Eek!onomics: Why Massachusetts’ New Healthcare Law Scares the Heck Out of Me (and Makes Me Want to Floss More Often)
Massachusetts just became the first state to require residents to carry health insurance or face tax penalties. The law is comparable to laws that require drivers to carry car insurance, only, in this case, the poorest people would be covered by Medicaid, and the almost-poorest people would have access to state-subsidized insurance with cost assessed according to a person’s income level. Governor Mitt Romney rejected a requirement that businesses with more than ten workers insure employees or face a $295 per person annual penalty, but the legislature is expected to override the governor’s veto and restore the requirement.
The healthcare law is ambitious but terrible. The $295 may penalize small businesses while letting big businesses—like Walmart—off the hook for not insuring its workers. Also, the fine is so low that it provides incentive for other large companies to discontinue health coverage. Certainly $295 a year is much less than the cost of insuring an employee, so why would a large business pass up the bargain?
This adds up to a lot of people seeking low-cost insurance to avoid the pricey tax penalty, which would equal half the cost of the cheapest plan available to an individual taxpayer. Many consumers who work and don’t receive disability payments or qualify for Medicaid have low-paying jobs and might not be able to afford independent coverage—even with the cost based on a sliding scale. And, if they do purchase the cheap insurance, they’ll likely get what they pay for.
The biggest issue I have with this law, however, is that it doesn’t adequately address the challenges for people with pre-existing conditions. Under the law, insurance will be available to everyone at prices deemed affordable by the government. So you can’t be turned down for insurance because you’re already sick, but that doesn’t mean the insurance has to immediately and/or indefinitely cover adequate treatment for that sickness. What are the chances an insurance company will sign on to pay $500/month for your psych meds alone and charge you less than that in premiums? As things are now, the best way to get a deal like that is to get a job that offers health insurance. Then you get automatically get the group rate and coverage for any pre-existing conditions. But woe are the consumers in Massachusetts now, for I see a lot of bankruptcies, lost jobs, hospitalizations and disability applications in their futures. Not to mention tons of paperwork.
On the positive side, however, the poorest consumers may get a financial boost out this thing. From the Tooth Fairy. In addition to the $295 per employee penalty for businesses, Governor Romney line-item vetoed a provision that would have given dental and vision coverage to Medicaid recipients. That means consumers with dental problems—in many instances caused by medication side effects like dry mouth—have one treatment option.
“The only thing they’ll do is pull out your teeth,” explained Evelyn Kaufman, an activist who has volunteered for fourteen years with Massachusetts consumer advocacy group M-Power. She’s been following this particular issue very closely. “It’s about dignity,” she said, adding that being toothless and unable to see can perpetuate stereotypes about people with mental illness and affect a consumer’s prospects for getting a job.
I’m inclined to agree.
Posted by Daniele Sadres
The healthcare law is ambitious but terrible. The $295 may penalize small businesses while letting big businesses—like Walmart—off the hook for not insuring its workers. Also, the fine is so low that it provides incentive for other large companies to discontinue health coverage. Certainly $295 a year is much less than the cost of insuring an employee, so why would a large business pass up the bargain?
This adds up to a lot of people seeking low-cost insurance to avoid the pricey tax penalty, which would equal half the cost of the cheapest plan available to an individual taxpayer. Many consumers who work and don’t receive disability payments or qualify for Medicaid have low-paying jobs and might not be able to afford independent coverage—even with the cost based on a sliding scale. And, if they do purchase the cheap insurance, they’ll likely get what they pay for.
The biggest issue I have with this law, however, is that it doesn’t adequately address the challenges for people with pre-existing conditions. Under the law, insurance will be available to everyone at prices deemed affordable by the government. So you can’t be turned down for insurance because you’re already sick, but that doesn’t mean the insurance has to immediately and/or indefinitely cover adequate treatment for that sickness. What are the chances an insurance company will sign on to pay $500/month for your psych meds alone and charge you less than that in premiums? As things are now, the best way to get a deal like that is to get a job that offers health insurance. Then you get automatically get the group rate and coverage for any pre-existing conditions. But woe are the consumers in Massachusetts now, for I see a lot of bankruptcies, lost jobs, hospitalizations and disability applications in their futures. Not to mention tons of paperwork.
On the positive side, however, the poorest consumers may get a financial boost out this thing. From the Tooth Fairy. In addition to the $295 per employee penalty for businesses, Governor Romney line-item vetoed a provision that would have given dental and vision coverage to Medicaid recipients. That means consumers with dental problems—in many instances caused by medication side effects like dry mouth—have one treatment option.
“The only thing they’ll do is pull out your teeth,” explained Evelyn Kaufman, an activist who has volunteered for fourteen years with Massachusetts consumer advocacy group M-Power. She’s been following this particular issue very closely. “It’s about dignity,” she said, adding that being toothless and unable to see can perpetuate stereotypes about people with mental illness and affect a consumer’s prospects for getting a job.
I’m inclined to agree.
Posted by Daniele Sadres
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home