Mass makes health insurance mandatory

That incentive would have to be that somebody else pays for it! Good grief! It's hard for people to afford car insurance.

Because those who don't use health insurance are a burden on the social services. Even if you don't need it, someone else who thinks they won't need it will. I wonder what level of insurance they'll require. Perhaps just catastrophic coverage. <shrug>.

I think that 295/employee is per year, by the way. But, again, I'm not entirely sure.

It is an annual expense,according to the report I quoted.

I wonder how that will affect hiring in Mass.

We'll see. I'm guessing the effects will be very different depending on what part of the state you're looking at.

But how can you mandate that someone has health insurance? I understand the car insurance because others are involved. But how can make people have medical insurance be justified? What would happen to the charity hospitals? Isn't that what they are for?

Re: Mass makes health insurance mandatory


The state has a "rainy day fund" of some $5 billion that is supposed to be able to absorb drops in tax revenue.



Only those employers with more than 10 employees that don't currently offer their employees health insurance.



Apparently the same right that they have to mandate auto insurance.



The number here is minimal. Again, the $295 fee is only on employers that have more than 10 employees and don't offer health insurance. The biggest hit on this will be the self-employed that have chosen not to get insurance for themselves and well... if they can afford it to begin with and refuse to get any then they are to stupid to be here anyway.

What charity hospitals? As far as I know the only charity hospital in MA is the Shriner's Hospital in Boston and they only deal with children that are burn victims. They aren't providing any other medical care to anyone else (it's a pretty small facility to begin with!).

All of the other hospitals in MA get reimbursed from State or Federal sources for the "chairty" work they do.

This is not a good solution to the health insurance crisis. Trying to force businesses to save the system is going to back fire. Many businesses, even small ones, would love to offer their employees health insurance but can't afford to. As a small business owner I would not have been able to start my business if I had to have health insurance. In NY even catastrophic costs about $600 per month with a $5000 deductable. This law will stifle anyone trying to start a business. Other businesses will not be able to grow when they reach 9 employees because the cost of having to offer insurance will out weigh the expansion benefits.

I understand they are really targeting big corps. like Walmart, but it's the smaller and medium size businesses that will suffer. When a company like General Motors is being squeezed to death by benefit costs you would think the government would get the idea that businesses should not be turned into little socialist states. We need a medicare type program that covers everyone and everyone pays into it based on their ability to pay.

I think some lobbyists for the insurance companies pushed for this law.

The bill passed has little, if anything, to do with the overall healthcare "crisis". The only reason it passed is because the State of MA has until July 1st to implement something to reduce the number of uninsured in the state or we lose $385 million in Federal healthcare funds.

People who are below the Federal poverty level will get coverage at no cost with no deductible (children and parents with children will get steered in the CHiPS program - MA has some 70,000 people elidgible for CHiPS that have never enrolled in it...). People with incomes below $46,000 will get insurance at significantly reduced rates based on a sliding scale. Currently uninsured people with incomes over $46,000 (the majority of whom are self employed) will be able to buy a catastrophic care package at reduced rates.

The law also changes the State Tax code and makes all healthcare insurance premiums a pre-tax item so some of the costs are gained back in reduced income tax liability for both the employer and employee.

But.. again, this law was passed to address the possible loss of Federal funding. If it wasn't for that it'd still be buried in some conference somewhere.

I dunno... generally, it's been seen as a good thing, even by even NPR.

LittleK, you recently said you stopped your health insurance because of cost. How will this new ruling effect you?