Mass. law about to take effect - some interesting points

[J.R.]

I see this all the time, if you have interest in something some like the idea of others being force into compliance. Nothing new under the sun, our freedoms to some is only as deep as one's pocketbook and their moral superioty.

Auto insurance is used to cover the banks 6 o'clock.
Homeowner's insurance is used to cover the banks 6 o'clock
PMI is also used to protect the banks 6 o'clock.
HEALTH INSURANCE is used to protect an individual/families 6 o'clock.

One thing that I have no tolerance for is people who complain and bitch about things, and when the S$#T hits the fan they look to any source as the culprit. This is party due to cognitive dissonance in psychology terminology (found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

Mass. is requiring individuals to take responsibility for their actions and I fully support that idea. Case in point, back when I was a teenager I only had liability on my 1st car and totalled it 2 months later. I spent about $2000 of my own money and borrowed the rest from a family member. My father told me when I bought my car to get full coverage or at least collision, but did I listen? HELL NO? I justified my actions because of my ignorance and my anger towards how high full coverage would have cost me and the lack of money I had at the time.

The simple screwup cost me over $6000 and I was 17 at the time. I picked the cheapest route and paid for it dearly. I am sure I could have found a way to sue somebody to pay my bills, but that would have been unethical and wrong.

I do have full coverage now because it is a requirement of the bank and can guarantee you that once that loan is paid off in a few months, it is back down to the state minimum and I will invest the difference. The key is to live well below your means and save and invest the difference. I drive a lovely 1995 lincoln towncar w/ 144,000 miles on it and I hope I can get to 250,000 before I have to buy another car. I will continue to drive that car until it dies on the road, at which point I will call a friend for a ride to a local dealership and I will make a sales rep very happy that day.

 

[James]

Auto Insurance mandated laws are base on the idea of financial concerns of others using what the government is claiming as their's, now obviously I would suggest that is wrong headed but it is what it is. Such as the helmet laws, which isn't as pure as the driven snow as some make it out to be. Government is claiming that they have power over public domain such as Roads.

Homeowners is not required by law but by the people lending you money.

Workmen Comp., is mandated upon the employer.

Yet Health care while being a good bet is loaded and won't work quite the way a lot of people have a mindset it will. First, you have such as this new law states penalties for the individual such as in Auto Liability yet I don't see how the State is justifying this, unless they are attempting to say that health now falls under public domain? If that is where they are standing than "sucking up" is something I don't fear on having to do. It is Mass. and those that agree with such that is going to be doing the sucking up.

For the life of me I don't see where in the Constitution that financial responsibility is mandated upon the individual? This is nothing more than another step for those that do not like a free society. I also take serious exception to the 300% over poverty, just another money grab! Why should others pay for your's or their health insurance? Since the 300% above mark was reach obviously not to offend the mass of voters, in fact I'm sure the idea is there simply isn't enough people above that dollar amount as to influence a serious political back lash at the voters box.

New Constitutional Admendment, Admendment 25 "Give Me Give Me!"

 

[Steve]

But the fact is, by not having health insurance one can create a burden upon the government, the taxpayers, and upon those that accept responsibility and purchase health insurance.

If the government is paying now, they should be able to govern your responsibility now.

I'm all for less government involvement, but it's these ***holes that aren't (but could) make responsible decisions that are destroying the system as it stands today. Make 'em play fair!

 

[somarco]

Failure to comply will mean a $295 per employee assessment

The penalty is not severe enough to force compliance. I can see many employers paying the $295 and thumbing their nose at the law.

This law has a lot of problems. The latest one is the carriers are unable to provide the minimum mandated coverage levels (individual insurance) for the budgeted $200/month premium the legislators counted on.

Seems the premium calculated by carriers is closer to $380.

The state has told the carriers to go back & refigure.

http://insureblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/square-peg-round-hole.html

Boston, we have a problem . . .

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Believe it or not James, a lot of your points are very valid. The question really isn't whether or not states can force people to pay for their own coverage - the real question is where could it end?

