http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/28/...C-SearchStories
Must-Have Health Insurance
(CBS) A CBS News/New York Times poll this week shows deep worries about health care. Almost two-thirds of Americans are very concerned about their medical costs.
President Bush plans to make some new proposals in his State of the Union address Tuesday. But some states aren't waiting, reports CBS News correspondent Trish Regan.
Chris Raymond is a bartender in Boston. He makes between $600-800 a week. But like 45 million other Americans, he has no health insurance.
"It's just a huge chunk of money for me to just throw into something that I may not really need," he says.
And as a 29-year-old single guy, he says, there are better things for him to do with his money.
"Skiing," he says. "I love to ski."
But state governments across the country are realizing that people like Chris Raymond, who can afford health insurance but choose to go without, are costing them billions of dollars.
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has come up with an innovative proposal to combat that: he wants to require every citizen in the state to buy health insurance.
"What the government is saying is, 'no more can you turn and put your cost of health insurance and health care on everybody else.' You have a personal responsibility to either pay for your own health care yourself, or buy an insurance policy, but no more just showing up at the hospital and saying, 'I can't pay, make someone else pay for me,'" Gov. Romney says.
Romney says forcing people to have insurance is fair.
"In my state, you can't drive a car on our roads unless you have automobile insurance, because we don't want people getting in accidents and expecting someone else to pay for their car and for their health," he says. "Same way with our citizens that don't have health insurance."
Under his plan, you must either buy insurance through your employer, or the government. If you can't afford it, the government will subsidize a plan for you.
"My plan allows people to get health insurance for as little as $2.30 a week. Everybody can buy insurance," he says.
But, for this to be successful, it must get past a mostly Democratic legislature. They want to require employers to offer insurance – not the government. Companies that don't comply will face a tax.
"If you're not gonna have insurance for your employees, that's bad behavior and that should have an assessment on it," says Speak of the House Salvatore DiMasi.
Governor Romney insists that his plan would not require any tax increases. But over time, as health care costs continue to skyrocket, critics say taxpayers could wind up footing the bill.
Full Version: Health Insurance Or Else In Mass.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/21/...in1060973.shtml
Health Insurance Or Else In Mass.
For thousands of families here struggling to make ends meet, the difficult decision of whether to buy health insurance may soon get easier: They won't have a choice.
Under two major proposals that aim to cover the estimated half million uninsured in Massachusetts, the state would require all residents who can afford it to purchase some type of individual plan or face penalties, such as losing their driver's licenses.
Massachusetts joins a growing number of states grappling with how to expand coverage at a time when employers are pulling back benefits.
But its call for an "individual mandate" is among the most ambitious — and controversial — health care reform plans in the country. If passed, its impact could be far-reaching, experts say.
"This is the first time this idea is real and live before a state and legislature," says Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and management at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. "We have entered an age when there is more of a sense that there should be individual responsibility for your life and your family," he says, "that you owe it to your community to have coverage."
Under two separate plans, one proposed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, the other approved by the House, insurance companies would offer lower-cost plans, estimated at $200 a month. Residents making up to $28,710 could receive state subsidies that could further lower that premium. Many analysts say that the individual mandate should be considered only after expanding Medicaid or making premiums more affordable — something Massachusetts is also tackling.
Under the House plan, which requires employers to provide insurance or face a payroll tax, residents could lose driver's licenses for not carrying coverage. A third plan approved by the Senate also expands coverage but does not include an individual mandate. The bills will be considered for compromise in conference committee as early as this week.
While each plan is distinct, they share many similarities, and experts applaud the bipartisan ideals they reflect. "There have been two dominant approaches" nationwide, says Alan Weil, executive director of the National Academy for State Health Policy. In general, conservatives support market-based approaches; Democrats want to expand the role of government.
Health Insurance Or Else In Mass.
For thousands of families here struggling to make ends meet, the difficult decision of whether to buy health insurance may soon get easier: They won't have a choice.
Under two major proposals that aim to cover the estimated half million uninsured in Massachusetts, the state would require all residents who can afford it to purchase some type of individual plan or face penalties, such as losing their driver's licenses.
Massachusetts joins a growing number of states grappling with how to expand coverage at a time when employers are pulling back benefits.
But its call for an "individual mandate" is among the most ambitious — and controversial — health care reform plans in the country. If passed, its impact could be far-reaching, experts say.
"This is the first time this idea is real and live before a state and legislature," says Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and management at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. "We have entered an age when there is more of a sense that there should be individual responsibility for your life and your family," he says, "that you owe it to your community to have coverage."
Under two separate plans, one proposed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, the other approved by the House, insurance companies would offer lower-cost plans, estimated at $200 a month. Residents making up to $28,710 could receive state subsidies that could further lower that premium. Many analysts say that the individual mandate should be considered only after expanding Medicaid or making premiums more affordable — something Massachusetts is also tackling.
Under the House plan, which requires employers to provide insurance or face a payroll tax, residents could lose driver's licenses for not carrying coverage. A third plan approved by the Senate also expands coverage but does not include an individual mandate. The bills will be considered for compromise in conference committee as early as this week.
