In a recent blog post CBS’s Wyatt Andrews gushes about Massachusetts new health care plan that requires people to purchase health care. Can’t afford it? Well naturally the state will pick up the tab.
Andrews begins by discussing his trip to Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox, and how “sitting directly behind one of the dozens of beer stands” was a kiosk promoting the new plan. Andrews explains it like this:
…the state people know what they are doing. They know who they are missing in the program. They are missing young men, perhaps up to 130 thousand of them--most of whom are Red Sox fans.
Imagine that, young men not needing health insurance. What Andrews and most other liberals miss is that some people don’t want health insurance, especially young people. They feel they’re in the peak of life and would rather spend the money on other things for now.
Why should anyone be forced by the government to buy something? Oh wait, we already have auto insurance … but seriously, as the Business & Media Institute has found, the number of uninsured Americans is a heavily inflated statistic used by the media:
There are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to ‘afford’ health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.
Add to that the fact that 45 percent of those who are uninsured at any given time are going to get insurance within four months, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s right; almost half are in that short of a transition phase.
See this BMI article for more.
- Stuart James is a Research Analyst for the Business and Media Institute
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The next step
August 24, 2007 - 12:50 ET by Mica the MagnificentThe next step is for the State to hang out at Fenway and demand from the young men proof of health insurance!
"You! Young man! Come-un z here!"
"The state people know what
August 24, 2007 - 12:59 ET by Conservative_in_mass."The state people know what they are doing." Hey Wyatt, ever hear of the Big Dig?
And, the stats are flawed in another way too.
August 24, 2007 - 12:59 ET by c5thenI do not buy insurance at my workplace. Why? My wife works and her insurance offered by her company is better and cheaper than my choices. So, she covers the family and I opt out at my work.
How much you wanna bet, I am in the statistics for being uninsured?
And further...If they would make the Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) logical and not draconian, as in you can contribute to an MSA and spend the $$ on any medical cost without a limit or amount cap or a forfeiture possibility, most people would use them rather then give money to an insurance company.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Auto and Health, different reasons...
August 24, 2007 - 13:02 ET by rbchaffeWe're required to have liability insurance for automobile driving. You know, so when I ram a liberal's hybrid (accidently, I'm sure!) with my pickup truck, I'm covered for the repairs to said hybrid!
I don't think there's an equivalent for health insurance. This thing in Massachusetts is all just a very effective lobbying effort by the insurance companies.
Well, in my state
August 24, 2007 - 13:19 ET by c5thenEveryone is required to have liability coverage for their car, but the law makes it a "no fault" system. So, if I ram a liberal's hybrid (completely by accident) with my big honkin' SUV, his insurance pays for his repairs and my insurance pays for my repairs (if any). So...I ask, why does the government care if I have to pay for my repairs out of my pocket or I have to pay for his repairs out of my pocket?
P.S. Even though auto insurance is mandated by the law in my state, you are still required to be covered for "uninsured /under-insured motorist".
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Ain't got none
August 24, 2007 - 13:18 ET by JayTeeI went without Health insurance for years and years....paid for Medical expense out of my pocket.....Saved thousands of $$$'s.
Is that wrong ? Can't I take an educated Risk and have it pay off ? (actually I used it to Pay for College tuition)
For $450 a month payable to Aetna, I can keep the money and save for a medical emergency.....if it arrives. If you make in excess of 100K a year, it's an "optional" issue.
Hey....State Gov., Fed Govt....STAY OUT OF MY PERSONAL LIFE ! !
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
It used to be you could get
August 24, 2007 - 14:56 ET by taznarIt used to be you could get something called "catastrophic health care insurance" that only covered (amazingly) catastrophic medical conditions. It was much, much cheaper, but didn't cover yearly physicals, basic prescription meds (antibiotics etc.)... But somebody decided every medical cost needed to be covered by insurance, and that's what caused the prices to skyrocket -there is no longer any personal responsibility in keeping cost down.
As an example, the health insurance I had at one point covered 100% of emergency room visits. However, for a normal doctor's office visit I had to pay 20%. So I have a choice. Take time off work to take a kid with an ear ache to see the pediatrician and pay 20%, or wait until I get off work and take him to the emergency room for free. I never went the ER route (I much preferred our pediatrician), but I know a lot of people did.
Normally I would agree
August 24, 2007 - 13:42 ET by buddycNormally I would agree with. If we didn't have 15 to 20 million uninsured illegals who need medical services it might be reasonable to say people should be able to choose to buy insurance or not. But that is not the world our government has created for us.
I dread the thought of a state run health care. HOWever, I have been without insurance due to a prior med condition of a spouse and had to pay hospital bills and after obtaining insurance had to deal with payment of hospital bills. I had a comparison of identical illnesses one during insurance and one not under insurance. The uninsured bill was $27,000.00 and the same indentical treatment during coverage was $14,000.00 to my insurance company. It is a MESS.
The emergency rooms cannot turn people away. I can't think of many over services that are similar. When you are insured your bill is "x" and when you are not insured your bill for the same thing is "x times 4". Insruance Co are able to negotiate for lower chargers. The uninsureds, when they pay, pay more. You can accept that as true.
If true, wouldn't our rates go down if everyone were insured? I believe that is the logic of Mass' Health Care Plan. I have been very anxious to see how it works. I have had insurance for the past 10 years. The price has gone from 350$ per month to $850.00 per month. At some point I might get priced out? My increases are due to emergency rooms not being able to turn people away and not being able to collect payment for services, in particular from illegals who use the emergency rooms for basic medical needs but also legal citizens who can't pay 3-4 times what insurance companies get to pay.
