I for one think it sucks ass that the government would REQUIRE me to spend $420 or more a month for health insurance, without offering any sort of reasonable alternative.

@dbeahn: I agree, one of the reasons I HATE NJ is its mandatory car insurance with no way of getting something thats low cost.

When you HAVE to have insurance, where is the incentive to make yours lower than the rest of theirs? You HAVE to have it, so they are all going to be similar in price, which is to say high.

@Falconfire: Huh? Just because people are required to have health insurance, doesn't mean they won't shop around for a better deal. After all, you're required to have auto insurance, but that doesn't make the rates any higher. Anyways, the way insurance works is the insurer makes money off people who have it and don't use it, so with more people having it, they will be more profitable and better able to lower their prices to compete.

@dbeahn: Agreed.

And what happens if you're unemployed? Or self-employed?

@ancientsociety:

There's supposedly ways to get government subsidies to get very low cost health insurance if you are unable to afford your own insurance.

*thankful I only have to contribute $20/pay period for my health insurance*

I like the concept of "you must have health insurance" but only if the government can provide it at reasonable rates and quality healthcare for EVERYONE. That means no $420 a month nor having to seen doctor's who are too busy to care or are overworked, etc. We should all have health insurance, but if you can't make it reasonable then don't fine me because I can't afford it.

I'm a temp. I live in Massachusetts.

Come tax time, I'm effed, and there's nothing I can do about it because I can't afford insurance.

This is the last thing Romney gave us before he left town. Thanks a lot, you Mormon douchebag.

I actually think this is a pretty good idea. Although, I am wondering how it is enforced?

With my Car insurance, a cop can ask for my proof of insurnace, or I get a ticket.

So....what happens if I get hit by a bus or something in Massachusets without an insurance card? Are you fined?

@ereusch:

Move. It's too fucking cold & expensive up there anyhow.

@B: actually in MA it does, auto insurance is regulated by the state, no matter who you go to it costs the exact same, the idea being that service is what sells. Since everyone charges the same friendly people stay in business crappy people don't. IF you read the fine print on geico, progressive, any of those discount ones its says available everywhere except MA, in one way its good, in others its bad. But in order to help low income people the state raised the limits on who qualifies for free health care from the state. I think if you earn less than 35k and aren't a student then you get it for free from the state, then its a percentage basis from there.

What will be really nice is when college is free here. There is a bill in the house now asking for all Community Colleges in the state to be free for MA residents. This is of course going to raise taxes they estimate it at $180M increase or about $30 a person, which would be fine by me to drop the cost of higher education. Consumerist you should research that and get other states on board to keep there ridiculous prices from going even higher.

Here's a link that can answer some of your questions

[www.boston.com]

Its a little Q&A that the Boston Globe ran back in June.

There is insurance available through the state and administered by blue cross and other hmo's across the state. So you do not need to be employed or have an employer to get insurance.

Affordability depends on your income. Below poverty level and it is free. A family making $51k - $70k a year and the cost will be $320 a month. An individual making $40k - $50k a year the cost is $300 a month.

But the insurance is decieving. It covers basic needs like infections, sprains, sore throats, the flu ect, prenatal care...

But if you find yourself diagnosed with cancer, or any other major illness, you will find that none of that is covered.

@ereusch: Oh god, I feel for you. I'm a temp as well. If I was in your shoes, I'd be moving out of state.

@bonzombiekitty: So, everyone else's money has to help pay for said insurance because I can't afford it. I'd feel too guilty about that.

And who REALLY profits from this law? If taxpayers have to foot the bill for others, every citizen has to pay their own way if they can, and all businesses have to provide it whether they can afford it or not....the only people benefitting from this law are the insurance companies.

The plans being offered appear to be affordable. There are subsidies based on income guideline (adjusted annually). For example, a family of 4 qualifies for a susbidy if they make less than $62,000.

It may also help to explain the penalty for individuals. (1) loss of the personal state income tax exemption for TY 2007 (around $250); (2) in subsequent years, a monthly fine equal to 50% of the least expensive plan premium. The penalties are enforced by the Dept. of Revenue as part of its oversight of tax returns.

