WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-04-06 06:26:34 +0000

There are so many good things to discuss, I don't know where to begin. First, the actual implications of of it. If I am a doctor, nurse, or EMT in MA, tending to a patient, I do not have to worry if the person is covered while I am performing my job. OK, I know doctors and nurses are supposed to care for patients no matter who they are, but still, it is bit of a load of their shoulders. Two, Romney is taking credit for this and he should. Abso-smurfly. Republicans are the party of liberal and expensive government now (and I do understand the whole "protecting America costs money" angle the GOP uses), but the specific expansion of government regarding healthcare was (stereo)typically a Democrat thing, and Romney now has the ball in his court. Brilliant. Three, this quote from Romney: "I do think people look to see cooperation from both parties and are tired of 'gotcha' politics. They are looking for people to help solve problems rather than just point out failures, and I'm proud that my legislature here ... was able to collaborate on something and make a huge difference." We all realize this Masshole wacko could be president, right? *** My dislikes. One, if I don't have health insurance for a whole year, I lose the proposed state $150 dollar tax expemption. Hey, if I don't use a hospital for a year, I shouldn't have to pay shit for it, right? Let alone all the people who will try and have health insurance for only one month (though I now realize that's what the whole $150 is for...) Two, there is a provision in it requiring all companies over 10 employees to pay an additional $295 in taxes (each year) per employee for whom said company does not pay 51% of the employee's health insurance. From my understanding of it, it will truly put pressure on companies to be nine employees or under. There should be a graduated tax bracket (say $40 for the first uninsured, $70 for the second, $100 for the third, etc. up to the $295) Yes, I like math. Three, it makes Romney look good. And he's a freak... I love my Mormons and been friends with 'em since I was 5, but Romney, come on... Lastly, tgl, you realize that the same party that controls the executive and legislative branches of the US government, also control the judicial?

Posted by cdubrocker on 2006-04-06 12:48:29 +0000

Conservatives do not control the judicial. Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas are pretty solid in the Republican camp (haven't seen enough of Alito, but I guess we can assume). Leaning toward the liberal side are Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens. And though Kennedy can be a mixed bag I generally put him with the liberals. I think there will be good number of 5-4 decisions with this court on social issues and on police power issues. As long as no jusitices retire or pass away for the next 2+ years, I think we'll be OK.

Posted by tgl on 2006-04-06 13:03:58 +0000

I don't get my auto. insurance premiums back after a year of never using the insurance. So, you should still pay for health insurance even if you never go to the hospital. Or, am I reading your first dislike wrong? Hopefully, health insurance will get people to visit doctor's before their common ailments send them to the emergency room. Uncrowded emergency rooms benefit everyone. The $295 tax is far less then the 51% of health care coverage for a year. Much like increasing the minimum wage improves the labor market, encouraging health benefits for workers will ultimately benefit employers. They got the judicial, too? It's like a preverse Chocolate City. I'm still counting on Roberts to pull a Souter.

Posted by tgl on 2006-04-06 13:12:06 +0000

Stevens controls the Court.

Posted by cdubrocker on 2006-04-06 13:13:26 +0000

On Roberts being the next Souter, I was thinking along the same lines, but at least on this issue, they're at odds.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-04-06 13:30:45 +0000

If there is something that we, as a society, require everyone to have, we should socialize it, as opposed to mandating that people purchase it from private companies. The big winners here are the insurance companies, which are now getting legislated funding.

Posted by lrf on 2006-04-06 16:39:16 +0000

funding is awesome

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-04-06 16:52:27 +0000

"I don't get my auto. insurance premiums back after a year of never using the insurance." Huh? You have 3 automobiles, and you use them. I argue this is more like not having a car and still being forced to pay for car insurance.

Posted by tgl on 2006-04-06 17:51:10 +0000

I've never collected on my insurance. OK, except for a windshield or two. So, I can't see how I've used it. I don't need auto. insurance to operate my vehicle. So, it's not like not having a car. If you have a car, the state requires auto. insurance to operate it. If you have a body, the state requires health insurance to operate it.

Posted by tgl on 2006-04-06 17:55:04 +0000

In the trade-off between expanded health insurance coverage, and additional policies sold to private companies, expanded coverage works in my book. The fight for socialized health insurance is too hard, at least all at once. This is a step in that direction. I'm sounding more and more like a Gore 2000 supporter. Damn.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-04-06 18:22:41 +0000

I cannot live without a body. I can without a car. Classic (and appropriate) conservative argument: it must not be mandatory.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-04-06 18:24:42 +0000

But you don't have to operate it. You should have the option of remaining completely idle in a risk-free environment.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-04-06 18:27:17 +0000

Exactly.

Posted by cdubrocker on 2006-04-06 18:28:11 +0000

Or, what you own is more important than what you are. What you own IS what you are?

Posted by tgl on 2006-04-06 18:45:02 +0000

If you're talking about a refund of a portion of the mandatory premium based on lack of use; maybe I can see that. Without greatly increasing public expenditure via increasing taxes, I can't see how we can expand coverage without requiring even ostensibly healthy people to carry coverage. It's the shared risk pool (and shared money) that makes insurance affordable. You're either going to pay a premium (under orders from the state) or you're going to pay higher taxes (under orders from the state) to get affordable coverage for everyone. I say this knowing that there are huge efficiencies to be gained in billing, reduction of errors, etc. Health care would be cheaper if the _insurance_ was centrally administered. If an accident befalls dawnbixtler, I'd hope she has health insurance.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2006-04-06 19:31:59 +0000

Socialised medicine is awesome.

Posted by tgl on 2006-04-06 19:34:56 +0000

Using s in place of z is awesome.

Posted by Honar the librarian on 2006-04-06 20:44:36 +0000

Preventive medicine is almost always less expensive than emergency care, which the uninsured don't pay for (or go into bankruptcy because of). The medical costs saved and accrued to the government alone because of increase in preventive care make this seem worthwhile--never mind the money saved by the public schools when children have had good pre-natal/early childhood care. On the other hand, we might see an increase in expensive, even unnecessary, tests, thus continuing the trend of insurance to continually become more expensive, placing both employers paying mandatory %51 and individuals in a bind... In the long term I think that most of the health care coverage questions will remain unanswerable until we fundamentally change the way we as a society (and physicians in particular) view the field of medicine and the nature of science.