Thiebear Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060404/ap_on_he_me/massachusetts_health_4 Partial Quote By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer Tue Apr 4, 6:49 PM ET BOSTON - Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill Tuesday that would make Massachusetts the first state to require that all its citizens have some form of health insurance. ADVERTISEMENT The plan — approved just 24 hours after the final details were released — would use a combination of financial incentives and penalties to dramatically expand access to health care over the next three years and extend coverage to the state's estimated 500,000 uninsured. If all goes as planned, poor people will be offered free or heavily subsidized coverage; those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage; and those already insured will see a modest drop in their premiums. The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee. The cost was put at $316 million in the first year, and more than a $1 billion by the third year, with much of that money coming from federal reimbursements and existing state spending, officials said. The House approved the bill on a 154-2 vote. The Senate endorsed it 37-0 So now we just have to let Chomerics and them pay for this a couple of years and see how it goes... I'm guessing by year 3 (700 million)... Lets see: 500,000 uninsured / 385,000,000 = 730 a year or 60.8 bucks a month.. (state will have to kick in another 900 million for 212$ish to make it more realistic, i know I'm paying 360 for a family of 3) Mass is 4% higher than the average state in insured already (2000): Then you have the 300% or >48k with no deductible: (80% of the State?) Low- and moderate-income families did not fare nearly as well during this span. The average annual income for families in the middle of the income distribution climbed from $41,612 for 1980-82 to $58,383 for 2001-03 4 million people no longer have to pay a deductible? 12 million visits * 55$ = 660 million absorbed doctor vists? or say 25$ copay: 300 million then theres the emergency room visit: and ambulance fee: 960,000 * 350 = 385 million absorbed ER visits or say 125$ copay: 120,000 50.00 copay for ambulance.... figure 300k of those.... https://www.healthy.net/aipm/store/CategoryInfo.asp?CatCode=2&SubCatCode=0 Total Number of Doctor Visits Last Year - 829 million (about 3 visits per person) Average Doctor Visit cost - $55.00 Total Number of E.R. Visits Last Year - 75 million or 8%ish of doctors visits.. Average E.R. Visit Cost - $360.00 I don't know: Seems like the number is going to be WAY higher than what they expect.... EDIT: MY fault I thought it was 300k uninsured and its 500k uninsure so lets up the numbers by 200k.. hold on . O.K. I'm guessing the State will kick in 900 million the 1st year without factoring in the no deductible... My math skills arnt the greatest so..... 1.2 billion overall.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 I saw "Mandatory Health Bill" and I thought "Wow! They're finally going to make it illegal to be a lardbutt, or a smoker, or . . . " Or maybe, they're just going to make it illegal to get sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 This is among the most disgusting pieces of legislation I have ever seen in my life. Medical Insurance is a PRIVLEDGE, NOT A RIGHT!!!!!!! To put in place a law that REQUIRES people to provide health insurance for all their employees and that would REQUIRE all citizens to pay for insurance if they can is DISGUSTING!!!! What's even more despicable is the idea that even more money is going to be stolen from me in the way of taxes to pay to insure those people who can't pay for it themselves. Just a further proof that this is the COMMUNISTwealth of Massachusetts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 This will be interesting to watch. The health insurance problem isn't going to fix itself and having an individual state basically test one suggested option allowing the nation to study it is great. Even if it falls flat we'll be able to study the positive and negative results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 This will be interesting to watch. The health insurance problem isn't going to fix itself and having an individual state basically test one suggested option allowing the nation to study it is great. Even if it falls flat we'll be able to study the positive and negative results. How about this.... Positive Rseults: NONE Negative Results: Expansion of the Welfare State. Expansion of "Rights" vs. "Privledges". Increased burden on businesses and taxpayers. And I've needed less than 3 hours from the time I heard this was passed to figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 How about this....Positive Rseults: NONE Negative Results: Expansion of the Welfare State. Expansion of "Rights" vs. "Privledges". Increased burden on businesses and taxpayers. And I've needed less than 3 hours from the time I heard this was passed to figure it out. I'm more interested in seeing the effect this has on the healthcare industry as a whole. As it stands people without health insurance are unable or put off seeing a doctor and end up in emergency rooms they can't afford. Hospitals suffer and tax payers eventually get the bill. You may be happy with the current system but IMO it's failing and something needs to be done. Is this the solution? I'm leaning towards no but I'm eager to see it's effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Mass Skins Fan, why do you live in the People's Republik of Massachusetts anyway? Seriously. Politically, this state is just about the worst in the country for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Mass Skins Fan, why do you live in the People's Republik of Massachusetts anyway?Seriously. Politically, this state is just about the worst in the country for you. I'll answer this quickly, and try to keep the thread as on-track as possible... I'm a New Englander. I was born and raised in Connecticut. Parts of my family have been living there for over 250 years. I went to college in Rhode Island. I moved back to Connecticut after college (1994) and then to Massachusetts when I changed jobs in 1998. I love the history and feel of the whole region. I'm not a big fan of the winter weather, but I've learned to deal with it. I have visited a number of other areas of the country and love several of them. The Southeast is truly a personal favorite area of mine. Unfortunately, what I would get paid for the same sort of work I do now is considerably less than what I get paid now. Largely it's financial issues and having lived here my entire life that keep me here in the Northeast. The other issue being that I currently live with friends of mine who would not relocate outside New England and I would have to cover all the expenses myself or bring in a roommate who I didn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 