So, we’ve swallowed hard here at BMG, very reluctantly putting up with a consumer mandate to buy health insurance, if it were coupled with a mandate on employers who don’t cover their employees to pay something. Well, the Senate has reinstated the personal mandate — alone.
Under the provision added to the bill yesterday, the individual mandate would kick in Jan. 1, 2008, if the state did not trim the number of uninsured by 50 percent; the mandate would also kick in by Jan. 1, 2009, if the number of uninsured had not been reduced by 75 percent.
Under the mandate, anyone who fails to buy insurance would either pay for medical costs out of pocket or face tax penalties.
Pure mandate, baby. Buy crappy insurance or else: $5400 deductible for a family! What exactly are you paying for, again? And yes, taxpayers will still be paying for Wal-Mart employees’ health care: state-run care for we but not thee, I guess.
And isn’t this great:
The Senate and Romney say an employer mandate would burden businesses and cost jobs.
Yeah, they’re so thoughtful, aren’t they? Now, for us individuals, it’s no burden at all, right? And it’s Monopoly money flowing out of our pockets to insurance companies anyway, right? Money which wouldn’t create jobs in our communities, right?
I guess they know where their bread is buttered — or they think they do.
Much more at Health Care for All — must read.
By the way, take our Travaglini poll, up and to the right on the front page.
Just a friendly reminder:
<
p>
Full time students in Massachusetts are already required to be insured. For undergraduates, it usually falls under the student’s parents. For graduate students like myself: we’re on our own.
<
p>
Now, since I’m going after a Ph D in the maths and sciences, I’m funded — including health care. So, it workd out really well for me: I get “free” health care with my stipend, much like some employees get “free” health care with their wages and other compensation.
<
p>
But, what about masters students? Unfunded students, like so many in the arts and culture fields? They’re on their own. They’re required to carry insurance, even though a 24 year old English Ph D student is about as risk-averse as one can get.
<
p>
We soak up the risk of others. For those like me, the federal government ends up paying since I’m on a government research grant. For other students, it’s yet another high cost in Massachusetts education.
<
p>
I’m not arguing agsinst carrying insurance. I’m arguing against being forced to carry insurance. Massachusetts students are forced, and I don’t think it’s right (even though it clearly benefits me).
because students tend to be good risks, the insurance tends to be affordable. We can argue about principles of requiring coverage, but my degree of resistance is definitely informed by the fact that people are going to be required to buy insurance that will indeed shift even more costs onto themselves. Paying for the right to pay, IOW.
because students tend to be broke, the insurance isn’t any more affordable for students than other insurance is for others.
<
p>
Furthermore, because students tend to be such a good risk, there’s a high probability that they could make it through their entire stint as a graduate student without anything more than a couple of NyQuil or Sudafed. Therefore, their “affordable” insurance is less likely to ever even be used.
I Told You So.
<
p>
Fire Trav! Worthless git.
He is completely worthless. The more I read, the more I cringe. I wrote letters to both my Senator and to Trav himself: he has to go. It’s time for the “worthless git” to step down.