I am indeed a fan of personal freedom - but let's go the exact opposite directly any make everything an option - car, workers comp, etc...

I say all or nothing. Let employers and employees decide if they want to be covered by workers comp. Let me decide if I want auto insurance. If I speed and cause an accident then that's on me. I can be sued and get my wages garnished forever. I can have car payments, get my car stolen and now I'm on the hook to keep paying the loan. Isn't that MY risk?

I, like you, wonder how the Mass. goverment is directly impacted by someone choosing to not have coverage. If they get ill they either don't get treated or the hospital takes everything they own.

Just looking at both sides here.

 

[J.R.]

For the life of me I don't see where in the Constitution that financial responsibility is mandated upon the individual? This is nothing more than another step for those that do not like a free society. I also take serious exception to the 300% over poverty, just another money grab! Why should others pay for your's or their health insurance? Since the 300% above mark was reach obviously not to offend the mass of voters, in fact I'm sure the idea is there simply isn't enough people above that dollar amount as to influence a serious political back lash at the voters box.

I think the core issue is that there are some individuals who view health care as being a right, not a privilege. I, for one, am very happy about the changes Bush made to the bankruptcy law last year (thanks for the link Kris), and upon further review of it, it seems as though it will teach people to ACCEPT responsibility for their actions.

If people need to be penalized for not taking responsibility then so be it. I always advocate the education should be the focal point. If Mass. wants to make health insurance coverage mandatory, then they should also require people to take classes pertaining to parenting, finance and health care utilization. Some continuity about health care costs would also be nice, but I am at a lose as to how that could be implemented.

 

[James]

http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/news-cms/news/?dept=1368&id=41562

Population: The state’s population crossed 6.4 million in 2003, but has dropped steadily since – a net loss of 60,000 people in 2004-05. This exodus is driven by people between 25 and 44; between 2000 and 2005, 5.6 percent or 110,497 people in this group left the state.

So lets fix this problem that stems from the cost of doing business in Mass and the housing cost is too high. So lets pass this H/C Mandate! LOL, oh yea I can see where this is leading. Mass will be the next State to file for Bankruptcy!

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Well there's no doubt at all that every governor in the country will have their eyes glued on Mass. over the next few years. I don't think there will be a lot of middle ground - it'll either be a success or a clusterf***


And by the way, they aren't just making insurance mandatory - they are also setting rules for the insurance companies regarding maximum deductibles and limitations on benefits:


"The proposed standards would require insurance plans to provide "reasonably comprehensive coverage," including primary care, emergency services, hospitalization benefits, mental health services, and prescription drugs. The proposed standards would limit annual out-of-pocket expenses to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family and hold deductibles to no higher than $2,000 per individual and $4,000 per family. The board also proposed that the plans cover generic drugs and three medical visits per individual before the deductible kicks in. Insurers would not be allowed to set limits on coverage per sickness, year, or lifetime, nor could they set a dollar maximum for any medical service"

 

[James]

And by the way, they aren't just making insurance mandatory - they are also setting rules for the insurance companies regarding maximum deductibles and limitations on benefits:

LOL, oh yea! The State is involved in running insurance companies, that really inspires confidence!

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Failure to comply will mean a $295 per employee assessment

The penalty is not severe enough to force compliance. I can see many employers paying the $295 and thumbing their nose at the law.

. . .

But now they have some 'splain to do to their employees. The employees would now get to confront the owner and ask why they don't have coverage since the law took effect. Now the owner comes off looking like a douchebag and loses the respect of the employees - especially if said owner has a nice fat S-class, huge house and a boat. The employees now see him as a law-breaker and someone willing to pay a fine instead of offering coverage. And there goes your workforce.

And how does that employer hire? Say that employee size is 20 and a newbie gets a job. He's all excited to see the health package but the empoyers says "Nah, I don't comply. I just pay the fine instead - it's cheaper." Well, there goes your hiring ability.

You also have your peer group. They're all complying and you're not so now you're an outcast in the small business community.

Also, would an employee now be able to sue that employer? After all, the employer is violating a law and thereby denying coverage. Sounds like a great civil case.