http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/healthcare

1) Make insurance premiums tax-deductable

Mitt’s presidential campaign site suggests this. Many states don’t have state income tax (mine doesn’t), so this is perhaps something easier to implement on the Federal level.

2) Ease regulations on the insurance companies

This is also on his site; here’s the issue link:

The broker, Jennifer, was super and really had some good information and was able to explain things in detail. So there are, you may just have to look a while.

This has slowly resulted in the loss of doctors, of all specialties, who will respond to ER call at all. I was the last ophthalmologist in town to reluctantly give up covering the ER (last year), as most others had quit ten years ago. There is now not a single ophthalmologist for 75 miles in any direction who will go in to our ER and see a patient–insured or not, as according to our hospital bylaws we can choose to either accept ER call and see everyone they call us for, or opt out of ER coverage entirely. So, due to the overwhelming abuse of the ER by the uninsured, NO ONE gets emergency ophthalmic care here. NO ONE.

Romney’s plan requiring people to buy insurance is not perfect. No plan is or ever will be. But if it would allow everyone to get emergency care by allowing doctors to be able to afford to go back to the ER and provide care again, knowing they would at least be reimbursed for the extra malpractice insurance it costs us to take ER call and take on these difficult and litigious cases, it might be worth considering.

MB4 on January 26, 2008 at 1:08 AM

Sounds like we viewed the issue in the same way, we just disagreed. I agree that in this case the gov is saying, “If you’re alive, you have to have an insurance policy to cover your healthcare costs.” I just don’t think they have the right to pass those kinds of laws.

Anyway, sorry for bringing you into it. Your comment implying the only way out of it was to be dead spoke to the point I had been trying to get through.

If you drive a car you should therefor have liability insurance or a big escrow bond to cover costs that might incur to you. If you are alive – ditto.

MB4 on January 26, 2008 at 12:26 AM

Really? My comment here. Your comment here. But even if you were intending to attack my point, it’s clear you understood the point I was (and have been) making (even if you don’t agree with it).

I wondered on the McCain/Hernandez thread if you hadn’t overdosed TCO. You worry me a little. You worked a bit too much today.

Well Mitt’s plan only applies if you want to own/drive a body. If you are dead you can opt out.

MB4 on January 25, 2008 at 7:11 PM

was in support of the second paragraph of AttilaTheHun’s January 25, 2008 at 5:55 PM comment.

I not sure who the joke is on here.

Deety on January 25, 2008 at 11:48 PM

The point I always like to make is that we have these problems in the first place because of government legislation. We’re on an employer-based system because of wage controls in the 30’s. Most employees are stuck with HMOs because of a pro-HMO legislation in 1973. It was government that, over the years, destroyed the private market. I think we need to get government out of the way more than anything else.

I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s not just a matter of portability. The more people are able to tailor their coverage to fit their needs, preferences and budgets the better off we all are.

There is no reason why a single male should have to pay for a plan that includes prenatal and obstetric care simply because some state has passed a law mandating that all policies include it (just for an example).

On the other hand, if someone wants a low/no deductible plan to cover their weekly visits to their aromatherapist and they can find a company who will cover that, I say let ‘em buy that plan if they figure the higher rate is worth it.

Making available bare-bones catastrophic care policies which are more appropriate for most young people anyway.

I agree. I just checked, if you’re under 30, you can get a policy for $45/month with a $4,000 deductable.

I think the real problem we need to solve is to get us off the employer-based model. Our economy is different than it was in the 30’s and people switch jobs a lot more often. People need to own their policies so they can take them with them. Plus, it will enable people to pick their own plans as opposed to a one-size-fits-all option.

Also, if they can’t afford a $10,000 bond why should the people of Mass. pay for a visit to the E.R. after those hippies get punched? ;)

Deety on January 25, 2008 at 11:12 PM

Ah, that’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that before. If I understand correctly, the whole point behind the mandate was to force young people into the market to help drive down the costs for everybody else, since they were the ones least likely to actually need care. Of course, most young people probably could not afford a $10,000 bond, so that wouldn’t have affected them anyway.

n order to get health insurance you have to provide a plethora of private information and even subject yourself to tests, right? Do you guys seriously not see that a mandate is a violation of your consitutional rights?

Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 10:23 PM

I believe that the original plan called for a choice of buying health insurance or posting a bond along the lines of $10,000 against any hospital care for those who did not want to bother with the whole insurance system and self-insure.

It was the Mass. legislature that changed it to buy insurance or be fined.

Resolute on January 25, 2008 at 10:51 PM

It makes a huge difference to me depending on how it’s done because it’s the difference between rewarding behavior and punishing people for not adopting government preferred behavior.

