Healthcare premiums set for state's uninsured (Massachusetts)

[ckramer]

Uninsured lower-income Massachusetts residents who earn just enough to escape poverty will pay about $18 a month for coverage under the state's new health insurance law, while those who make more will pay up to about $106.

State regulators approved the rates yesterday, and said they are amounts most lower-income residents should be able to afford. The law will require all residents to have health insurance by July 1, 2007, or face tax penalties.

Members of the board overseeing implementation of the law said they were swayed by information showing that most lower-income people with private insurance through their jobs pay at least this much, and in many instances more. The members of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector also said they worried that if the state charges lower-income people too little, employers that offer insurance will drop it, eventually sending droves of workers to seek state-subsidized insurance, which could bankrupt the program.

``When you look at what other states do, this is very generous," said Richard Lord, chief executive of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the state's largest business lobbying group and a member of the Connector board. ``The last thing we want to do is encourage those employers to no longer provide coverage to their employees."


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/09/02/healthcare_premiums_set_for_states_uninsured/


====================

I believe that this news has a national significance in setting the tone toward national heathcare.

[Warpy]

1. Last quote for me was $1800

and that's per MONTH.

That's what cherrypicking has done to premiums. Those of us outside the young, healthy, male model are totally screwed.

[greccogirl]

5. I don't live in Mass,

but, I have a pre existing health condition that is quite serious. I cannot buy insurance at ANY PRICE.

[Cobalt Violet]

6. You could here.

I have one too. I'm really hoping this will work out.

[zanne]

16. I'm curious, greccogirl...

I also have a serious pre-existing condition. I have Medicare, but no additional insurance. I'm also finding out that finding a new doctor is VERY difficult once they see my medical records. Do you have that problem?

[iamjoy]

40. That Sounds Like An Error

have you double checked that quote?

[depakid]

2. This is going to end up to be a HUGE boondoggle

It's going to make the situation worse than it already is.

[gorbal]

3. Oh why did I move back to Maine

Oh why oh why? My health insurance doesn't want to pay anything for me, and I give them 80 freakin bucks a month.

[papau]

14. Agree -including ins co's and underwriting cost control by denying claims

is just continuing the disaster.

Only single payer universal health with no insurance company input will clean up the system .

The current health insurance companies and their jobs will continue - but only as "administrative services only" help - just as in done now in Medicare.

The GOP kissup to the insurance companies is no more logical than the Bill Clinton insurance company/HMO kissup that he forced on Hillary and her task force in 93 because he thought single payer would not pass due to insurance company opposition.

[depakid]

24. Here's what two Harvard medical Shcool Professors have to say:

"The linchpin of the plan is the false assumption that uninsured people will be able to find affordable health plans. A typical group policy in Massachusetts costs about $4,500 annually for an individual and more than $11,000 for family coverage. Few of the 748,000 uninsured in Massachusetts are young enough (under age 35) to qualify for low-premium plans. Fewer are affluent enough to readily afford them.

The legislation promises that the uninsured will be offered comprehensive, affordable private health plans. But the only way to get cheaper plans is to strip down the coverage, boost co-payments, deductibles, uncovered services, etc.

Hence, the requirement that most of the uninsured purchase coverage will either require them to pay money they don’t have, or buy nearly worthless stripped-down policies that represent coverage in name only.

The legislation will do nothing to contain the skyrocketing costs of care in Massachusetts, already the highest in the world. As rising costs force more and more employers to drop coverage, state coffers will be drained by the continuing cost increases in Medicaid. The program is simply not sustainable over the long — or even medium — term."

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/8941/1/317

[Cobalt Violet]

4. That sounds better than the $600.00 my employer offers.

I really need this.

[reprobate]

7. First I want to read one of the policies. Having worked in the insurance

industry for 20 years, I don't trust the bastards.

There's just one way out of the mess we're in.

A single payer universal plan. The largest pool of insureds means the lowest risk (cost) per individual.

[Nite Owl]

8. My thought too

exactly what will be covered and how much are all the copays. They add up fast if you have to go for many visits. And I pay over $1200 a month.

[SoCalDem]

9. Okay, BUT...

Let's say you are just over the poverty line and have a $10 hr job, and have to pay rent, child care, car payment, food, gasoline, etc..you know..the bills we all have..

Where do you GET the extra $106 a month?
How much is your co-pay?
Which doctors do you have to go to?

People "on the margins" go without insurance because the HAVE NO EXTRA MONEY..not a dollar not $5..not $10..and certainly not $106.."extra"..

