Correction. . . Strike my word, "overtake," above.
I meant ". . .what happens when Fed minimums SUPPLANT (or replace) the state's?. . ."
By the word, "overtake," I didn't mean that the Feds would or should "exceed" Massachusetts' mandates. Quite the opposite!
Also the Federal requirements should preclude ANYONE from having to purchase more than the Fed minimum. Otherwise, we'll all be stuck with paying for stuff we don't need, beyond Fed minimums. Here the Feds can be as tough as they want!
Tom - 15 years ago
Hi, again. I mostly agree with Joe, except the Feds aren't going to be able to mandate things like invitro fertilization, cosmetic surgery, and a host of other things we all "enjoy" paying for here. It would never fly on a national level. And then, what happens when the Fed minimums (lesser for sure than today's than Mass mandates) overtake the state's? It a perverse way, maybe this would be better than what we have now? Cost wise?
By the way I found out that at this time there are some Fed dollars funnelled to cover some services for illegals -- don't know the details. Presumably this would have to stop. Going forward, wouldn't most illegals be reluctant to buy private insurance (which they could, even if Fed enrollment is prohibited)? Yet everyone has to obtain coverage of some sort, "or else." Go figure.
joe - 15 years ago
The state program is terrible for those who buy their own insurance. Premium costs have escalated dramatically becuase of mandated benefits. Why can't citizens of this state have a choice when it comes to buying an insurance policy that best fits there needs? Why because of our arrogant state reps. who think they know best and benefit financially from the lobbyists of these companies now collecting the higher premiums. It's one thing to say everyone has to have health insurance but to say your policy must provide all the expensive benefits whether you need them or not is absurd. Your taxes will be going up because of these mandated benefits because the state doesn't have the money to pay for those who can't afford these plans.
Tom - 15 years ago
The state's program would be too expensive if adopted more or less the same at the Federal level. There's no way the Feds will be able to mandate, manage, and pay for the extent of coverages we have here. Anyway, the Federal direction seems to be drifting another direction at long last.
Now it appears the Feds will include some Tort reform. Also it appears there is finally serious consideration about robust controls to prevent ineligible people from being able to enroll in any new, Federally subsidized program (be it supported by co-ops or public option). It will take work to bullet-proof this feature from the courts. But it will have to come, along with non-Federally funded methods to pay for emergency services for ineligible patients.
None of these will be palatable to Massachusetts; however, if the Federal results are to apply to all states we should be prepared to share the basic framework which will apply across the land. The news isn't all good.
Correction. . . Strike my word, "overtake," above.
I meant ". . .what happens when Fed minimums SUPPLANT (or replace) the state's?. . ."
By the word, "overtake," I didn't mean that the Feds would or should "exceed" Massachusetts' mandates. Quite the opposite!
Also the Federal requirements should preclude ANYONE from having to purchase more than the Fed minimum. Otherwise, we'll all be stuck with paying for stuff we don't need, beyond Fed minimums. Here the Feds can be as tough as they want!
Hi, again. I mostly agree with Joe, except the Feds aren't going to be able to mandate things like invitro fertilization, cosmetic surgery, and a host of other things we all "enjoy" paying for here. It would never fly on a national level. And then, what happens when the Fed minimums (lesser for sure than today's than Mass mandates) overtake the state's? It a perverse way, maybe this would be better than what we have now? Cost wise?
By the way I found out that at this time there are some Fed dollars funnelled to cover some services for illegals -- don't know the details. Presumably this would have to stop. Going forward, wouldn't most illegals be reluctant to buy private insurance (which they could, even if Fed enrollment is prohibited)? Yet everyone has to obtain coverage of some sort, "or else." Go figure.
The state program is terrible for those who buy their own insurance. Premium costs have escalated dramatically becuase of mandated benefits. Why can't citizens of this state have a choice when it comes to buying an insurance policy that best fits there needs? Why because of our arrogant state reps. who think they know best and benefit financially from the lobbyists of these companies now collecting the higher premiums. It's one thing to say everyone has to have health insurance but to say your policy must provide all the expensive benefits whether you need them or not is absurd. Your taxes will be going up because of these mandated benefits because the state doesn't have the money to pay for those who can't afford these plans.
The state's program would be too expensive if adopted more or less the same at the Federal level. There's no way the Feds will be able to mandate, manage, and pay for the extent of coverages we have here. Anyway, the Federal direction seems to be drifting another direction at long last.
Now it appears the Feds will include some Tort reform. Also it appears there is finally serious consideration about robust controls to prevent ineligible people from being able to enroll in any new, Federally subsidized program (be it supported by co-ops or public option). It will take work to bullet-proof this feature from the courts. But it will have to come, along with non-Federally funded methods to pay for emergency services for ineligible patients.
None of these will be palatable to Massachusetts; however, if the Federal results are to apply to all states we should be prepared to share the basic framework which will apply across the land. The news isn't all good.