Hey, there! Log in / Register
Rest of country to get same kind of healthcare Massachusetts has
By adamg on Sun, 03/21/2010 - 11:00pm
Teddy can rest easy tonight.
As expected, Stephen Lynch, D-9th, voted no on the measure (Times map showing all the votes). State Rep. Jeff Perry, R-Sandwich, running to replace Bill Delahunt in the 10th district, wasted no time issuing a press release calling the measure unconstitutional.
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Not Exactly
MA has a meaningful public option that covers people who fall through the cracks. The US version doesn't have that ultimate coverage for people who are "uninsurable" according to the profit-based system.
Unconstitutional? Really?
Unconstitutional? Really? Has Rep. Jeff Perry, R-Sandwich filed a suit in MA which also requires residents to buy health insurance? Perry might just as well ask Delahunt to produce a birth certificate.
Not quite
I'm not sure about Perry's argument, but the general argument that has been raised is that the federal government cannot dictate the terms of state health care policy, or something like that. People of this opinion would not argue against the constitutionality of the state's law, because they are actually claiming that the states have the right to pass these laws, not the federal government.
Note that most constitutional law experts pretty much dismiss this argument out-of-hand since it is generally long-settled case law that the federal government can do this (except in the few instances that the constitution reserves those prerogatives for the states). Remember that we fought a civil war over this federal vs. states rights issue (among other issues!), and the federal prerogative has endured.
Almost every bill Congress
Almost every bill Congress passes these days is unconstitutional in some way. If they were really doing their jobs, the Supreme Court would be working 900 hours a day to reverse most of it.
Huh?
Huh?
True, but one crack covered
The pre-existing condition thing. I have no plans to leave Massachusetts, but just in case, it's nice to know my family won't be denied health insurance because I have a pre-existing condition.
is journalist considered a pre-existing condition?
Just kidding. The new Federal bill bans denying health insurance for children with pre-existing conditions when the President signs it. Adults do not get that benefit for a few years but I don't know the exact date.
Does MA law ban health insurance companies from denying customers health insurance for pre-existing conditions? Does it regulate the cost of the insurance so that the insurer can't just price the customer out of the market?
Pre-existing conditions
You're right - the adult pre-existing condition clause only starts in 2014, so I guess we'll stick it out here until then, since Massachusetts already prohibits that (OK, OK, as I said, it's not like we have any plans to leave). If it winds up like the Massachusetts law, what'll happen is you won't be asked about pre-existing conditions when you sign up for health insurance (does anybody know for sure?). We're paying the same (high) rate as anybody else who signed up for Neighborhood Health Plan through the Mass. Health Connector.
Anybody have a good summary reference to link to?
I don't know but I am curious about all the details and the start dates. Anybody have a good summary reference to link to?
I buy individual coverage via the connector. The only way I could keep the monthly bill less than $500 was to increase the deductible to $4000. It's worked out since I haven't had to go to the hospital but if I do, add up to $4000 to my health care insurance costs ($6000) that year.
Yes, this website is an
Yes, this website is an excellent reference from the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute for current coverage laws in every state. Massachusetts is a guaranteed issue, community rating state. You cannot be refused or priced differently for pre-existing conditions, although waiting periods are allowed in some circumstances. Massachusetts was like that even before the universal coverage plan in the state.
Thank you for the link. Here's at token on my gratitude
Does MA law ban health
Not that I know of, because even if it did they would move their operations out of state. Many already have done this to get around past and present MA insurance law. It's why I had BCBS of Georgia, rather than BCBS of MA at my last company. And why my brother who just graduate college got dropped from my parents HC Plan, even as MA has a law stating he should stay on it until he got full time employment. They were based out of Cali with no such law, so tough luck to him.
This bill changed all that, once it's provision go into effect.
Graci
!
Pre-existing can be a factor in MA
The pre-existing clause in MA for insurance coverage boils down to CONTINUOUS coverage. As long as you have not had a break in coverage from the time you were diagnosed to the time you 'switch' policy or deductibles, etc, MA does not allow for insurance to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
If you have a break in coverage, even as short as a day, the new insurance CAN deny coverage for your pre-existing condition. Any time you change coverage you need to overlap dates. Insurance companies won't tell you this until you, or your provider, files a claim. If you do end up with a gap, you can go back to the old insurance company and ask to be reinstated, but it becomes a 'new' policy and the rate can jump. You can also be denied reinstatement, though the one BCBS/MA rep I spoke with said it never happens.
