Difference between revisions of "Massachusetts plan"
(updating article, links) |
(improved) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The '''Massachusetts plan''' is a health care law that | + | 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 | + | 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. |
| + | |||
| + | Long delays to see a doctor and even shared appointments with other patients have been the result of the '''Massachusetts plan'''.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00113</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> | 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> | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| + | [[Category:politics]] | ||
| + | [[Category:medicine]] | ||
Revision as of 03:34, December 4, 2008
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 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.
Long delays to see a doctor and even shared appointments with other patients have been the result of the Massachusetts plan.[1]
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.[Citation Needed] Also, car insurance laws are justified to protect innocent third parties victimized by accidents, not to protect the owner of the insurance.[2]
However, hospitals are required to treat individuals who visit the emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay or their insurance status. 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.[3]
