on the Mass governer’s desk
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO17281/
Figgure this is going to effect some of you guys.
Requires people to buy health insurance
on the Mass governer’s desk
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO17281/
Figgure this is going to effect some of you guys.
Requires people to buy health insurance
If you're looking to start your own business, there are key considerations to address, including defining your services, setting up your books, and building your team.
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Get home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial NowGet instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial NowDig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial NowGet instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now© 2025 Active Interest Media. All rights reserved.
Fine Homebuilding receives a commission for items purchased through links on this site, including Amazon Associates and other affiliate advertising programs.
Get home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox
Become a member and get instant access to thousands of videos, how-tos, tool reviews, and design features.
Start Your Free TrialGet complete site access to expert advice, how-to videos, Code Check, and more, plus the print magazine.
Already a member? Log in
Replies
I think I like it. I don't much care for the $295 per employee mandate, but I'll withhold any critisism until I learn a bit more about it. People using our ER's for primary care and then skipping out on the bill has got to end.
"Not everyone may be thrilled with the changes. Individuals deemed able but unwilling to purchase health care could face fines of more than $1,000 a year by the state if they don't get insurance.To help people find insurance, the bill creates something called a health care "connector" which encourages private health insurers to provide affordable policies to small businesses and individuals. " I'm not sure what "able but unwilling" means, but that can effect your employees.
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
In my last payroll at the end of March the MA-Healthcare deduction showed up. It is 12 cents per $100 (.12%). I'm not sure if there is a limit as on unemployment. I'm not sure how this fits in with that new bill.
I saw Romney talking about it on tv this afternoon. The bill would force employers to provide health insurance or basically be fined that $295 per person. If you can afford healthcare but chose not to, since this is <!----><!----><!---->America<!----><!----> and people have free will, they will tax you personally, and Romney was almost giddy when saying "we'll withhold your tax returns".<!----><!----><!---->
Romney also was full of smiles and patting himself on the back (as well as the state pol's) that this is a private healthcare bill. Then in the next sentence saying that the state will pay for poor people to have full healthcare and they will subsidize others up to an income breakoff (I think $48k). I guess Romney's understanding of private versus government funded healthcare has suffered as he's been jetting around the country. If the government is subsidizing healthcare for some and giving it to others completely, I've always looked at that as government healthcare.<!----><!---->
Healthcare cost are extremely expensive and increase at rates above 10% annually. When you provide healthcare for people at the government expense and not their own, you do nothing to correct the growing costs. One major problem with healthcare is that people do not see the direct expense. If you have health insurance through a company for example, you will fill prescriptions, see doctors, etc at the drop of a hat, even when they do not need to. They do that because they only pay a small co-pay and the insurance pays the several hundred. A large number of people do this and thus the costs for everyone skyrocket. We need to create a system that encourages people to seek help when they need it and to be somewhat selective.<!----><!---->
The Mass healthcare bill would do absolutely nothing to slow down the spiraling costs of healthcare. It really does the exact opposite by having government funding healthcare. A good local example for us. Bob Kraft built the $300 million dollar Gillette stadium under budget and at least several months faster than originally planned. He did this because it was his money and he watched the costs and schedule and made sure it was quality construction. The big dig as we all unfortunately know was estimated at $2.5 billion and now stands at about $16 billion and the project quality is far short of the original proposals. What is planned for <!----><!---->Massachusetts<!----><!----> will be the big dig. Just like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, it will be a huge government bureaucracy that will screw up the healthcare system even more and will cost huge amounts of money and increased taxes.<!----><!---->
As a very conservative Republican, I am eager to vote against Romney. This healthcare bill is just the latest example of a do nothing politician who panders rather than stand for principles of smaller government and lower taxes. I think Mitts going to find the national scene a very humbling experience.<!----><!---->
DDay VERY well said! thats all folks. stinky
Your argument makes a lot of sense, but what's missing is the fact that although folks who invest their own money in their own health care helps keep costs lower, the main reason health care costs skyrocket is because of the millions of uninsured.
Personal responsibility is an important component of a strong economy. But collective responsibilty via shared costs reduce the burden for everyone as a larger pool of folks buy into a plan.
The reason health care costs are soaring is we have the smartest people in the country with the largest sense of entitlement figuring out how to soak the system.You won't find the best fiction writers in America listed on Amazon.com. You will find them billing insurance companies.I don't need to flap my gums about this. The proof will be in the pudding. Health care costs will continue to skyrocket in Mass.By the way, who do you think contributed more to this Gov.'s campaign?Drug Co.'s and the health care industry or Carpenters?