These are the folks who have a couple (or 3) part time jobs..with NO benefits..

This plan just allows bosses who are now offering insurance, a way to stop it, and pocket the extra money they will no longer have to pay..

It's more of the "personal responsibility" nonsense..

How much will the "middle-classers" have to pay a month?..the ones who now (not for long, though) have dental, vision, mental health and a good hospitalization plan? How much will their coverage be,,

These kooky plans always portray themselves as a grest deal for the poor , but truth told, the poor will just end up criminals now, and will end up at the same ERs they already go to when they get sick..

someone who has to look under the couch cushions to pay the electric bill is NOT going to shell out $106 a month "just in case someone gets sick"..

[Solon]

10. You bring up the best point...

Not to mention other problems, I mean, these folks wouldn't be going onto a public system, but a private one, even if required, so now they could be dropped(and now fined), for practically no reason. Any preexisting conditions wouldn't be covered, especially ones that require doctor's visits, which means forget insurance ever paying for that. That's another out of pocket expense. At the end of the day, your better off with no insurance.

[hughee99]

11. Actually it's $18 at the lowest end...

Not that I really know what defines the "lowest end" and what the sliding scale is, but $106 is the high end. It sounds to me (a Massachusetts resident) like this plan will probably benefit some people (who have no health insurance at all) and hurt others (when their companies drop their health care plans and push their employees into this plan).

[Cobalt Violet]

17. That person is already eligible for Mass Health.

Anyone in MA with income less than $1500. per month for one person is.

[alarimer]

33. I think you are right

Keeping the insurance companies in charge is not the answer. Why don't they consider moving all uninsured to the state's Medicaid system, for some small premium? Yes it would cost the state money Medicaid/Medicare has a lot lower overhead than private insurance.

[bvar22]

12. Demand Single Payer Universal HealthCare.

ALL of the "Affordable HealthCare" scams will only delay or permanently torpedo REAL Universal HealthCare, and leave HealthCare decisions in the hands of FOR PROFIT Insurance Corporations and HMO Corporations.

The Federal Government is the only provider who can cover ALL Americans equally and operate at a less than 2% overhead.

[sandnsea]

13. What do you think is next??

Single Payer. Before people will accept it, they have to be convinced nothing else will work. And look at some of the responses in this thread, if people are concerned about losing their good work-related insurance with a Mass style system, what makes you think they'd give it up for single payer? This may not be the best plan, but I'd be jumping for joy if I could get health insurance for $100 a month. Beats the hell out of the NOTHING that I've got now, and I sure don't see any liberal purists lining up to pay my $50,000 in medical bills either.

[bvar22]

18. Not True!!!!

You are perpetuating a myth spawned in Washington by those on the payroll of thr HMOS's, the Pharmeceutical Corps, AND the Insurance Comapnies.

The TRUTH is:
"65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes."

http://alternet.org/wiretap/29788/



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[sandnsea]

19. Until they have to vote for it

And then they vote NO, time and time and time again. And when people say everyone should have health CARE, they don't mean they want to give up their own health insurance and participate in the free clinic with the riff raff.

[bvar22]

20. 52 MILLION people won't have to "give up" their Health Insurance.

Million of Working Americans have lost their Work Supplied coverage, and are being FORCED into debt and lower standard of living as Premiums and Co-Pays have risen above the reach of the Middle Class.

The PEOPLE (your "riff raff") are READY.
Its our LEADERSHIP that isn't.

If Universal Medicare is presented in an honest package, the PEOPLE will vote for it.

[sandnsea]

21. Read these threads again

You need to go back and read all these Mass health plan threads. In every single one of them there are people who DO NOT want to give up their health insurance. Guess what, THEY are the voters. They don't want Medicare for all, they don't want to be stuck in the same system they see the elderly and the poor and the vets stuck in. They want their quality care and are NEVER going to vote to give it up. After Hillary's health plan, Dems got thrown out. Here in Oregon, a single payer type plan went down 60-40. We could not even get the signatures to put health care as a right on the ballot. Any single payer type plan that goes to a vote will not pass because no matter how much people tsk tsk tsk, when it comes down to THEIR health, they say too bad riff raff. The best we can hope for at this point in time is subsidized health insurance and it's a damned shame that tens of thousands will have to die while people diddle around demanding the perfect when the good is right in front of their face. Especially when this is exactly how many European countries do it anyway, and is actually cheaper than the 20% tax that many countries charge as well. Some countries charge a monthly premium too. Most single payer advocates don't have a clue as to how health plans around the world truly function and actually hurt the cause by blathering on about free health care because it doesn't exist.