MSF, on the plus side, the southeast has much lower living expenses then up here, probably why the wages seem lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Where this might help a lot is the area of prevention. So many wait until they are very ill and the problems are very severe... medically treating them is far more costly when you catch the problems late. Think cancer, think how much money and how many lives would be saved if most cancer was caught in stage one versus stage three. Think how much money might be saved if emergency rooms weren't used as a primary health care provider. This is probably one of my more liberal areas of thought, but I simply don't believe if you see someone sick or dying you should turn your back. We're a powerful and rich enough nation to ensure that everyone deserves equal opportunity and that should include healthcare. Should a bank account determine worthiness of a transplant? This is one of the reasons that I think the Christian Conservatives are hypocrites. A good christian wouldn't let someone die on their doorstep because if they didn't it would cost them a few extra pennies or dollars, but effectively that's the argument. I'm against providing universal healthcare because I will get financially pinched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 yeah, but where this hurts, is there are a bunch of hypochondriacs in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 I'm more interested in seeing the effect this has on the healthcare industry as a whole. As it stands people without health insurance are unable or put off seeing a doctor and end up in emergency rooms they can't afford. Hospitals suffer and tax payers eventually get the bill. You may be happy with the current system but IMO it's failing and something needs to be done. Is this the solution? I'm leaning towards no but I'm eager to see it's effects. Let's get one thing straight real quick.... There is no Right to medical insurance or health care. There never has been, and there never will be in my mind. You are right that the taxpayers already end up picking up the tab for emergency room care provided to people without insurance, since in Massachusetts an ER cannot turn ANYONE away. The hospitals probably don't get paid what they're really due for those services. Personally, I'd rather go the opposite direction of this new law and allow PRIVATE hospitals to deny service to those who can't pay for it or have coverage. Public hospitals area obviously a different deal. I'm not eager to see the results of this because I can already see what they will be... an increase in government involvement in business, a new "Right" for people, and an increase in taxes to pay for the program. None of which do I believe are good things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 This is probably one of my more liberal areas of thought, but I simply don't believe if you see someone sick or dying you should turn your back. We're a powerful and rich enough nation to ensure that everyone deserves equal opportunity and that should include healthcare. Should a bank account determine worthiness of a transplant? This is one of the reasons that I think the Christian Conservatives are hypocrites. A good christian wouldn't let someone die on their doorstep because if they didn't it would cost them a few extra pennies or dollars, but effectively that's the argument. I'm against providing universal healthcare because I will get financially pinched. I can agree with you to a certain degree. Obviously it would be wonderful if medical services were available to everyone. My problem is with the GOVERNMENT providing funding for these services and telling private entities that THEY have to provide the services. If you want to open a hospital/clinic and make services available to anyone who walks through the door, that's great. That's your choice. It's not the government's place to tell private businesses that they have to provide services to people who can't pay for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 I can agree with you to a certain degree. Obviously it would be wonderful if medical services were available to everyone. My problem is with the GOVERNMENT providing funding for these services and telling private entities that THEY have to provide the services. If you want to open a hospital/clinic and make services available to anyone who walks through the door, that's great. That's your choice. It's not the government's place to tell private businesses that they have to provide services to people who can't pay for them. Says who? Moral codes from religion tell us to help our fellow man, and that includes health right? Well as you know our government was built on traditional Christian values so basically the government is required to do this. Remember, there is no difference between law and morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Says who? Moral codes from religion tell us to help our fellow man, and that includes health right? Well as you know our government was built on traditional Christian values so basically the government is required to do this. Remember, there is no difference between law and morality. You've taken a little bit of a leap there that the Constitution actually specifically discusses.... Please find "medical care" for me in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution (where the 18 powers of the Federal Government are listed). I'll tell you right now, you won't find it. Something tells me that you won't find it in the Massachusetts Constitution either. Medical care is a personal/community issue, not a governmental one. It always has been and always should be. For the government to get (even more) involved in it is disgusting and illegal in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 I think that's the primary difference in what makes us think of ourselves as liberal or conservative. In my worldview part of the job of government is to protect the little guy because he's defenseless. Thus, if the little guy is hurt or needs a hand it's okay if the government steps in. That's why I think everyone deserves a free education. That's why I think everyone deserves police protection. That's why I think if private citizens/churches/nonprofits fail to provide these clinics then the government can help, either by incentives to help make these places appear or by providing them. That's why I don't think insurance or bank account should determine what course of treatment plan a hospital or doctor should follow. There are secondary factors that make a person a greater risk, but having insurance shouldn't be the controlling factor if someone lives or dies. Conservatives also want to help the little guy and provide opportunity for him/her. They just define it differently. Helping the little guy has little to do with shielding him from bullies or