As I don't live in Mass., this bill looks to me like an interesting experiment, and plenty of states are watching how this turns out.
In California, formerly a helmet-free state, the biggest lobby to make it a helmet(motorcycle) state, was not any safety council, but Bell helmets and other helmet manufacturers...
I don't really live in Mass. either and I really hope it works for them. It will be interesting.All I can afford is fairly high deductible ins. I now pay attention to my bills where I used to let the ins. co. worry about it.What an eye-opener.That is interesting about the helmet law. Special interests rule this country.
In mass, the insurance companies pushed for seatbelt laws a few years ago. But the law stated that you could be ticketed for not wearing your seatbelt but only if you were pulled over for something else, they could not stop you just for the seatbelt. I believe the seatbelt tickets are a surchargeable offensive, meaning that your insurance rates will go up because you are seen a more risky. They do it with all moving violations, speeding, etc. Right after they passed the seatbelt law, the insurance companies started pushing (and paying off politicians with campaign contributions) to make seatbelts a primary offense. This would allow cops to pull you over for just not wearing a seatbelt. The insurance companies will do everything possible to increase rates here, they are incredibly greedy.
They debated the bill last fall for third time (could be fourth) since it had failed to pass the previous years. I don't know if it passed, I think it may have failed again by a few votes. Without question though, if it did not pass, it will be back again next year.
I'm not sure what solution you're proposing, if any. I'd like to hear it. You say that the government is unable to manage something as complex as universal healthcare without it being abused horribly, and that it should be a matter for private industry. You also say that insurance companies are incredibly greedy, and will do anything to raise rates. I suppose that leaves us with paying all medical expenses out of pocket.
Part of the reason medical rates are skyrocketing is the overuse and abuse of emergency room type visits, and inadequate diagnosis and prevention of diseases. Paying for medical treatment out of pocket would only exacerbate this, and then when those people who avoid regular checkups wind up in the emergency room, what happens?
Either the hospital refuses treatment, or the costs are spread out over society in one form or another. Hospitals refusing treatment to those who can't pay in advance is no way for an advanced society to operate, no matter what our personal views of fiscal responsibility are. There several ways of spreading the cost over society- government taxation, hospital surcharges to those who can pay, or insurance, although insurace companies are more and more trying to avoid big payouts at any cost so they can pad their bottom line.
Looking at the ratings of health care systems internationally, I am left to think that government funded health care has proven itself to be the best system so far developed, imperfect as it may be. I'm looking at a year 2000 health care report (http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html), the most authoratative I can find- if you know of a more scientific study, please tell me.
zak
"You also say that insurance companies are incredibly greedy, and will do anything to raise rates" I was only referring to the auto insurance companies in Massachusetts. We are the only state in the entire country that still has the auto insurance regulated by the state government. We do not have a competititve insurance market, the state sets the rates the companies can charge and only your driving record affects your insurance costs. Geico among others will not provide insurance in Massachusetts because the system is such a mess. If you live in a very safe, crime free neighborhood versus living in the car theft or car accident mecca of the state, lowell ma, you will pay the same amount for insurance given the same driver ratings (here we call them steps). If it were a market system, the person who lives in the car theft area would pay a much higher amount and the other a decent amount lower because the risk is far different.
In regards to universal healthcare, other countries are very different than the US. Countries in Europe are a fraction of the US and have socialist systems of price capping. I'm not sure exactly what system would be best but I know it would not involve the government. Medicare is incredible mess right now and since politicians keep putting off the real reforms needed, the problems continue to increase. There are going to be some enormous problems starting in about 12 years when the baby boomers start to retire. Between Social security and medicare, major changes are needed, either the programs are dramatically changed or there will be huge tax increases to pay for the skyrocketing costs. Any thoughts of universal healthcare should be tempered by looking at Medicare now. The government cannot management a program for only seniors, without huge amounts of fraud and waste. How could you expect better when you increase the program five fold? Any system needs to place the burden on the consumer, on them will they care about the costs because the costs would be directly to them.
I only skimmed the WHO link. The WHO is comprised of socialists. I'm not saying that they are purposely biased, but their views, healthcare, economic, etc are all through socialist beliefs. They do not believe in market based systems.
"If it were a market system, the person who lives in the car theft area would pay a much higher amount and the other a decent amount lower because the risk is far different."
This has always seemed like the most backwards definition of insurance to me. The purpose of insurance is to spread out risk. It's a slippery slope when you start to be able to quantify risk for the individual more and more. Eventually, anybody who will someday get cancer will be denied insurance, and anyone who will live a long, healthy life, will be paying insurance bills for peace of mind more than any likely benefit.
