Massachusetts voters may have spoken in wanting less government as most political analysts reported. But, let me play the devils advocate and extrapolate on one subject matter, health care coverage and government intervention.
It appears that Massachusetts resident's vote spoke with 'fork tongues'. Massachusetts enacted legislation in 2006, under then Governor Romney (R) that mandated Massachusetts residents to have universal health care coverage through an individual mandate. Individuals unable to afford the premiums are provided a government subsidy to obtain coverage; resulting in 98% of its residents as insured.
A recent Kaiser report findings indicates that Massachusetts residents are content with the passage of universal health care mandate even though premiums are higher. Understandably, the mandate requires acceptance of all pre-existing medical conditions; consequently, raising the insurance carrier's exposure to increase medical claims and premiums.
The same intervention applies to workers that receive employer provided health care coverage. Employer provided health care plans takes into consideration the groups claims experience versus an individual health plan where the monthly cost imposed is the sum of one versus the sum of all. We pay for each others medical history-good or bad. The federal government mandates through the passage of HIPPA not to discriminate and accept pre-exisitng medical conditions such as newborns born with birth defects or pregnant women, requirement of employer premium participation, and the right to the continuation of our employer sponsored coverage after we loose our jobs or a divorce or another qualifiable life event.
In health care, there are inequalities and government involvement is appropriate. If not, we the people, couldn't afford to pay or obtain health care coverage if we could.
It appears that Massachusetts resident's vote spoke with 'fork tongues'. Massachusetts enacted legislation in 2006, under then Governor Romney (R) that mandated Massachusetts residents to have universal health care coverage through an individual mandate. Individuals unable to afford the premiums are provided a government subsidy to obtain coverage; resulting in 98% of its residents as insured.
A recent Kaiser report findings indicates that Massachusetts residents are content with the passage of universal health care mandate even though premiums are higher. Understandably, the mandate requires acceptance of all pre-existing medical conditions; consequently, raising the insurance carrier's exposure to increase medical claims and premiums.
The same intervention applies to workers that receive employer provided health care coverage. Employer provided health care plans takes into consideration the groups claims experience versus an individual health plan where the monthly cost imposed is the sum of one versus the sum of all. We pay for each others medical history-good or bad. The federal government mandates through the passage of HIPPA not to discriminate and accept pre-exisitng medical conditions such as newborns born with birth defects or pregnant women, requirement of employer premium participation, and the right to the continuation of our employer sponsored coverage after we loose our jobs or a divorce or another qualifiable life event.
In health care, there are inequalities and government involvement is appropriate. If not, we the people, couldn't afford to pay or obtain health care coverage if we could.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment