I practically choked on my Cheerios this morning as I read the news, discussed in more detail by Charley and John McDonough, that the Senate has unanimously (!) passed a bill that not only does nothing to encourage employers who don’t provide health insurance benefits to get in the game, but that requires individuals to carry health insurance or face tax penalties.
Anyone who has been around this site for a while knows that I really, really, really hate the idea of an individual mandate. It’s a bad idea for practical reasons – sure, the government says it’s going to make insurance affordable, but we all know that that’s not really going to work and that thousands of families will end up choosing between paying the premiums for their crappy stripped-down “insurance” and paying the rent or feeding the kids. And it’s a bad idea for philosophical reasons, as I’ve laid out at length in the posts linked above. (Short version: the government has no business telling me that I must buy something I may not want simply for the privilege of living in this state.)
To be fair to Senate President Travaglini, who is getting lots and lots of flack for this, the Globe article reads as though Romney strong-armed him into including an individual mandate. According to the Globe, the bill first introduced by Trav didn’t include the mandate, but it “was inserted yesterday after Romney made clear to Senate leaders that he was worried the federal government wouldn’t approve the plan unless it contained a strong incentive for people to buy insurance.” Translation: Romney told Trav that if the mandate wasn’t in, he would scuttle the plan by not advocating for it with US Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt, with whom Romney reportedly has a close relationship. And if the feds don’t accept the plan, then we don’t get the $385 million that is the whole point of this stupid bill. So Romney is leveraging his friendship with Mike Leavitt into an onerous burden on Massachusetts residents, all so that he can run for President on having “reformed” health care in Massachusetts. What an opportunistic, amoral jerk.
In any event, it doesn’t much matter to me whose idea this individual mandate was, or who ultimately votes for it. I stand by what I said in November:
this notion that it’s OK to tax individuals – and yes, Mr. “no new taxes” Governor, it’s a tax – within an inch of their lives to force them to carry health insurance, but it’s too hard on business to give employers a choice of paying a tax or covering their employees, is bullshit. If that kind of plan passes, I will be the first one signing the referendum petitions to repeal it.
Looks like it’s time to get those referendum petitions ready.
Outrageous!
Just to clarify statements made by you, Charley on the MTA, and John McDonough, the Senate’s individual mandate includes the so-called “affordability clause” that was included in the House bill. This clause exempts people from the mandate if it is determined that affordable health care wasn’t available (i.e. if the government doesn’t make insurance affordable then no one chooses between food and health care). Also, the penalties under the Senate plan appear to be a LOT less onerous than the House mandate, which would take away your driver’s license (where’s the uproar there?!) or the Governor’s bill, which would dock your wages. If you don’t fufill the mandate under the Senate bill you lose your personal exemption – that’s it. I know you guys all have a knee-jerk reaction to hate whatever the Senate comes out with becuase it doesn’t include a business tax, but you should really look at the details.
but I don’t have them – I’m going on what’s in the paper. Have you got the bill? Or at least a bill number? If so, please share!
The bill is here (SB 2390) sans amendments. Session coverage by State House News can be found here. And eventually the 2006 journal of the Senate will include all the amendment language.
It’s disgraceful that Eggplant Travaglini was not around last week to negotiate with the Speaker but was instead on vacation. Are people as outraged as me that he was on vacation while the most important piece of business this legislative session was in the works. Where is the call for his resignation from Scott Lehigh who sips wine with the Senators and agrees to trade inside info for puff articles; or whispers Havern the phony goofball from Arlington who calls reporters to drop dimes like we wake up every morning to go to real jobs.
where your philosophical objections to the individual mandate can potentially go.
<
p>
It sounds very similar to businesses always complaining about how the government has no business telling them that they must buy something/contribute various assessments, that they might not want, simply for the privilege of doing business in this state.
<
p>
To me, the payroll assessment makes a lot of sense given the current messed-up way we do health insurance in this country, which is to have it contributed through employers rather than the government.
<
p>
At the same time, while we are asking businesses to contribute whether or not they want to, what is so wrong about saying that INDIVIDUALS must likewise share the costs of insurance if they can afford it.
<
p>
People who might be offered health insurance at work but simply choose not to accept it because “I just don’t think I need it” are also costing the system. ‘Cause when they get sick, the state may have to pick up some of that cost. Requiring them to have insurance is simply spreading the cost, like the payroll assessment would do for businesses.
The difference is, when the government forces individuals to give money to a third party, it’s unconstitutional as a “taking.” Suppose, for example, the city of Boston forced Fenway neighborhood homes and businesses to give up their land for the benefit of Sox ownership, so they could build a new ball park, that’s a taking of property. Unless the taking is for a legitimate public use, it’s illegal.
<
p>
Here, the government is taking your money and forcing you to give it to private businesses, i.e., HMOs. Does that confer legitimate public benefit? Or is the government forcing you to participate in private enterprise against your will?