[depakid]

23. "Here in Oregon, a single payer type plan went down 60-40"

And why do you think that was?

It was on the ballot in the middle of the worst recession in almost 20 years- where no one had any idea how they would pay for it; and

Opponents outspent the initiative backers by some ridiculous margin- over 10-1 as I recall.

A responsible single payer plan (similar to what we see in Canada- with a basic benefits package drawn from elements of the once popular Oregon Health Care Plan along with supplemental insurance and opt outs for providers who do conciege care) would have an excellent chance of passage.

Provided that there was something close to a fair discussion of the pros & cons.

One of the ways to accomplish this would be to first vote on changing the Oregon Constitution to include "fundamental right" to health care.

That one SCARES THE HELL OUT OF THE FAR RIGHT and their enablers. Because they know it would would work.

It shifts the paradigm from whether we act- to what specific things do we need to do and why.

[sandnsea]

26. Is the Constitutional Amendment on the ballot?

No. We couldn't even get the signatures for that. If people in the middle of a recession won't vote for single payer, what makes you think they'll vote for it when times are good? In the meantime, I guess just letting people continue to die is a-ok with you.

[depakid]

31. It wasn't well funded

Or a well organzied effort. It didn't "benefit" from tons of out of state money, so it couldn't employ legions of paid petition circulators- unlike the rest of the far right initiatives on the ballot.

It was the system- not the idea that failed.

Also, as to the previous initiative- at a time of anti-tax fervor (2002) getting funding was a tough sell- especially if one couldn't get their message out on the corporate media (which was itself complicit).

The message- then as now is this:

"Eliminating the costs incurred for insurance premiums, co-payments, prescription medications, deductibles and all other health care costs, most people will spend less than they do now."

Canada has pretty much shown us that conclusively:

"....that the United States has been the unwitting control subject in a 30-year, worldwide experiment comparing the merits of private versus public health care funding. For the people living in the United States, the results of this experiment with privately funded health care have been grim.

The United States now has the most expensive health care system on earth and, despite remarkable technology, the general health of the U.S. population is lower than in most industrialized countries. Worse, Americans' mortality rates--both general and infant--are shockingly high."

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1503

As to your last statement, I'm in the trenches working in public health with devoted professionals every day- thankless though it is.

[sandnsea]

35. Ah, you have health care

So it's all just a theory to you. You've got the luxury of arguing for the PERFECT plan because you aren't going to DIE without ANY plan at all. What we should be fighting for in Oregon, right now, is full funding of FHIAP. If that program were fully funded, then we'd finally be at a place where at least ALL health care is paid for. Once that happens, then health providers won't be able to blame health costs on the uninsured and they will be forced to start looking at insurance. THEN we'll be able to have a debate about single payer. But until we get every person covered, one way or another, there will never be a debate about whether insurance is the best way to go. As long as there's someone to blame, some way to divide and conquer, that's what Republicans and insurance companies will do. THAT is why any way forward is better than nothing at all.

[depakid]

38. You might want to study the issues

that we deal with on a practical everyday basis.

When you have, you'll see the kinds of policy changes it'll take to improve the situation (hint: it can't and won't be done with junk insurance that deters access to primary and preventative care- what insurers call: "moral hazard).

Unfortunately- some solutions end up making matters worse than the problemsthey're trying to solve. That's not moving forward- except insofar as people can learn from their mistakes.

[bvar22]

25. Unfortunately,

The BIGGEST hurdle for Universal HealthCare to overcome will be the propaganda and images of the riff-raff" that are perpetuated by the HMO and Insurance Corporations, and the ill-informed.

You are correct only in that Universal HealthCare is not FREE. However, it is significantly less expensive that the HealthCare Americans are now PAYING for and NOT getting. Americans pay MORE for HealthCare and receive LESS for their dollars than ANYWHERE in the World.

The RICH (the ones you seem concerned about) will always be able to go outside the system for their nose jobs and tummy tucks.

The VA used to be a GREAT HealthCare system before it was defunded.

[sandnsea]

27. Massachusetts has universal health care

It's just not single payer. And NO, I'm not concerned about the rich, I'm concerned about ME. I'd like to live, but thanks to people like you who insist on perfection over progress, I don't get to see the doctor AT ALL. In fact, if I hadn't had a serious infection in my finger and went in for the first time in ten years where the doctor took one look at me and diagnosed me with severe thyroid dysfunction - I might not even be here. I am FED THE FUCK UP with purists, who apparently don't have their very LIVES at stake, fucking it up for those of us who are desperate. The reality in THIS country is that those who have quality health insurance ARE NOT going to sacrifice it for those of us who don't have it. REALITY. I live in it, I don't know where the hell some other folks around here live but it sure isn't REALITY.