"Any system needs to place the burden on the consumer, on them will they care about the costs because the costs would be directly to them."
Health care is a classic example of a system that is too complex for the average consumer to use well. Some percentage of the population would get regular checkups, stay healthy, and manage to avoid costly emergency room visits and hospital stays, but this would be offset by the people who didn't want to make such expenditures, until they found they had to go to the emergency room.
You're advocating a health care system more like India's- more out of pocket expenses, lots of choices, and quick service- if you can afford it. It doesn't seem like a shining example to me.
"I only skimmed the WHO link. The WHO is comprised of socialists. I'm not saying that they are purposely biased, but their views, healthcare, economic, etc are all through socialist beliefs. They do not believe in market based systems."
And apparently you are strictly a capitalist. I thought this discussion was about health care? I'm open to whatever healthcare system works best, be it capitalism or socialism. If you have information to back up your insults, please share.
zak
"If you have information to back up your insults, please share." What? They are socialists and proud of it. No part of the comment was an insult.
"This has always seemed like the most backwards definition of insurance to me. The purpose of insurance is to spread out risk." I don't know where you came up with this thought but you could not be more wrong. The purpose of insurance is to insure the individual or company. Auto insurance is to insure the motorist against some type of damage to their property and offer protection if they damage or injury another party. If you live in a rural, very safe community you have a very low risk for accident damage and car theft than someone who lives in a community like Oakland Ca. Therefore the rural persons insurance is much lower because the probablity of filing an insurance claim is much less, so the insurance company will charge a lower rate. Why do you think people who live in safe neighborhoods should be responsible for people who are a much higher risk. Shared risks are contrary to our system. You are supporting a Maxist belief, one without the individual.
The purpose of insurance IS to share risk. Otherwise, there would be no insurance and each person would handle their own losses. That isn't Marxist, it is fact. While it is true that insurance companies try very hard to limit liabilities by cherry picking customers, the underlying fundamentals are still the same.
John
Hey everyone, I don't want to pay higher medical insurance bills because my neighbor weighs 300lbs and smokes 2 paks of menthols a day...don't spread his fat a.. bills out on me.
Likewise if my brother has 3 dui's don't make me pay for his stupidity. Why should I have to pay dui insurance rates to make it fair for everyone?
remember insurance companies sell insurance to make a profit. We purchase insurance to protect ourselves against loss. stinky
I buy auto insurance to protect my person, property and claims against me by others. It is to protect me, not to share risk among others. Sharing risk is marxist and anti individual.
"I buy auto insurance to protect my person, property and claims against me by others. It is to protect me, not to share risk among others. Sharing risk is marxist and anti individual."
"Insurance benefits society by allowing individuals to share the risks faced by many people"
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761560031/Insurance.html
John
PS Maybe you should cancel your insurance so nobody mistakes you for a Marxist.
Edited 4/7/2006 6:55 pm ET by kiddoc
So if insurance is not to spread risk as you say, and only to protect you (an idea that I reject), that would leave us with even larger problem when it comes to the middle and lower class. Your description of insurance is a glorified for-profit savings account- you put in what you get out, plus extra for the company profits.
There are a large amount of people working full time that can't afford to pay for the medical services that they need. The choices are to leave them on the street to die, or to find some way to shift those costs to the rest of us. Your ideal of insurance would make sure that they alone are responsible for their health care costs. I maintain that a society like ours doesn't let the working class suffer without adequate health care.
zak
D , living in Mass you need to get your facts straight!! Auto insurance is set by the state but varies from one town to the next. An individual with the same step and the same new car will pay different ins. in say Lowell than Berlin or Lancaster, it all depends on the number of traffic accidents that occur in that community in the year. David <!----><!---->
<!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!---->
You should understand it better. The insurance paid by people outside the high crime areas like springfield, lowell, boston, fall river, new bedford, worcester, etc. is two to three times higher than it would be in a system other states use. The state wants to keep the rates lower for urban areas, so they shift the cost onto the nicer areas. Why do you think so many companies will not offer insurance here and so many have stopped offering it in recent years. We are the only one in the country with a system like this.
D, for one I do understand it perfectly, having a DW that works in auto ins helps also. As far as other companies offering ins. or pulling out.
The stat statue says they have to offer ALL lines of ins. if they don't they can't in the state. some have gotten around this by only offering commercial auto with homeowners Gieco doesn't do homeowners so they won't be any time soon.David <!----><!---->
<!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!----><!---->
There is some old quote- something about how you don't want to see how your sausage or laws are made.
