Difference between revisions of "Massachusetts plan"
(Clarified benefits of plan) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The Massachusetts plan is a health care law that requires residents of that state to purchase health insurance by July 1, 2007, or | + | 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. |
In 2007, these states are expected to try to pass similar laws: California, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado and New Mexico, and also the District of Columbia. In 2006 Vermont and Maine are pursuing similar laws already. | In 2007, these states are expected to try to pass similar laws: California, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado and New Mexico, and also the District of Columbia. In 2006 Vermont and Maine are pursuing similar laws already. | ||
| − | + | Some believe 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. Even car insurance, which many people think is mandatory, has exemptions for self-insurance and sometimes religious belief in most states. 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> | |
| + | |||
| + | However, hospitals are required to treat individuals who visit the emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay. This is also contrary to free enterprise, however for the good of the community, the freedom of hospitals to turn sick people away is curtailed. If people must either buy insurance or pay a penalty, the financial incentive to not buy insurance is removed. This in turn relieves the burden of non-payers from hospitals, who can then use these funds to improve their health care and equipment. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
'''Sources:''' <references/> | '''Sources:''' <references/> | ||
Revision as of 13:35, March 8, 2007
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.
In 2007, these states are expected to try to pass similar laws: California, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado and New Mexico, and also the District of Columbia. In 2006 Vermont and Maine are pursuing similar laws already.
Some believe 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. Even car insurance, which many people think is mandatory, has exemptions for self-insurance and sometimes religious belief in most states. Also, car insurance laws are justified to protect innocent third parties victimized by accidents, not to protect the owner of the insurance.[1]
However, hospitals are required to treat individuals who visit the emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay. This is also contrary to free enterprise, however for the good of the community, the freedom of hospitals to turn sick people away is curtailed. If people must either buy insurance or pay a penalty, the financial incentive to not buy insurance is removed. This in turn relieves the burden of non-payers from hospitals, who can then use these funds to improve their health care and equipment.