If there is a box on the tax form that asks “Do you have health insurance?” and if so you can deduct the premium, that is a big difference from if not, you owe an additional $1,500 in taxes.

I doubt it’s the first case though, because for PR purposes I couldn’t fathom why he would call it a mandate and refer to fines when he could call it a tax break.

Resolute on January 25, 2008 at 10:46 PM

Just to make it clear, my only real issue with his plan was the mandate which I view as an assault on personal freedom. I don’t buy the argument that it’s justified because some people screw over the taxpayers. My response would be to go after and fine those people.

I don’t see how fining wealthy people solves anything since they can afford to pay their hospital bills and have the most to lose by not paying them.

Did MA actually study the issue and find that wealthy people were stiffing hospitals? I would think that most people not paying their bills were lower-income.

I didn’t mean to suggest that Romney was giving the poor free care with his plan (I know that they can get it through Medicare anyway). I was responding to the suggestion that people who are uninsured are somehow cheating the system by getting free care and so it was okay to fine them.

I wanted to point out that Romney’s plan only fined taxpayers who, through their taxes, help pay for/subsidize care. So they’re not getting free care. The only ones getting “free” care are uninsured people who don’t pay taxes.

Time will tell if this works. But in my mind it would have to be a resounding success to justify a mandate and even then I’d have serious issues with it.

Oh, wait a minute. I do endorse tax breaks. Is that his plan? I thought his plan fined people for not buying insurance. Seriously, I’d like to know, because this is my main sticking point with Romney. If I’m misinformed, please set the record straight.

Spolitics on January 25, 2008 at 10:16 PM

f you call something a tax break for some or a tax hike for others is really a subsective question isnt it? It is like how rolling back Bush’s tax cuts is someone magically never called raising taxes. How it works is you get a simple tax deduction based on if you have insurance. If that is technically a tax break or atax raise… I suppose that would depend on if the baseline tax rate that the deduction is based on has actually gone up or down…which frankly I have no idea it has probably gone up but what has that to do with this health plan?

The only ones receiving “free” care are the uninsured who don’t pay taxes. Romney’s plan gives them free healthcare

He didnt give them anything. They already had it. Your assumption this plan increases that is exactly wrong. The whole idea, the fundamental point of this plan which you dont seem to grasp is to eliminate the entire class of people who show up to the emergency room with no paperwork whatsoever. Hospitals try to sign people up to insurance on the spot or retroactively even.

The uninsured who pay taxes are already paying into that state fund for the uninsured, right? So, through their taxes they’re paying for healthcare whether they receive it or not.

That is not really true anymore since part of the whole idea is to eliminate said fund. If it will actually be gone or how this will all play out comes about under Deval Patrick not Romney.

it slams the middle class with a mandate they cannot escape

actually it has very little effect on the middle class who get thier insurance through an employer.

let me lay this out to the best of my knowlege:
-anyone who has insurance – there should be little net change
-poor people who already got defacto free care - are folded into the subsidized gov’t insurance, which by the way already existed before and is not a Romney invention
-self employed or others who find it hard to afford insurance – partially subsidized thier insurance premium
-wealthy who for whatever reason decided not to buy insurance – this is the only group that faces an actual penalty (IMHO the only reason that part is there is in order to make this whole thing “comprehensive” and passify the libs who wanted instead government run solutions)

Resolute on January 25, 2008 at 10:08 PM

Or are you making a distinction between his federal plan and his state plan? My problem was with the mandates in his state plan.

Resolute on January 25, 2008 at 10:08 PM

Oh, wait a minute. I do endorse tax breaks. Is that his plan? I thought his plan fined people for not buying insurance. Seriously, I’d like to know, because this is my main sticking point with Romney. If I’m misinformed, please set the record straight.

TheBigOldDog on January 25, 2008 at 10:01 PM

First off, it’s not a tax break, it’s a fine. So who’s really being “intellectual dishonest”?

The fine is levied on the uninsured who pay taxes — not on the uninsured who actually go to hospitals.

The uninsured who pay taxes are already paying into that state fund for the uninsured, right? So, through their taxes they’re paying for healthcare whether they receive it or not.

The only ones receiving “free” care are the uninsured who don’t pay taxes. Romney’s plan gives them free healthcare. In the meantime, it slams the middle class with a mandate they cannot escape and charges them a fine to pay for care they didn’t even get. Yeah. I don’t like it.

I’m not worried about moving to MA, I’m worried about other states following suit. And more than anything, I’m worried about what the government believes it can mandate next.