While each plan is distinct, they share many similarities, and experts applaud the bipartisan ideals they reflect. "There have been two dominant approaches" nationwide, says Alan Weil, executive director of the National Academy for State Health Policy. In general, conservatives support market-based approaches; Democrats want to expand the role of government.
QUOTE(JasonATexan @ Jan 29 2006, 02:01 PM)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/21/...in1060973.shtml
Health Insurance Or Else In Mass.
For thousands of families here struggling to make ends meet, the difficult decision of whether to buy health insurance may soon get easier: They won't have a choice.
Under two major proposals that aim to cover the estimated half million uninsured in Massachusetts, the state would require all residents who can afford it to purchase some type of individual plan or face penalties, such as losing their driver's licenses.
Massachusetts joins a growing number of states grappling with how to expand coverage at a time when employers are pulling back benefits.
But its call for an "individual mandate" is among the most ambitious — and controversial — health care reform plans in the country. If passed, its impact could be far-reaching, experts say.
"This is the first time this idea is real and live before a state and legislature," says Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and management at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. "We have entered an age when there is more of a sense that there should be individual responsibility for your life and your family," he says, "that you owe it to your community to have coverage."
Under two separate plans, one proposed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, the other approved by the House, insurance companies would offer lower-cost plans, estimated at $200 a month. Residents making up to $28,710 could receive state subsidies that could further lower that premium. Many analysts say that the individual mandate should be considered only after expanding Medicaid or making premiums more affordable — something Massachusetts is also tackling.
Under the House plan, which requires employers to provide insurance or face a payroll tax, residents could lose driver's licenses for not carrying coverage. A third plan approved by the Senate also expands coverage but does not include an individual mandate. The bills will be considered for compromise in conference committee as early as this week.
While each plan is distinct, they share many similarities, and experts applaud the bipartisan ideals they reflect. "There have been two dominant approaches" nationwide, says Alan Weil, executive director of the National Academy for State Health Policy. In general, conservatives support market-based approaches; Democrats want to expand the role of government.
Health Insurance Or Else In Mass.
For thousands of families here struggling to make ends meet, the difficult decision of whether to buy health insurance may soon get easier: They won't have a choice.
Under two major proposals that aim to cover the estimated half million uninsured in Massachusetts, the state would require all residents who can afford it to purchase some type of individual plan or face penalties, such as losing their driver's licenses.
Massachusetts joins a growing number of states grappling with how to expand coverage at a time when employers are pulling back benefits.
But its call for an "individual mandate" is among the most ambitious — and controversial — health care reform plans in the country. If passed, its impact could be far-reaching, experts say.
"This is the first time this idea is real and live before a state and legislature," says Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and management at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. "We have entered an age when there is more of a sense that there should be individual responsibility for your life and your family," he says, "that you owe it to your community to have coverage."
Under two separate plans, one proposed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, the other approved by the House, insurance companies would offer lower-cost plans, estimated at $200 a month. Residents making up to $28,710 could receive state subsidies that could further lower that premium. Many analysts say that the individual mandate should be considered only after expanding Medicaid or making premiums more affordable — something Massachusetts is also tackling.
Under the House plan, which requires employers to provide insurance or face a payroll tax, residents could lose driver's licenses for not carrying coverage. A third plan approved by the Senate also expands coverage but does not include an individual mandate. The bills will be considered for compromise in conference committee as early as this week.
While each plan is distinct, they share many similarities, and experts applaud the bipartisan ideals they reflect. "There have been two dominant approaches" nationwide, says Alan Weil, executive director of the National Academy for State Health Policy. In general, conservatives support market-based approaches; Democrats want to expand the role of government.
It's obvious to me at least that market-based approaches have not only not worked, but are mostly beneficial to business, big pharma and the AMA.....
I know it's "Democratic" but is there any reason we cannot explore and utilize the best parts of international universal health care plans and adopt one of our own?
QUOTE(DWB04 @ Jan 29 2006, 03:09 PM)
It's obvious to me at least that market-based approaches have not only not worked, but are mostly beneficial to business, big pharma and the AMA.....
I know it's "Democratic" but is there any reason we cannot explore and utilize the best parts of international universal health care plans and adopt one of our own?
I know it's "Democratic" but is there any reason we cannot explore and utilize the best parts of international universal health care plans and adopt one of our own?
If it was anyone but the Republicans right now I would say yes. I'm sorry I just don't trust that they would make it work. Knowing them they would find a backdoor to give even more money and make insurance rates higher for those that pay on their own in order to give the insurance companies a profit. I just don't trust them and it is sad to say that.
QUOTE(JasonATexan @ Jan 29 2006, 02:12 PM)
If it was anyone but the Republicans right now I would say yes. I'm sorry I just don't trust that they would make it work. Knowing them they would find a backdoor to give even more money and make insurance rates higher for those that pay on their own in order to give the insurance companies a profit. I just don't trust them and it is sad to say that.
All too true it won't happen in this admin.