[bvar22]

28. Seems like you should be supporting Universal HealthCare,

not fighting AGAINST it. :shrug:

I am no "Purist" (and isn't that DLC bromide a little tired). I merely fight for what is RIGHT!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[sandnsea]

29. I do, ANY way possible

YOU are the one who posted against the Mass plan because it's not the all holy single payer. YOU are the one who is now changing their tune. You can go ahead and attack me if you want, but it'll never make me the one standing in the way of any program that would bring more health care to more people. That would STILL be YOU.

[bvar22]

30. I'm still looking at the Mass Plan.

The Mass Plan is a FAR CRY from Universal Healthcare.
It IS a Mandatory Health Insurance Plan with subsidies for the poor.
In Other Words, it is WELFARE for the BIG Insurance Companies and HMOs.

This plan will NOT reduce the cost of HealthCare; it will have the opposite effect.
It is a bastardization of the name "Universal HealthCare", and I fear that the PTB will use this inevitable FAILURE to discredit REAL Universal HealthCare (Universal Medicare).


Edited to ADD: Welfare for the Largest and most profitable Corporations in the World is simply WRONG!!!

[depakid]

32. It's going to fail miserably

It'll do the exact opposite of what its proponents claim-

Not only that, when it fails, it'll reduce people's faith in government's ability to promote and provide healthcare even more.

[sandnsea]

36. No it won't

It'll force people to face reality and choose where their money goes, to insurance or health care. But until you take the uninsured out of the picture, you'll never get to that debate.

[depakid]

39. Well, I've analyzed the plan

and discussed it with one of the top healthcare economists in Oregon.

Have you?

[sandnsea]

34. Are income taxes MANDATORY????

Jesus fucking christ. Do you think people in other countries have a CHOICE about whether to participate in their health plan?? NO. Everybody gets it and it's MANDATORY that everybody pay for it. Hello????

I'll be sure and have somebody let all you purists know when I'm dead. I'm so fucking SICK OF THIS SHIT.

[bvar22]

37. Taxes are mandatory,

but it is NOT mandatory that our tax money is to be dedicated to further enrichment of the richest Corporations in the World (like the "Prescription Drug Benefit" that you and I will be paying for for DECADES).

As the other 34 developed countries in the World have already PROVED, it is much more efficient to dedicate that tax money to providing quality HelathCare for Everyone, instead of enriching the already Rich and Bloated Insurance Cos. and HMOs who provide NOTHING, but feed off the profits.

Americans already overpay for Universal HealthCare (Medicare). We just don't get the services.

I am willing to compromise. Instead of Universal Coverage for ALL Americans, I will support Universal HealthCare for everyone under 17. THAT would be a move in the RIGHT direction.

I am all for COMPROMISE!
In a compromise, each party moves toward the goals they want. Agreeing to move AWAY from your goal while the other side achieves their goal is called Capitulation or Surrender, NOT compromise.

I am SICK of the Capitulators!
Surrender if you want. I choose to FIGHT for what is RIGHT!

I cannot support further enrichment and entrenchment of the already bloated "For Profit" HealthCare providers and Insurance Cos. That is a move in the WRONG direction, and will make it MORE difficult to institute a TRUE Universal HealthCare System.

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of self described "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."


http://alternet.org/wiretap/29788/

8. Over 60% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[papau]

15. I agree - :-)

:-)

[davsand]

22. Good luck finding a Doc to take you with state insurance.

Currently I live in a county where 90% of the docs refuse to accept state insured patients. That leaves 10% of the docs to treat an awful lot of poor people at the two community clinics. The net result is we have state insured people who die while waiting for health care (or else they end up in an ER for a really expensive Dr visit that could have probably been avoided with access to preventive care.)

I can't say I blame those docs, especially, since Illinois is taking something like a year to pay docs for treating state insured patients. Docs have a right to get paid. They are no different than the guy working at the burger joint or at the local Walmart--they have kids to feed and housing to pay for.

Frankly, I think a lot of docs would probably like to see an end to the endless billing headaches with all the different insurance companies and plans. My guess is that if we ever did manage to get single payer in place, the medical community might come to appreciate the reduction in overhead it would represent.

The ONLY ones who don't benefit, ultimately, from single payer are the insurance companies and their lobby.

While I celebrate Massachusetts for trying, I suspect this is just a tiny band-aid on a major wound.

Regards.


Laura