teaching him skills, but rather (and you may be better at filling in the blank here) by making sure he has more of his resources to individually pursue his own goals. The difference I guess is that some of us focus more on "United" and others on "States" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Do the numbers take into account illegal immigrants? Are they exempt from free health care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 I think that's the primary difference in what makes us think of ourselves as liberal or conservative. In my worldview part of the job of government is to protect the little guy because he's defenseless. Thus, if the little guy is hurt or needs a hand it's okay if the government steps in. That's why I think everyone deserves a free education. That's why I think everyone deserves police protection. That's why I think if private citizens/churches/nonprofits fail to provide these clinics then the government can help, either by incentives to help make these places appear or by providing them. That's why I don't think insurance or bank account should determine what course of treatment plan a hospital or doctor should follow. There are secondary factors that make a person a greater risk, but having insurance shouldn't be the controlling factor if someone lives or dies.Conservatives also want to help the little guy and provide opportunity for him/her. They just define it differently. Helping the little guy has little to do with shielding him from bullies or teaching him skills, but rather (and you may be better at filling in the blank here) by making sure he has more of his resources to individually pursue his own goals. Very well written, Burgold. I think it might be a little off, but it's very close and very much on point. Here's where we differ... As a Conservative I believe that every American citizen should have the OPPORTUNITY to make the absolute most of themselves that they can. No citizen should be held back and told they can't use their time, money and energy to try and better themselves in whatever way they want. Where I stop is at the idea that the Government should ensure the RESULTS of those opportunities. Especially when the results are guaranteed by holding other people back to level the playing field or tip it in favor of certain people based on their race, gender or other social affiliation. Which is how I see the Liberal viewpoint. In the United States we're supposed to have the right and opportunity to improve our station in life. We don't have the guarantee that it's always going to work out for the best, most successful potential ending. That's the reason that I idolize men like Ben Franklin, Sam Colt, and Bill Gates. They made themselves into what they are. They didn't whine or complain about competition. They made better products and reaped the rewards of it. THAT'S what America is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 This is among the most disgusting pieces of legislation I have ever seen in my life. Medical Insurance is a PRIVLEDGE, NOT A RIGHT!!!!!!! To put in place a law that REQUIRES people to provide health insurance for all their employees and that would REQUIRE all citizens to pay for insurance if they can is DISGUSTING!!!! What's even more despicable is the idea that even more money is going to be stolen from me in the way of taxes to pay to insure those people who can't pay for it themselves. Just a further proof that this is the COMMUNISTwealth of Massachusetts Bet you wouldn't be saying that if someone you loved was dying and you couldn't afford to save their life. Privledge? That's the most selfsish thing I've ever read on this board. And I've been here for a while, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 I think that's the primary difference in what makes us think of ourselves as liberal or conservative. In my worldview part of the job of government is to protect the little guy because he's defenseless. Thus, if the little guy is hurt or needs a hand it's okay if the government steps in. That's why I think everyone deserves a free education. That's why I think everyone deserves police protection. That's why I think if private citizens/churches/nonprofits fail to provide these clinics then the government can help, either by incentives to help make these places appear or by providing them. That's why I don't think insurance or bank account should determine what course of treatment plan a hospital or doctor should follow. There are secondary factors that make a person a greater risk, but having insurance shouldn't be the controlling factor if someone lives or dies.Conservatives also want to help the little guy and provide opportunity for him/her. They just define it differently. Helping the little guy has little to do with shielding him from bullies or teaching him skills, but rather (and you may be better at filling in the blank here) by making sure he has more of his resources to individually pursue his own goals. The difference I guess is that some of us focus more on "United" and others on "States" There problem is that the little guy is usually little for a reason. I have a relative who completely goofed off in high school and then got fired from his K-Mart wharehouse job because he failed a drug test. Why should I have to help pay for his health care (or anything else for that matter)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 There problem is that the little guy is usually little for a reason.I have a relative who completely goofed off in high school and then got fired from his K-Mart wharehouse job because he failed a drug test. Why should I have to help pay for his health care (or anything else for that matter)? That's one person, man. They're are 300,000,000 people in this country and not all of them dropped out of high school and failed a drug test at K-Mart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 That's one person, man. They're are 300,000,000 people in this country and not all of them dropped out of high school and failed a drug test at K-Mart. I think you know what I'm saying though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Haven't you heard... it's a "Right" to have health insurance, a driver's license, a job, a home, and food on the table. See Democratic Platform Pillar. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 So, you would completely write off a relative, decide he is worthless, beyond redemption and let him die in a gutter for the lack of the abiltiy to buy a antibiotic to stop an infection? I think that human life is worth more than the money in my wallet... especially family. I guess it's just a difference in philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 I think you know what I'm saying though. Of course I do, they're lazy people in this country, no doubt. You understand what I'm saying though, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.