When the government enters the equation, the personal responsibility exits.<!----><!----><!---->
I remember a news article about Medicare, the fed's senior healthcare plan which is similar in ways to the Mass bill. There was an older woman (about 73 but very healthy) in <!----><!---->Jacksonville<!----> <!----><!---->florida<!----><!---->. This woman injured herself somehow and needed a dozen stitches to close a cut on her arm. This woman received the treatment, and stitches, then a week or two later needed to go back to the doctor to get the stitches removed. However the woman did not drive and had no family or friend who could drive her to the hospital 20 minutes away. Medicare will not reimburse the person, in this case the 73 yr old woman, for cab fare because they cannot track the possible abuse, they will cover ambulance costs. So for this woman to not pay out of her pocket and have the medicare cover the trip she needed to take a $1100 ambulance ride that would have been a $5 cab ride.<!----><!---->
That is what happens when government gets involved, the incentive to reduce waste decreases substantially. Everyone has heard the true stories about the pentagon buying $500 toilet seats when they could have driven to a local store and bought it for $10. Bureaucrats do not care to be efficient, and save money since only an infinitesimal portion of the cost is their share from taxes.<!----><!---->
Let's take Diesel pig for example (I hope you do not mind). He is a small business owner in <!----><!---->Massachusetts<!----><!----> and pays his employees, has costs for equipment, Taxes, workers comp, liability insurance, etc. If he is now forced to provide his employees health coverage, that is an additional tax and cost of business that he will incur. He like most small businesses will almost certainly not be able to afford to provide coverage, so they will pay the $295 per employee fine. Would anyone like to wager on what that $295 fine will be next year, or in 5 years, 10 years, etc. As we all know, when a state introduces and "temporary tax", it seems to loose that temporary status. And with most taxes, they usually increase over time. So this bill has just taxed Diesel and all other small business owners and made the business environment more difficult. Now small business owners are going to be forced to eat the tax themselves, or raise their prices and get their customers to pay the increased expense. For Diesel for example, if he increases his prices, some customers will balk at the increase and seek out other framers. From his posting here, I know he has a good relationship with his customers, good reputation and does very good work, but it still puts him in a more difficult situation.<!----><!---->
In our state of <!---->Massachusetts<!---->, local framers like Diesel have local competition but also face competition from framers from <!---->Rhode Island<!----> and <!----><!---->New Hampshire<!----><!---->. With the Ma bill, those framers will have an increased advantage since they will have lower expenses.<!----><!---->
Also, small business, really any business has a certain portion of their income to devote to their employee costs. When a business is forced to add expenses like taxes or healthcare cost, etc they will look to lower expenses in other areas. For a small business that has no excessive waste to cut, when you either tax them $295 per employee, or force them to provide health coverage, they will reduce employee compensation by an equal amount. Employee compensation is not salary; it is salary and all benefits, including paid vacations, healthcare costs, cell phones, etc.<!----><!---->
Here are a few links about the Canadian national system which was once viewed as the world model. The system is having major problems and is imploding. You need to ask yourself, why is it people in countries with government healthcare systems, all of Europe and <!---->Canada<!---->, why do they come to <!----><!---->America<!----><!----> when they get sick. It is not because the doctors are more skilled, it is because "nationalizing" healthcare has artificially capped costs and expenses of doctors, hospitals, medicine, etc and forced many of them out of business. If you sick in <!----><!---->England<!----><!---->, you'll be on a waiting list for month to get a doctor visit. Say your problem was the early onset of cancer. By the time you were able to see a doctor and get some testing done, the cancer could very well have advanced to a stage that is terminal. <!----><!---->
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/?p=167<!----><!---->
http://www.haciendapub.com/aubrey.html<!----><!---->
My uncle is a physician in Dublin. His patients do not wait for months to see him, only a few days, similar to here. He and his wife do well; they've comfortably raised four children. The system works well in Ireland and much of Europe.
Canada is a bit different, and the big media outlets here love to point out problems up north whenever anyone mentions national healthcare.
As you've correctly pointed out, the problem needs a national solution, not a state v. state free-for-all.
I do not know about Ireland but its a problem in England. One thing that Ireland, Canada, etc have in common is they are all small countries. Canada is about 9 million for the whole country, NYC alone is about that. All the european countries are small too compared to the US 300 million. The government cannot handle Medicare and Medicaid which only covers seniors and the poor, can you imagine them handling a system 5 times larger? The waste and fraud costs alone would probably be mulitples larger than most countries entire budgets. The program would probably cost over $1 trillion dollars a year, the fraud and waste would probably be $150 to 200 billion per year. The tax increases needed to pay for it would be staggering.