QUOTE(JasonATexan @ Jan 29 2006, 02:59 PM)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/28/...C-SearchStories
Must-Have Health Insurance
(CBS) A CBS News/New York Times poll this week shows deep worries about health care. Almost two-thirds of Americans are very concerned about their medical costs.
President Bush plans to make some new proposals in his State of the Union address Tuesday. But some states aren't waiting, reports CBS News correspondent Trish Regan.
Chris Raymond is a bartender in Boston. He makes between $600-800 a week. But like 45 million other Americans, he has no health insurance.
"It's just a huge chunk of money for me to just throw into something that I may not really need," he says.
And as a 29-year-old single guy, he says, there are better things for him to do with his money.
"Skiing," he says. "I love to ski."
But state governments across the country are realizing that people like Chris Raymond, who can afford health insurance but choose to go without, are costing them billions of dollars.
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has come up with an innovative proposal to combat that: he wants to require every citizen in the state to buy health insurance.
"What the government is saying is, 'no more can you turn and put your cost of health insurance and health care on everybody else.' You have a personal responsibility to either pay for your own health care yourself, or buy an insurance policy, but no more just showing up at the hospital and saying, 'I can't pay, make someone else pay for me,'" Gov. Romney says.
Romney says forcing people to have insurance is fair.
"In my state, you can't drive a car on our roads unless you have automobile insurance, because we don't want people getting in accidents and expecting someone else to pay for their car and for their health," he says. "Same way with our citizens that don't have health insurance."
Under his plan, you must either buy insurance through your employer, or the government. If you can't afford it, the government will subsidize a plan for you.
"My plan allows people to get health insurance for as little as $2.30 a week. Everybody can buy insurance," he says.
But, for this to be successful, it must get past a mostly Democratic legislature. They want to require employers to offer insurance – not the government. Companies that don't comply will face a tax.
"If you're not gonna have insurance for your employees, that's bad behavior and that should have an assessment on it," says Speak of the House Salvatore DiMasi.
Governor Romney insists that his plan would not require any tax increases. But over time, as health care costs continue to skyrocket, critics say taxpayers could wind up footing the bill.
Must-Have Health Insurance
(CBS) A CBS News/New York Times poll this week shows deep worries about health care. Almost two-thirds of Americans are very concerned about their medical costs.
President Bush plans to make some new proposals in his State of the Union address Tuesday. But some states aren't waiting, reports CBS News correspondent Trish Regan.
Chris Raymond is a bartender in Boston. He makes between $600-800 a week. But like 45 million other Americans, he has no health insurance.
"It's just a huge chunk of money for me to just throw into something that I may not really need," he says.
And as a 29-year-old single guy, he says, there are better things for him to do with his money.
"Skiing," he says. "I love to ski."
But state governments across the country are realizing that people like Chris Raymond, who can afford health insurance but choose to go without, are costing them billions of dollars.
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has come up with an innovative proposal to combat that: he wants to require every citizen in the state to buy health insurance.
"What the government is saying is, 'no more can you turn and put your cost of health insurance and health care on everybody else.' You have a personal responsibility to either pay for your own health care yourself, or buy an insurance policy, but no more just showing up at the hospital and saying, 'I can't pay, make someone else pay for me,'" Gov. Romney says.
Romney says forcing people to have insurance is fair.
"In my state, you can't drive a car on our roads unless you have automobile insurance, because we don't want people getting in accidents and expecting someone else to pay for their car and for their health," he says. "Same way with our citizens that don't have health insurance."
Under his plan, you must either buy insurance through your employer, or the government. If you can't afford it, the government will subsidize a plan for you.
"My plan allows people to get health insurance for as little as $2.30 a week. Everybody can buy insurance," he says.
But, for this to be successful, it must get past a mostly Democratic legislature. They want to require employers to offer insurance – not the government. Companies that don't comply will face a tax.
"If you're not gonna have insurance for your employees, that's bad behavior and that should have an assessment on it," says Speak of the House Salvatore DiMasi.
Governor Romney insists that his plan would not require any tax increases. But over time, as health care costs continue to skyrocket, critics say taxpayers could wind up footing the bill.
Mitt is what we refer to here as a Masswipe. When he leaves the state for greener pastures there will be a going away party held in his honor with a huge swinging door on a stage/podium.
Attendees will be invited to step up and get a feel for what Mitt will be feeling on his way out of our fine state.....
_____
The final details are still being flushed, out along with a few Mitt sycophants.
QUOTE(70sliberalism @ Jan 29 2006, 02:21 PM)
Mitt is what we refer to here as a Masswipe. When he leaves the state for greener pastures there will be a going away party held in his honor with a huge swinging door on a stage/podium.
Attendees will be invited to step up and get a feel for what Mitt will be feeling on his way out of our fine state.....
_____
The final details are still being flushed, out along with a few Mitt sycophants.
Attendees will be invited to step up and get a feel for what Mitt will be feeling on his way out of our fine state.....
_____
The final details are still being flushed, out along with a few Mitt sycophants.
off topic....I didn't know you were also from that great state! I was born in
Fall River
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.