I'm not out on the street or dead or both, is because even though the people in my social circle are financially poor, we all help one another out. The people who took care of me were people who did so knowing that I'd either taken care of them, or would take care of them. They were people who knew that my benefit to them didn't end with how immediately useful I was at that moment, but how useful and meaningful I was to them already, and might be again.

But in short, the answer I have is basically, if you are a selfish person (note, I am not complaining if you are, selfishness in the right amount is a survival trait and is there for a reason), that the reason you should be willing to give up some of what you have, or have earned, or _think_ you're entitled to, is because society runs better that way, and is more likely to benefit you in ways that you may not even realize.

Also... everything that all of us has comes from the same place. Being good at grabbing more for yourself, or taking advantage of opportunities isn't necessarily the noblest of virtues, or the best long-term strategy for society as a whole.

And honestly, if you _really_ think that way, then you shouldn't be upset if someone ever _deliberately_ takes something that you'd like to have, and then claims they deserve it more because you couldn't stop them.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer not to live in a society where you have to step on people to get anywhere, or where you can't depend on anyone to help you when you need it. For one thing, I know what I do to people who try to step on me, and even though I'm _nicer_ than some, I'd hate to have done to me what I'd do to someone who deliberately tries to harm me.

I also know that it's a lot nicer to live in a society where you can have at least _some_ sense that if you trip and fall you won't be left to die in a ditch. And for me, being willing to pick someone else up out of a ditch is a very small price to pay.

But yes, I have to admit, I'm the sort of person who feels good about helping out someone else when I can anyway. I _am_ an altruistic person. That doesn't stop me from believing that a certain amount of altruism in society isn't also good business sense.

You think he would admit it at this stage?

We shall see. I think you know where I'm going.;)

Do they have to declair barter payments on their tax?
I have no idea.