Here is the House health care bill (pdf).
A couple of highlights (I haven’t read the whole thing yet):
- Individual mandate is enforced by (1) a financial penalty of 50% of the smallest premium the individual would have been able to pay to maintain coverage, assessed either by reducing a tax refund or (if that’s not enough) by an assessment from DOR; and (2) preventing driver’s license renewal until the coverage issue is resolved.
- Businesses with 11-99 employees must pay an assessment of 3% of their payroll to the state’s new "Commonwealth Care Fund" beginning on July 1, 2006; for 100 or more employees, the rate is 5%. These rates will rise to 4%/6%, and again to 5%/7%, at one-year intervals. Health care-related expenses incurred by the employer, including "an amount equal to the employer’s expense for employee health benefits, including health insurance, and contributions to employee health savings accounts," will be credited against the contribution (so that if these expenses exceed the assessments, no contribution will be required).
Much, much more to come.
Please share widely!
Does the bill allow individuals who must purchase health insurance in the individual market deduct the cost of the plan from their income for state income tax purposes?
Health Care for All has some documents from the House at http://www.hcfama.org/act/.Apparently, they’re calling this the PATH bill.
Abby: a good question to which I don’t know the answer. I didn’t see anything in the bill suggesting that such a deduction would be available, but I might easily have missed it.
I didn’t see it anywhere, although I only skimmed large portions of the bill. (It would be easier to follow if the laws on the books now were printed and struck through with the replacement language in regular print.)I think that this is a major equity issue. Self-employed people can enter the small group market as a group of one, but individuals who aren’t able to buy coverage from their work can’t. (The Federal tax break is the bigger deal, but we can’t do anything about that.) Making the insurance premium deductible ought to be a priority for HCFAMA.
This bill will destroy the competitiveness of small businesses in the state. Taxing companies like Wal-Mart is a good idea, taxing companies with around 10 people (like my family’s) is not such a good idea. when businesses are about to get over 10 people, they will either stop growing or move to another state. Not a good bill.
Ken, my father employs about 15 people, most of them with families. He also sponsors health insurance for them and their families as the cost of doing business. Who pays for your employee’s health care?
apparently I was wrong on two counts – my stepdad’s company doesnt quite break the 10 person threshold (though through mergers it might within a few years), and we pay for everyone’s insurance except for part-timers.
It is unfortunate to hear so many lack health insurance. We really need to improve our health care system. Health insurance is a major aspect to many and we should help everyone get covered. I hope the health care bill can help many to get health coverage.
Maybe I’m just naive, but…My own view, FWIW, is that this “Scalito” business is simply due to two conservative judges having Italian surnames that happen to sound similar. It is therefore insulting and juvenile and should be dropped immediately – if two Jewish judges’ names were subjected to similar wordplay, the “joke” would be widely condemned as anti-semitic.)when I began reading about Alito and the Scalito references, I only connected the dots on judicial temperment. I didn’t consider for a second the religion, ethnic bacground, or other such non-judicial nonsense. Am I a fool? Perhaps. Or perhaps I rose above the “childish” behavior. Personally, I don’t think the joke would be considered anti-semitic in the example above. On the contrary, the Jews I know (mostly the Woody Allen types from Brooklyn) find that kind of joke — including at the expense of a Jew — quite funny.BTW: My father is an Italian American, my mother is an Italian American, and my wife’s heritage is Italian. I shop for groceries in The North End every week or so. I’m as Italian as they come for a 3rd generation American, and I didn’t even think of the idea that because Scalia and Alito are Italian that the Scalito reference might be insulting. Wop is insulting. Grabbing my sister is insulting. Scalito is not insulting.
In addition staying undecided until you read more, it’s worth staying undecided until the hearings. That’s what the hearings are for, after all. The more that people make up their minds beforehand, assuming that the hearings will be meaningless, the more the hearings will be meaningless.Great note, by the way. I got here from the Language Log, which (like stomv) was primarily interested in the nickname business, but the rest of the post is good meat.Thanks,-V.
Great perspective. I’m wary right now but this is food for thought.(Oh, and I also just attributed the nickname to judicial philosophy and the coincidence of overlapping syllables. Ethnicity wasn’t a part of it.)
Here is yet another reason to drop this “Scalito” nonsense: it is misleading even on the narrow issue of judicial philosophy.
Plus another good reason to drop this ‘Scalito’ nonsense: it is just childish. I’m a big proponent of taking the high road and not stooping to argumentum ad hominem attacks. If your opponents go negative, attack them on their policies, not with school yard taunts and name calling.I also agree that coming to a decision about this man 24 hours after he has been nominated is intellectually lazy and servile. Wait for the hearings for chrissake.
on the other hand, see MyDD today: http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/11/1/03633/3671. “Scalito” was a nickname given him by both friends and foe alike.seriously, i’m baffled by those who think this is some kind of ad hominem attack or a racial slur, particularly given that his friends have been using it for a long time. it is meant to convey that he is similar to scalia as a judge.and by the way, wake up and smell the coffee: this guy is not some kind of mild-mannered moderate. the guy supported unwarranted strip searches for 10-year-old girls. why the rush to defend him?
I can’t figure out what would be the best Democratic strategy, though I’m viscerally inclined to favor Operation Samson–bringing down the walls of the Senate, and let the world be damned. Of course, it would be nice if we could be open-minded and objective, but with the Republicans strongly committed and decidedly UN-objective, that would be silly–not to mention wimpy.
well, it’s simple, really: make the case repeatedly that the guy is a right-wing extremist, via ads and talking-head shows. then vote against him. then filibuster.very few people believe that strip searching 10-year-old girls without a warrant, and discrimination in employment based on race or disability is or should be constitutional. so if we can make the case that alito is for those things (and he is, or was not so long ago), and then stop him from getting on the court, we win.this nomination battle is really an ideological battle: are we going to have a conservative theocracy, or a liberal democracy? if we don’t think we can win that fight, then what are we doing here?
I’m disappointed that the conversation on the left isn’t “Will this guy make a good justice?” but rather “How do we make this guy look bad?” No wonder people start tuning out politics. It’s only been a day, and the noise from the right is “Is he really one of us?” while the left is saying “How do we bury him?” Geez, how about figuring out if the man is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land?
As I state at my weblog today, I do not think “Scalito” is an anti-Italian insult. I do, however, believe it is juvenile, insulting and unhelpful. See finito con “scalito”.
thanks!gay fetish
thanks