<
p>
The difference with businesses is, the state of Massachusetts regulates which businesses operate in the state, and under what regulations. Businesses garner profit at the expense of the labor of the work force. If Massachusetts imposes a health care requirement, it is well within its right to do so.
Under your broad definition of a “taking”, how are taxes not a “taking”?
<
p>
The government takes my money and gives it to individuals in a number of ways. It also gives it to businesses in a number of ways — small business grants, etc. Is this not a “taking”?
<
p>
Obviously not. But just as obviously, this is not a taking. I’m not saying that the individual mandate is necessarily a great idea, but on a philosophical level there is certainly little wrong with this.
Taxes are constitutional means of raising revenue for the public good. They’re constitutionally authorized. But once the group of people you’re extracting money from gets smaller, and once it looks like you’re not raising revenue, but merely passing it onto private parties, then the line grays and it begins to look more like a taking, and you have to start thinking about due process.
<
p>
The question is whether or not Massachusetts defines money as “property” (I would think so) and whether the government takes private property for private benefit. If so, that’s unconstitutional.
<
p>
I think I’ll do some research on this and get a decent scholarly piece done. But, in any case, I wouldn’t say the outcome is “obvious” at all.
The new health care bill does not constitute a taking. While the individual mandate does require an individual to carry insurance it permits individuals to participate in state programs by not carrying individual insurance being “taxed” for the privilege. The funds placed in the uninsured care pool thereby paying for the emergency room visits that unisured individuals inevitably use as primary care.
<
p>
Moreover, like all Constitutional guarantees, there are no absolute protections. Your reliance on the 5th Amendment while admirable is mistaken in the fact that the protection is absolute. The protection of the Takings Clause is against takings “without just compensation.” The Supreme Court’s analysis of this area of law has been little better as it often finds that just compensation is zero. So short of convincing the Supreme Court to find a lack of compesation on the part of the state, which I beleive covers appropriate medical care, there is no taking.
Here’s the thing that grabs me: Why is it OK to require that individuals purchase insurance but somehow wrong to require employers to provide it? The Massachusetts Senate’s health care proposal – in our supposedly progressive, blue state – just reflects the curent orthodoxy that drives our Republican-controlled federal government: whatever business/the corporadoes want, they get (and in the meantime, we need individuals to be more responsible).
Yes, Romney does have pressure points that he can exert on Travaglini, particularly through Mike leavitt. But a real leader is, in part, one who stands up to pressure, delcares what he’s doing and why, and works to make that pressure boomerang back on those exerting it. Trav could have pointed to what was going on, say that he was committed to a real solution and that it was Romney’s fault if it failed, and not caved. But that’s not what he did, and it tells us something about the man who runs the Senate.
Romney’s LEAVING! For god’s sake, be your own goddamned man, especially since it’s a lame duck gov! For heaven’s sake, is it too much to ask a LEADER to LEAD??
<
p>
Fire Trav!
You’re right, he’s clearly not the leader we need in charge of the Senate. I’ve thought that for a while. The man needs to go.
<
p>
Massachusetts had a great opportunity to get everyone insured. Now that opportunity is lost, at least for a year. Some people may say ‘big deal, it’s a year.’ Well, it is a big deal… how many people are going to die in Massachusetts this year from what could have been prevented with health insurance? How many people are going to cost this state huge amounts of money from what could have been cured easily if a routine checkup occurred?
<
p>
Everyone needs health insurance. If it doesn’t happen in Massachusetts now, who’s going to set the trend? Will it ever happen?
<
p>
I wrote a really detailed post about what I think about this here – Trav pisses me off, whether or not Romney “strong-armed” him. How can Romney strong arm him? He’s an unpopular, lame duck governor in a government that can overturn his vetos relatively easily.. and Romney wanted a 100% coverage bill more than anyone else to tout to the rest of the country while he runs for President.
that right now, this bill isn’t about health care reform – it’s ONLY about preserving a pile of federal money. And Romney, lame duck or not, running for Prez or not, holds all the cards on that, because all the indications are that Mike Leavitt will basically do whatever Romney wants.
<
p>
I don’t disagree that Trav could perhaps have shown a bit more backbone. But there are unfortunate realities in play here, namely, that the Republicans control the federal government right now.
<
p>
I’m still dead-set against the bill in its current form. I just don’t think it’s entirely fair to blame Trav for it.
Here’s an example of why individual mandates wouldn’t work. Say you make $26,000 per year and the state mandated that, as a single person, you could afford $200/month for health insurance. Only problem is, in the Massachusetts market, the only plan you can buy for $200 a month has a $5000 deductible. A young person may well be able to AFFORD the $200/month (if they live at home indefinitely), but they CANNOT afford to USE the plan. In addition, for a married couple, ages 60 and 62, an INDIVIDUAL PLAN + spouse costs approximately $2600 per month. I am assuming the bill Romney favors is NOT a buy-in to Mass Health on a sliding scale for either young singles or older married couples. They intend for INDIVIDUALS to purchase this insurance in the private market. Those are the private market premiums. Any feedback???