I can't wait for the following post: "I'm healthy and my medical expenses are lower than the premiums I'd have to pay." Famous last words.

Given the nature of the penalty, I'm sure some people will realize that the penalty is less money (in the short term) than the premium and decide its a better deal to take their lumps than obtain insurance. The fact that this approach leaves them unprotected from a health catastrophe likely will not sink in -- until the car accident or the lump shows up (but, of course, how will the lump be detected in time if they're not getting regular checkups?)

Just in time for this not to be in "Sicko"

Shame really

@ancientsociety:
Well, other people are going to be paying for the uninsured one way or another. If Bob gets in a car accident and can't pay his medical bills, the hospital has to make up the expense somewhere along the line. This could be through programs that are already available via the government, or the hospital just charging other people more money.

I have the bloody luck of being in one of the 3 or so provinces that charges a premium for healthcare... But $44/month aint bad.

@B: yes but the insurance companies agree (without actually "agreeing" so as not ot get into trouble) to not drop below certain rates. So while you can shop around, your never going to get as good a rate as say another state, since they know going in you have to have it.

Look at the rates of a state that makes car insurance mandatory, versus a state where its not and compare it, 9 times out of 10 the state that doesn't make it mandatory has a rate far below the state that requires it. Why? Because in a state where you dont have to have insurance, they still want you to so they are going to lower their rate as much as possible to get you to bite.

I also live in Massachusetts, and I think it's a case of good intentions, poor execution. We want everyone to have health insurance, without a doubt. But this law requires insurance without doing enough to make sure it's affordable. There have already been stories on the news of people on a limited income (retirees, anyone?) where the subsidized rates are going to cost them a hefty chunk of their income. They're trying to figure out how to scale back everything else they pay for - food, rent, etc. to afford the insurance, or petition the state government for an exemption.

@Falconfire: "yes but the insurance companies agree (without actually "agreeing" so as not ot get into trouble) to not drop below certain rates. So while you can shop around, your never going to get as good a rate as say another state, since they know going in you have to have it."

In Mass. the auto rates are set by the state insurance commissioner, so it's not accurate to say that the companies are colluding on the price. Nevertheless, they benefit from higher than average rate under the regulated system.

Everyone needs health insurance, but is this the right way to do it?

If I read this right, someone who doesn't have enough money to afford health insurance, gets slapped with a fine? It's like kicking a quadriplegic for not walking.

If such a story is posted it would be wise to post more details inside the consumerist page. This plan has been around for a long time, I first heard about it in The Economist,

"To make the plan work, Massachusetts will offer a mix of penalties and subsidies. Individuals will be allowed to buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars, just as firms currently can. Those who don't will be penalised through the tax code, and then fined. At the same time, private insurers will receive subsidies to offer bare-bones insurance to those who cannot afford fancier packages." -"Health Care for Everyone" Apr 6, 2006 of The Economist

It's a novel idea and I for one am interested in seeing how it pans out. As the article states, with more healthy people in the pool (those who could afford it but are young and may decide not to) it could depress premiums. Small business will benefit from a health insurance "exchange" where they can shop for insurance plans that have already been approved by the state, this way they don't have to enter into complicated negotiations with insurers.

In a best case scenario, more people will see their doctors because they can before their problems become so serious as to make treatment impossible and/or costly. Maybe emergency rooms will deal with JUST real emergencies. It's optimistic, I know, but with enough of a push and education on the part of the government it is possible.

**but I also wish to add that if what AnitraSmith says is true, then it is too bad that the plan is failing on execution. If subsidized insurance is still too high for most people then what is the point, really?

@beyond: No joke. Hey, next we can reintroduce debtor's prison! That makes perfect sense!

Awesome. Government forcing people to do things is always the best way to go. You don't want health insurance? Too bad! You can't afford it? Don't worry, we'll make this guy who doesn't even want health insurance for himself pay even more to insure you!

Land of the free, baby.

As always, the correct answer is total and complete deregulation. Competition is the answer folks.

