Massachusetts, Vermont take steps toward near-universal health coverage

[LilOlLady]

Massachusetts, Vermont take steps toward near-universal health coverage

The statewide programs are similar, but Vermont has a specific insurance plan. Experts worry about long-term funding.
by Erin Boyle

Massachusetts and neighboring Vermont are venturing into the vast, unknown territory of near-universal health care coverage for uninsured residents who cannot afford private coverage. Their programs mix private insurance plans with government subsidies and administration.

Massachusetts has no specific insurance plan in place yet, but Vermont has laid out one government-subsidized private offering: Catamount Health. To emphasize the privatized element of the plan, Vermont Gov. James Douglas vowed to veto the program unless private insurers ran Catamount.
Unlike Vermont, Massachusetts is requiring all residents to have insurance by July 1, 2007, or face stiff penalties. Residents who do not buy insurance will lose their personal state tax exemption in 2007 and, in following years, face fines equaling 50% of monthly health insurance costs for each month without coverage. Those unable to find an affordable plan will be able to get waivers.

Story continues below↓

http://www.orthosupersite.com/view.aspx?rid=17758

 

[daveman]

Haven't they learned anything from the failure of MassCare?

 

[gekaap]

That link is dated 2006. Any update on how the situation actually turned out for the present?

 

[LilOlLady]

Massachusetts health care system killing insurance companies?Posted by Kim Priestap

Published: April 6, 2010 - 8:29 PM


The healthier citizens are forgoing insurance and are paying the fine instead, which is as low as $93 a month. The $93 a month fine is supposed to be the penalty for not buying insurance, but many people have figured out that the real penalty is the unnecessary $400 a month insurance premium. Naturally, they're buying the insurance only when they know they have an expensive medical procedure in their immediate future or when they get sick or injured. It should not be a surprise to anyone that the insurance companies are bleeding money as a consequence and that their only option is to increase premiums to try to make the additional revenue to pay the claims that are piling up.
Part of my prediction is already happening in Massachusetts. The Boston Globe published an article a couple days ago that reported people are gaming the system and buying health insurance only when they need expensive procedures or tests and then quickly dropping it after their medical procedures have been paid for by insurance companies:

Thousands of consumers are gaming Massachusetts' 2006 health insurance law by buying insurance when they need to cover pricey medical care, such as fertility treatments and knee surgery, and then swiftly dropping coverage, a practice that insurance executives say is driving up costs for other people and small businesses.
In 2009 alone, 936 people signed up for coverage with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts for three months or less and ran up claims of more than $1,000 per month while in the plan. Their medical spending while insured was more than four times the average for consumers who buy coverage on their own and retain it in a normal fashion, according to data the state's largest private insurer provided the Globe.


Massachusetts health care system killing insurance companies? (Wizbang)

 

[LilOlLady]

How is Mass healthcare system different from Obamacare and why is it not unconstitutional for Mass to mandate citizens to buy healthcare are pay a fine?

 

[FA_Q2]

How is Mass healthcare system different from Obamacare and why is it not unconstitutional for Mass to mandate citizens to buy healthcare are pay a fine?

It may be because it is a state measure and not a federal one but the glaring thing here is that the USSC has not ruled on Obama care yet so there is no ruling to declare it unconstitutional. Same as the national plan. At this point, it is not technically unconstitutional. If the USSC says otherwise, that could change.

 

[Bern80]

How is Mass healthcare system different from Obamacare and why is it not unconstitutional for Mass to mandate citizens to buy healthcare are pay a fine?

It may be because it is a state measure and not a federal one but the glaring thing here is that the USSC has not ruled on Obama care yet so there is no ruling to declare it unconstitutional. Same as the national plan. At this point, it is not technically unconstitutional. If the USSC says otherwise, that could change.

Even if the SC ruled it unconstitutional, it would still be legal for states to implement such a system. A state can do anything that is not expressly prohibited by the U.S. constitution or its own state constitution.

 

[Claudette]

Doesn't look like its working very well for either State.

We all know Obamacare will be better though done we???

 

[FA_Q2]

Lol

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

why is it not unconstitutional for Mass to mandate citizens to buy healthcare are pay a fine?

It is astounding how many people continue to stupidly ask this question. If this doesn't exemplify the failure of public education in this country, I don't know what does. It's no wonder we have such shitty representatives in the government considering the ignorance of the people voting for them.