The Poor in MA

People who have never been poor really don’t get it.
The Washington Post today writes of a new law in MA requiring everyone to have health insurance.

Romney said the bill, modeled on the state’s policy of requiring auto insurance, is intended to end an era in which 550,000 people go without insurance and their hospital and doctor visits are paid for in part with public funds.

Here’s the problem with that logic. Driving is a privilege provided by the state. Living is a privelege provided by God. To drive the state can make certain requirements of the driver. To live…….
Theoretically the poor won’t really have to pay for this:

Uninsured people earning less than the federal poverty threshold would be able to purchase subsidized policies that have no premiums, and would be responsible for very small co-payment fees for emergency-room visits and other services. Those earning between that amount and three times the poverty-level amount would be able to buy subsidized policies with premiums based on their ability to pay. Though no maximum premium is set in the bill, legislators’ intent seems to be for it to top out at about $200 to $250 per month.

We’ll see. But wouldn’t it make more sense to just set aside some of these “subsidized policies” that the poor would be required to “purchase” and then use them when needed vs have a new program that needs to be enforced by requiring bums to fill out insurance applications or get fined?
I would look forward to seeing this one in action except that it’s so philosophically off its rocker.

UPDATE: Fixed the spelling.

5 thoughts on “The Poor in MA

  1. This might make more sense if you spelled “privilege” correctly. And you are assuming that all 550,000 of those people are poor. Many of the uninsured are people who CHOOSE not to purchase insurance thereby leaving the rest of us with higher premiums to account for them.

  2. Yes – that’s true, but they “choose” not to buy insurance because they have other places to spend their money. I will agree that of the 550,000 people in the state that don’t have insurance, many could. But frankly if I were in the forcing people to protect the taxpayers money mood, I would force those who live in flood zones, and hurrican zones and tornado zones to buy insurance. There they are choosing a bad risk. Here, people are just living.

    thank you for the spell check.

  3. And actually, you haven’t addressed this at all. Do you really think philosphically that it’s ok to “require” everyone to buy health insurance but no ok to have universal health care? Isn’t the 2nd option very similar? Everyone must pay a tax that goes into a pool that then covers a minimal level of health care. (Basics here – not specifics) Vs. everyone must go out and shop and buy themselves health care.
    I think you’re inconsistant. Though you spell well!

  4. The approach of “requiring” people to purchase health insurance is ridiculous. I know very intelligent people that simply don’t believe in insurance of any kind – they feel it is just legal gambling. Not sure whether I agree but they make a good argument. And, owning/leasing/using a car, and driving for that matter are quite optional activities – I agree, being alive already requires you to pay taxes so step up and actually call a spade a spade and make this a tax if that is what they are going to impose, instead of masking it as “required health insurance”. No payoffs between the insurance companies and the legislators on this one, eh? This idea has not worked out for my profession, with required errors and omission insurance. NO ONE wants to provide it because the state mandated we have to get it, and at a certain price. But no insurance providers are up for it. Can’t imagine they’d be happy about this either!!

  5. Pingback: New Hero – Judge Vinson «

Comments are closed.