As of this past Saturday, I am in violation of the newly enacted state law that requires all residents of Massachusetts to have health insurance. I had insurance when I was working, but now that I'm unemployed I can't afford it. I am entitled to continue my health insurance through my former employer through COBRA, but the payments would be $300 a month. And I just can't swing that on unemployment, as having health insurance would mean that I would be $300 short for rent each month. Let's see, which do I choose: health insurance or rent? Sorry, rent wins. Rent always wins. But if I don't purchase health insurance I'll have to pay a penalty in my 2008 state income taxes.
The growing costs of health care has always been a problem in America. While many industrialized nations offer nationalized health care to its citizens, the American government has always been wary of it because they feel it smacks of socialism, which in their eyes is one step away from Communism. (It's for this reason that our railways aren't nationalized either, and thus why Amtrak is always in financial crisis). And these nations with nationalized health care do tax their citizens to cover the cost. But I feel for a state to require all residents to have health insurance is penalizing many innocent people for the trangressions of a few who abuse the system. There are a lot of people who can't afford even low-cost health insurance, or people like me who are unemployed. And today I've started seeing commercials for new companies that are popping up, offering "affordable" health insurance in the same way that companies like Geicko or Amica offer low-cost car insurance. They seem kind of suspect to me. It's as if this new law is opening the door to many fly-by-night companies. All they need now is a humorous spokesperson or anthropomorphized mascot in a witty 30-second commercial. Maybe if the Ditech.com cavemen aren't busy they could break a leg or get into a car accident and appear in a health insurance ad. But do I really want to put my health in the hands of these people?
This new law doesn't do anything to try to reform the health care industry. I'm skeptical that it will lead to the establishment of new companies that really do offer quality affordable health insurance. This law protects the health care industry, at least in Massachusetts, by making sure that it doesn't lose money. I know it's a problem for them, but the skyrocketing costs of healthcare, and the overwhelming costs that can accrue if someone is sick or in an accident, can literally bankrupt people. My mother is in tears on an almost daily basis because, as a retired widow on a fixed income, she is overwhelmed by bills for her breast cancer treatments, including biopsies, a life-saving lumpectomy, and radiation treatments. Medicare only pays a small portion, and doesn't cover the cost of the radiation pills she'll have to take for the next three to five years. In fact, Medicare doesn't cover the cost of prescription medications, and many elderly people take multiple prescription medications.
Coincidentally, Michael Moore's new documentary "Sicko" opened in limited release this weekend. It deals with this very issue of unaffordable health care for Americans. Being in my current predicament, I would normally applaud this effort, but I don't like Michael Moore. His documentaries are always one-sided, and it appears that he manipulates them through what he chooses to show or, conversely, not to show, in order to sway the viewer to accept his subjective viewpoint as fact. In fact, I saw an interview with him on CNN today, and the anchorman asked Moore why he didn't have any representatives of the health care industry defending their side in"Sicko." Moore's answer? I'm paraphrasing, but basically he said that he didn't need to because Americans already know what the health care industry is doing to them. In other words, he really didn't justify his ommission of opposing viewpoints. To be fair, I haven't seen "Sicko" and I don't plan on seeing it, so I could be wrong about it. But I doubt it.
I'll get off my soapbox now. I just hope I don't fall off of it and injure myself before I get insurance again.
7 comments:
I just found your blog by a search term and I think this article is really good. It's nice that you're opposed to socialism and Michael Moore! I know that the plan was put in by Republican Governor Mitt Romney. I never considered situations like yours where people still could not afford health insurance even though they were legally required to have it.
Wow. I had no idea there was such a law in MA, and as someone who has been unemployed and not able to afford the COBRA payment if I wanted to, you know, eat, have a place to live (the small things). I agree that it makes no sense and really accomplishes nothing and could create some new scary problems.
I also have not liked anything of Michael Moore's that I've seen. Except for Sicko. I was blown away and actually surprised how well most of it was handled.
If they're going to fine people for not having insurance anyway, why not deduct the fine/health insurance payment at source from the unemployment payment - (maintaining a minimum amount that will allow people to live) and pay it into a health insurance scheme for you and everyone else in that position? The interest on the combined payments would help to make up the shortfall in premiums. Because then they'd have to pay out more in unemployment? So they're saying you have to survive on less than they will 'pay' you, which is (or should be be) the minimum you need to survive?
That's a good suggestion. Maybe you should work for the state of Massachusetts and reorganize their health care system!, But unfortunately, the government doesn't think that way! Unless someone is at the poverty level and qualifies for Medicare, I think the government doesn't take into consideration those who are unemployed. Since unemployment is temporary anyway, maybe they're just not considering those on unemployment. As good as your suggestion is, I can see the government feeling that it would create too much red tape or something!
I have to go read more about this law. I swear I had heard some very positive things about it a couple months back... an interview with someone who couldn't afford insurance that would cover his treatment in California moved to MA where he could afford it... I don't remember.
Have they lowered the overall cost of insurance for the individual?
Really? I haven't looked into individual policies yet, I must admit, so I don't know if the costs for individuals is lowered. I guess once you pay for the insurance, perhaps they cover more than California, hence that person moving to MA? My gripe is with individuals being forced to pay for insurance or else be penalized.
I think this post is very interesting and I want to ask you if you give me the permission to translate it and have it in my blog with credits of course to you.
Post a Comment