MAHealth/Connector qualifies as coverage. You just have to survive the enrollment form....
Double ply
Well, to be fair, after eight years of the Constitution being used like a roll of Charmin by the previous administration (all with no protest from State Rep. Jeff Perry, R-Bologna Sammie), there isn't much which wouldn't cause it to rip apart.
Double Ply
Double Ply
Lynch also was one of the
Lynch also was one of the only Dems to vote yes to the Republican's attempt to recommit to the Stupak amendment. This was a procedural kink they tried to use to send the bill back to committee, which would have re-included the amendment it in the final draft; i.e. They were trying to use this to kill the bill again. Stupak himself gave a passionate speech where he called the motion to recommit as a last minute attempt at shenanigans, and voted No himself as he deplored others too. I belive even some in the GOP voted no on that.
There’s absolutely no reason ANY Dem should have voted yes on that, and just goes to show you how much of a putz Lynch was being.
To be fair, he did vote the reconciliation bill through. But again, he didn’t want to be on the wrong side of every vote yesterday. Just watch him in the fallclaiming he voted on the reconcillation bill that "Made it better", he's betting on the ADHD of his voting pool.
Now he’ll have a few viable primary challengers to deal with. And then there’s this:
Lynch proved that when it came to THE major reform that dems have supported for over 50 years, practically THE call Dems have been championing just that long; he balked and gave us GOP talking points as a reason to vote no and refused to address his constituents.
I could have stomached it if he had a point; but the moment you repeat their lies and refuse to offer coherent real reason why you think it isn't a good idea, your time is up.
Harmony Wu's Statement on Last Night's Historic Vote
http://www.harmonywu.org/
Wu Facebook Spam
Not sure if you’re working for her, but here’s some advice.
Please stop spamming the messages from her group in facebook. I removed her because I got 4 yesterday alone!
Updates and action alerts should be put on her wall, or make a fan page and put updates there. Only the most important of the important should be send as a personal inbox message. once you get that fixed, I'll be back.
probably good advice but
you got the wrong guy
And now Massachusetts
And now Massachusetts taxpayers get to pay double for universal healthcare. Once at the state level and twice at the federal. This is such a great deal, I'm glad almost all of our reps decided we needed to pay for the rest of the country in the name of currying favor from a corpse.
Huh? pay double?
The taxes that fund the Federal bill are paid by people making in excess of $200,000 a year.
How would you make health insurance affordable to working families?
Allow people to purchase
Allow people to purchase health insurance from any company across the country so that there are no near monopolies by providers in each state. The lack of competition is a big reason why rates are so high.
Do you honestly think that every single taxpayer in this DONOR STATE isn't going to be paying more into the system now that the rest of the country has entered into it? We are already paying more in state for the increasing numbers of residents now on subsidized insurance. Now, with this legislation, we get to pay (as a donor state) to subsidize insurance in every other state in the union.
We also benefit from a much
We also benefit from a much larger pool, spreading out risk and alleviating cost.
The question is which one is bigger $$. Dem’s are betting on just being the first salvo of fixing the system, but a good start.
lack of competition
Are you sure about that? Here's some pricing from the MA connector with six companies bidding on "Silver" level benefits. Insurance companies say the cost driver is medical procedures.
You need to look at the tax provisions in the new health bill. The bill is a pay-go bill, unlike Bush's Medicare Part D, so all the tax revenue needed to fund the benefits are included in the bill and not financed by national debt.
It is 250K a year.
And I assume the Federal bill will trump the state bill? The state bill requires any small business with 11 or less employees to get health care and the federal bill is 50 or 51. I wonder what that means for small businesses in MA?
Prove it
Prove it or shut it.
The Bill has special provisions
For residents of states that were "first" to enact HCR on their own, and to be phased in over a longer term. Ideally this is to allow the states to adjust their legislation, and not get hit with that double whammy.
It’s one of the things the GOP was trying to argue was a giveaway since these states initially are paying less into the system, when in reality they're not since it’s a means of shifting responsibility without screwing states that had the balls to do the right thing before federal HCR.
I assume the fed bill would help more than hurt MA
or any state that has HCR on their own.