The reason is simple
August 24, 2007 - 13:57 ET by c5thenInsurance companies engage in racketeering to fix their rates lower than non-insured rates.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
C5then, usually you type
August 25, 2007 - 16:46 ET by MikeBC5then, usually you type sense, but every once in a while you write down some incredibly stupid stuff. You obviously have no idea how insurance rates are set, or the bureaucratic hoops they have to jump through to get a rate hike. Besides the fact that insurance is the most highly regulated industry in the country, they have been investigated time and again by the marxist-socialists in Congress and the state legislatures to determine if collusion and price-fixing have taken place. The result of all those investigations have been zip, zilch, zero, nada.
The insurance companies do not decide to increase rates and do it on their own. They have to submit a request for rate hikes to the state insurance commission. The requests must be accompanied by documentation out the ying-yang. They have to show profit (loss) trends for several years past. For a simple, fairly straight forward rate hike request, the documentation requires a couple hundred pages of statistics showing why the company wants the rate hike. After the insurance commission receives the request and documentation, they have actuaries (either staff or consulants) go over the documentation. Then, after the actuaries make their report to the commission, the commission decides whether or not to grant a rate hike. Each insurance company has to submit a request if they want a rate hike. There is no collusion, nor is there price fixing.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
So you would force others
August 24, 2007 - 14:40 ET by AtheistRepublicanSo you would force others to purchase something so you can get a better price? Doesn't that seem a little unfair?
I think the bottom line is
August 24, 2007 - 15:15 ET by taznarI think the bottom line is he wants everyone to pay for their own health care so he doesn't have to.
The whole dynamic of who's paying hospital bills is really messed up. Hospitals start off in the hole because of the huge cost for indigent care. Insurance companies know how much stuff costs, and often have agreements with hospitals to only pay that much. So how does the hospital make ends meet? People who have insurance through companies with no cost agreement with the hospital and those who pay bills out of their own pocket have to make up the difference. That's what he's saying is unfair (if I'm reading correctly).
Hard question. I would
August 25, 2007 - 15:19 ET by buddycHard question. I would probably not want to force anyone to purchase insurance unless there were some evidence they would not or could not pay their medical bills which I would be forced to pay indirectly.
amazing
August 24, 2007 - 14:18 ET by SportPolitics".....individual mandate. The approach means you must buy private health insurance. You can get it through your employer or buy it yourself, but you have to buy--or be penalized on state taxes.
..4. This isn't Clinton care; it's a huge experiment to see whether the private market can work when everyone's forced to be in it.
"
All that above is supposed to "be great". Below is part of what is, he says, "not great":
"Here's what's not great, all of which the state admits it's working on.
1) Thousands of employers complain they can't afford to do (offer insurance) what the law orders them to do.
2) Tens of thousands of the working poor--or part timers--can't afford the cheapest plan offered through work"
Oh well, who cares, just make sure the commie state apparatus controls what the citizens buy and penalizes their income when they don't purchase state mandated items. Oh they aren't lying, they admit they're working on it. lol
Wow. Jail for no health insurance soon to follow the jail and fines for no car insurance.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/08/23/couricandco/entry3198614.shtml
We are BORG, your wallet will be assimilated.
Please Erase
August 24, 2007 - 14:39 ET by AtheistRepublicanPlease Erase
I'm always curious how
August 24, 2007 - 14:38 ET by Darth DutchI'm always curious how these reports determine how many people "cannot afford" health insurance. Does this mean that they are below the poverty level and, despite any efforts they may make it is literally impossible for them to pay for health insurance? Or does it mean that they cannot afford it because they spend their money other things such as big screen TV's, cell phones and the like? And, as has been mentioned, throw the millions of illegals in the mix and you convolute the issue even more.
I really feel for those hospital administrators who have no choice but to treat the uninsured. That's the reason ER visits and so long and the bills so high. They are in a no-win situation.
Dutch
Who cannot afford health insurance
August 24, 2007 - 15:04 ET by SportPoliticsYesterday I believe, there was a link a lead pointed out here that whined about "the Bush Administration" making some change in law ( always thought Congress did that ) that made the free coverage for children start at 2.5 times the poverty rate for a family of four instead of 3 times the poverty rate. The cuttoff number for the family of four (3x poverty rate) was in the high 60 thousands or low 70 thousands for the year.
So they are nowhere near "poverty rate" - it's 3 times or so it was said 2.5 times - wether the "new law" is on the Executive Order record - or Congress passed it(of course - or it was just suggested to them)... (yes, I do know I was lied to by the lib link)....I do know it's Bush's fault. I'm more than certain the Dictator decided as Decider, and that's it.
Massachusetts-No Model for the Nation
August 24, 2007 - 20:53 ET by StonefingersWe moved out of Massachusetts 17 years ago...and never looked back. It's probably the most corrupt state in the union; that's why we got out.
Got tired of :
Tedaquiddick (I'll report the accident...eventually)
Gerry Studds (turn the page please)
Barney Frank (can you really call a man who says he had no idea his lover was running a gay prostitution ring out of his own home, well informed enough to be trusted with governance?)
Billy Bulger (Whitey Bulger? I have no idea where he is)
Paying the salaries of hundreds of politically connected "workers" holding down government no-show jobs. You'll find this everywhere, to some degree...but in Massachusetts, it's an epidemic!
May they all continue to fly over...don't need their ilk here.