@Falconfire: They agree without agreeing? So they communicate by magical fairy dust then? From what I've seen the stats that have more regulations (like MA, for example) have higher rates, and it's only because those states with lots of regulations coorelate with those that require insurance. Of course, there is another link. In states that require insurance, nobody can be denied, which means people who would ordinarily be uninsurable now can get insurance. That's good for people with pre-existing conditions (such as bad drivers disease), but it'll cause the overall rates to go up.

Car insurance in MA is insane. I moved out here a year ago with a DUI from a few years ago, which made it almost impossible for me to get auto in Milwaukee. Well, I moved to MA and found out the good people of Massachusetts are so nice that the people with a good driving record are willing to pay a significant amount more in insurance so that people with terrible driving records like myself can pay a significant amount less that I would in a rational state.

Good drivers subsidizing bad drivers. I don't get why people call em Massholes (course, Teddy K needed to get himself insured somehow!)

What about those that are poor with preexisting conditions?

That would be a great idea of the state of Massachusetts was picking up the tab. Otherwise, it's government requiring you to have something very expensive..but requiring you to pay for it.

"Oh..well....we've also passed a new law saying you need to live in a 3-bedroom house with a pool. You'll be more comfortable and have lots more room." Sounds great and who wouldn't want a pool? Except..what if (on the off chance) you can't afford $350,000 (Mass price) for a 3-bedroom house and a pool? And guess what? A family in the Boston area making $50,000 a year is lucky if they can afford to eat (just in case somebody is not familiar with the cost of living in this area). Hmm..health insurance for the family..or food?

Nice job, Beacon Hill morons.

We need free or low-cost clinics where people can obtain health care at a price corresponding to what they can afford to pay, not Guido lurking around the corner ready to break your legs because you didn't fork over your $320 for insurance this month.

Wait...if you're working and you have an income, and the law requires you to fork over a certain amount money (regardless of how much or how little you benefit from it)...isn't this... a tax?

It's requirements like mandatory (and regulated) car insurance and mandatory health insurance (paid out-of-pocket by those that can barely afford it or subsidized by state taxes for those that really can't afford it) that is making Massachusetts the only state in the US that is actually losing population. I moved out last year and won't be back. When was the last time you heard of anything running better when government stepped in to regulate it? Certainly no program in Massachusetts I can think of.

Love or hate the plan, at least one state is trying to do something beyond bemoaning the high costs (and low satisfaction) of the current system.

A program such as this, despite its flaws, is well worth a try. Obviously our president is going to take any initiative on this one.

"That would be a great idea of the state of Massachusetts was picking up the tab. Otherwise, it's government requiring you to have something very expensive..but requiring you to pay for it."

Dwayne, where does the government get it's money? We pay for everything the government does.

Let's put it this way - the insurance debacle was the final nail in the coffin and I moved to New Hampshire. I encourage everyone in Massachusetts to do the same.

@dwayne_dibbly: $350K? Where in Massachusetts? When I moved because housing costs were insane, the three-bedroom across from the house where I grew up (no pool) was on the market for $375K. A couple of years later, a one-bedroom with a postage stamp of a yard in my old neighborhood went for that much.

The fact that this approach leaves them unprotected from a health catastrophe likely will not sink in -- until the car accident or the lump shows up (but, of course, how will the lump be detected in time if they're not getting regular checkups?)

@nequam: Yeah, but the cheapest health insurance isn't going to cover that anyway.

How does making poor people buy insurance that won't help them pay for the expensive stuff anyway help anyone?

@badlydrawnjeff: Umm... NO!!! Stay in Mass.. Honestly, us in NH are pretty much done with the mass migration, no pun intended...

Anyone in for a Socialist revolt?

@Zgeg: Already here, baby. You have a nice place, though.

Blah! In otherwords, Illegal immigrants (which are everywhere in MA) will get FREE HEALTHCARE, while Joe Taxpayer gets penalized. You would have thought those commies would have learned their lesson 30 years ago when they did the same to auto insurance. Guess what? Regulation= no competition= insanely high prices. When I lived in Mass it cost me over 2 grand a year to insure my daily driver toyota! I can only imagine a future budget for a mass resident looks like this: Housing %50 auto/health insurance %40 bowls of ramen soup %10.