You said Canada has the same population as NYC
Last time i checked we had 32 million people here 7 that does not include the US draft dodgers and AWOL types
Having lived in the US & Canada and used the health care in both places i like canadas better
If the Us system is so great how come i was offered $ 5000 usd for my health card by a Us citizen who was familiar with both systems?
I checked some stat sites, I was in error. I remember that 9 million number though, they may have been talking about a province or segment of the population.
Don't get too comfortable with the Canadian system, its a mess.
You met one US citizen who believes in socialized medicine, I could not care less. Paul Martin believes the US is evil, again, who cares. There are hundreds of people who believe they have been abducted by aliens, if all you could find is one who cares. Most of the US population could not tell you who the Vice President is or name one of their senators, so to ask them to have a solid understanding of a foreign countries healthcare is asking a lot.
If i am to assume the Paul Martin you are refering to is the infamous X prime minister of canada , his party the Liberals was kicked out last election . They lost mainly due to all the scandals and theft of taxpayers money .
He resigned the next day as party leader .
Our new prime minister is Stephen Harper who has stated he intends to work on getting the health care wait times much improved and to improve our relations with the US on a better track including the softwood lumber dispute
As for the fact that i mentioned about someone in Fla offering to buy my health card i had that offer made to me more than once so dont get your shorts in a knot.
The health system in Ontario now requires the card holders doctor to verify the patients identity to remove the incentive of using someone elses card,
Their are thousands more cards than people in Ontario floating around & it has been said that a fair number of them are in US hands
Drugs here are also 1/3 to 1/2 US prices as a lot of the people in the border states know and make use of on a regular basis
Paul Martin is a jerk. It was very pleasing to see him suffer with his parties election defeat. I think Harper will do a much better job for your country but also with repairing relations between our countries. Countries may have disagreements but Martin really lived on bad mouthing the US to keep in the graces of the far left in Canada, and also as you said, aviod the attention on his "problems"
IRC as an individual you are required to get health insurance. and if not, you are fined.so all theses employees will be required to get insurance. what's that ~$500 for individual, ~$800 for family, each month. $9600 a year after taxes is what before taxes.The news article said theres help for folks who earn < $48K/yr (~$20/hr). Free with no deductables if you earn $9600/yr as an indivudual.so if you make $50k/yr are you better off getting a cut in pay?folks are going to be looking for more in their paycheck to pay for this.
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
The $48k number is a sliding scale so the help at $48K would be minimal. What it will do though is force more of the economic activity unground, people will work for cash and keep income off the books. It will also encourage people to fire their employees and then hire them as "subcontractors", to avoid the expenses personally.
If you followed politics in Massachusetts, you would know that whenever they really like something, you know that it is a terrible idea. Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, there are very bright liberal and very bright conservatives but there are no bright people in Mass state government. What they touch, they screw up, so we are all in for some very tough times ahead.
In theory it's a good idea. That said, I don't think the government should tell me how to spend my money. I'm sure there were lots of campaign contributions made the major healthcare providers.
What's next? Are they going to make it illegal to wear a black belt with brown shoes?
Maybe they should spend their time/money to create an affordable "major medical" plan.
Speak the truth, or make your peace some other way.
Edited 4/5/2006 6:23 pm ET by dustinf
What's next? Are they going to make it illegal to wear a black belt with brown shoes?
As long as they don't outlaw the Full Cleveland.... white shoes w/ white belt. Now that look is a classic that I'm hoping to grow into.View Image
lol. I'm sure you'll be ahead of that fashion curve.Speak the truth, or make your peace some other way.
I'll get blasted I'm sure....
but insurance is a for profit industry... it's a gamble... ur bet'n you'll get sick while the insurer (the house) is play'n the odds that you won't... call it anything you want but it's not alot different than play'n blackjack...
it's about as stupid as helmet laws and seatbelts... for the record at last count there were fewer than 5 wards of the state with head injuries received while riding a motorcycle in the whole country... while there are thousands that are... who were injured in their own bathtub..... so require'n helmets in the bathtub seems a better law...
I'm not about to say who does and who doesn't deserve medical care and to what level.... I do get pizzed off when i hear people on tv saying they had to sell mommas house to pay her medical bills .... hmmm
what they are really say'n is "after she died I got nothing because she spent her money on her own healthcare"
the deal is... if you choose to drive around in a car or truck that costs you $400-500 a month you have the money to purchase basic health insurance... but you have choosen to have a new car instead.....
p