| − | The '''Massachusetts plan''' is a health care law that requires residents of that state to either purchase health insurance by July 1, 2007, or pay a tax penalty. [[Massachusetts]] subsidizes the costs for those who cannot afford to purchase the health insurance. Massachusetts is in a better position than most states to pass this type of law because Massachusetts has a billion-dollar fund from [[tobacco]] settlements available to defray the costs, and also has fewer uninsured (10%) than the national average (18%). 46 million Americans do not own health insurance nationwide. | + | The '''Massachusetts plan''' is a health care law that required residents of that state to either purchase health insurance by July 1, 2007, or pay a tax penalty. [[Massachusetts]] subsidized the costs for those who cannot afford to purchase the health insurance. Massachusetts was in a better position than most states to pass this type of law because Massachusetts has a billion-dollar fund from [[tobacco]] settlements available to defray the costs, had fewer uninsured (10%) than the national average (18%), and has two powerful representatives in the U.S. Senate to provide additional subsidies as needed ([[Ted Kennedy]] and [[John Kerry]]). 46 million Americans do not own health insurance nationwide. |
| − | In 2007, these states are expected to try to pass similar laws: [[California]], [[Louisiana]], [[Maryland]], [[Minnesota]], [[Ohio]], [[Wisconsin]], [[Colorado]], [[Utah]], and [[New Mexico]], and also the [[District of Columbia]]. In 2006 [[Vermont]] and [[Maine]] passed similar laws. | + | In 2007, these states were expected to try to pass similar laws: [[California]], [[Louisiana]], [[Maryland]], [[Minnesota]], [[Ohio]], [[Wisconsin]], [[Colorado]], [[Utah]], and [[New Mexico]], and also the [[District of Columbia]]. None did, but [[Ted Kennedy]] proposes passing a similar law in 2009. In 2006 [[Vermont]] and [[Maine]] passed similar laws. |
| | Critics suggest that this approach of the state requiring its residents to purchase a type of product is contrary to free enterprise. Many people choose "self-insurance" voluntarily, and forcing them to buy a product they do not want is both unusual and probably unhelpful to the economy, as it will take money away from where it might otherwise be spent. Even car insurance, which many people think is mandatory, has exemptions for self-insurance and sometimes religious belief in most states.{{fact}} Also, car insurance laws are justified to protect innocent third parties victimized by accidents, not to protect the owner of the insurance.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol11no3/schlafly.pdf</ref> | | Critics suggest that this approach of the state requiring its residents to purchase a type of product is contrary to free enterprise. Many people choose "self-insurance" voluntarily, and forcing them to buy a product they do not want is both unusual and probably unhelpful to the economy, as it will take money away from where it might otherwise be spent. Even car insurance, which many people think is mandatory, has exemptions for self-insurance and sometimes religious belief in most states.{{fact}} Also, car insurance laws are justified to protect innocent third parties victimized by accidents, not to protect the owner of the insurance.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol11no3/schlafly.pdf</ref> |