I don't have health insurance because im self employed.

I'm 22, healthy, so why the hell do I need health insurance? It'd be nice but its not something im about to pay $400/mo for. I could start paying off a bmw if I had an extra $400 laying around. And that's something I can actually use!

Oh, and im in MA so im screwed, regardless. I'm moving to f'ing CT first chance I get.

oh and my car insurance is like $250/mo (no marks, no tickets) thanks to MA's insane car insurance laws.

I haven't been to a doctor in years. Why in the heck should I have to pay for your health problems? I'm glad I live in Florida.

One of the hallmarks of a free society is the ability to make good choices and bad choices. Massachusetts is eliminating an individaul's ability to make a concious decision not to have health insurance and accept the risk of getting sick or injured.

Instead they are initially compelling people to get health insurance or face a tax penalty next time they file their taxes. In the following years it changes to an actual fine (if I recall correctly).

This effectively becomes a government penalty for living - even though there is no direct or potential harm to anyone else if you do not get injured or become very sick.

@evanchsa: CC swipers to be issued with every EMT team!

If you're too poor or stubborn to pay for health care you should be required by law to carry on your person a Do Not Assist card. That way no medical care whatsoever shall be given to you. EMT 2 feet away and you're slowly bleeding out? Sucks to be you, cheapo.

.
.
    This law bugs the crap out of me for a LOT of reasons! Oh boy! Where to start?

    First, auto insurance is a different category. We're taught that driving is a privilege. Thus, the state can license it, and make whatever requirements they see fit on it. There is no "right to drive." There IS a right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The State of Massachusetts is now declaring that you MUST insure it. Totally different, and WAY off base. I can't imagine how this will pass court challenges...

    A LOT of the cost of health benefits problems would GO AWAY if doctors and health establishments were required to CHARGE THE SAME PRICE for any service rendered, regardless of the coverage of the patient. Instead, we've got sweetheart deals for the big insurance companies and their huge bases of insured folk, and the average guy on the street pays through the nose if he has no insurance!

    Oh, broken leg? Your co-pay is $50. Chances are the hospital gets another hundred, maybe, from the insurance company, who takes their sweet time paying off. Maybe, even, enough time for the hospital to start dunning you..

    Meanwhile, an uninsured person rolls in with the same broken leg, and the hospital charges him tens of thousands. Sure, if the guy doesn't have insurance, they won't get that much in the end, but they'll get anything the guy does have...

    In my opinion, everyone should be charged the same. If you go to a grocery store to buy hamburger, the store charges everyone the same price. It's "take it or leave it." Why not in medicine?

    Name one other thing that EVERYONE in the USA is REQUIRED to buy, just because they exist? (No, paying taxes isn't BUYING something... And that's a different argument for another time!)

@triple:
I'm 22, healthy, so why the hell do I need health insurance? It'd be nice but its not something im about to pay $400/mo for. I could start paying off a bmw if I had an extra $400 laying around. And that's something I can actually use!

Oh, and im in MA so im screwed, regardless. I'm moving to f'ing CT first chance I get.

So you're 22 and healthy -- good for you. Hope it lasts. Hope you don't end up like my friend who was diagnosed with MS weeks before her 25th bday. She's really lucky she had health insurance before her diagnosis, because she sure as hell wouldn't be able to get it now.

I feel bad for people who are faced with the choice of buying health insurance or putting food on the table. Don't look for sympathy from me (or anyone) when you wreck that $400/month BMW and your medical expenses exceed any payout from your car insurance.

And if you're looking for a place with a low cost of living, it ain't Connecticut.

Republican governor did this? That surprises me, until I stop to think that this is really a boon to the insurance companies. Imagine legislation whereby you're guaranteed customers!

This was the big problem with Hillary Clinton's plan, too. No one wants to propose a single-payer system because with would squeeze out the insurance companies who are really just middlemen in such a system. I really, really, really hate to admit this, but what we need is a single payer system that covers a limited set of basics, but yet *not* outlaw private insurance so that we don't get a crappy system