FYI

[brynndragon]

Today at 3PM on WBUR (90.9 FM and online at WBUR.org) fucking Romney and members of the state legislature will be discussing the new health care plan with the public. I'll be listening, because I want to know if my (and some friend's) impression that this is taking a nice notion[1] and turning it into a nightmare for people who are eking out a living or are (or become) GoLs[2].

[1] No matter how feasible you think it is (I'm up in the air about it myself), quality health care for everyone (aka universal health care) is a fabulous idea.

[2] Gentlepeople of Leisure, also known as the unemployed

Comments

[c1.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure where you got the $100 number: the last one I saw was the the *initial* goal for the law was $200/month, but the legislature balked at a number of chances to meet this goal, opting instead for the goal of an average policy cost of $300/month.
I'm not sure I can afford to live in this state with a second car payment.
How legislators are seeing fit to pat themselves on the back, calling this "a good piece of legislation" is beyond me. It's really a free handout to the insurance companies. No wonder the state's losing residents.
And, of course, Mitt won't call this a tax like it is, because he doesn't want to look like a "tax and spend Massachusetts liberal."

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

Uh. . . I don't see anything in my comment that refers to $100. I refered to $1200 per year for people who don't have health insurance, which is the closest I can see to $100. Did I miss something in someone else's comment?

I wonder if having some sort of "companies that have $more-than-X profits/year need to pay $something_more_than_individuals/year per uninsured employee" clause, which would compliment the "people who make $more-than-X/year need to pay in full for their coverage with no substidies or else get tax penalites", would be useful. I'd feel a lot better knowing the underemployed weren't paying more than Wal-Mart or Mobil for health care.

[greyhame.livejournal.com]

Looking at your original post, and c1's comment, I think it is a reference to the $1200 figure -- that is, you're talking about a yearly cost and c1 is talking about a monthly cost -- $1200/year = $100/mo.

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

Ah, OK. c1, that's the amount of the tax penalty for anyone who doesn't get insured, supposed to reflect half the cost of getting health care (I wonder if they're going to raise that to $1800 since they're now working with a base of $300/month?). I'm compared a person who doesn't get health care coverage for themselves to a company that doesn't pay at least partially for health care coverage for its employees, where the company is paying 1/4 of what an individual pays for what seems to me to be the same behavior (actually, the company gets a better deal, since they only need to partially pay for the coverage). That just feels wrong to me.

The answer to this difference when the host of the piece on NPR was, "But the insurance will be so damn cheap, everyone will have it!" Sounds like a smoke-and-mirrors response to me. My fears that the companies get off light, the private insurers get more money, and the taxpayer gets the shaft were most definitely not reassured.