l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Posted by Jay Tea
Published: February 8, 2011 - 8:30 AM
The parallels between Massachusetts' health care "reform" program ("
RomneyCare") and the federal health care "reform" program ("ObamaCare") are
many. The problems RomneyCare are having are often good indicators of
problems that ObamaCare will have. And of late, they've both been getting a
lot of attention for those they've chosen to exclude from their requirements.
Under ObamaCare, it's organizations and businesses that have received the
waivers -- mainly unions and other strong backers of the program who've
curried the favor of the Obama administration. Why, it's almost like those
who believe most strongly in the program, who spent the most money on
getting it passed, realize that it's an utter disaster waiting to happen and
want nothing to do with it.
In Massachusetts, however, the waivers are being granted not to businesses
and organizations, but individuals. It's at the stage where the individual
mandate has kicked in, and individuals are finding themselves having to
prove they have adequate insurance on their own, sign up for the state plans
, or pay a fine.
Unless they can demonstrate to the state that they simply can't afford any
of those options, in which case the state might give them a pass and let
them go uncovered.
Which they did for about 1,600 people last year.
One of those lucky ones was Ralph Ross. Ross, a 49-year-old public school
teacher, pulled down $67,000 in 2008. The premiums for his family offered by
the town was $310 a month, or $3,720 a year -- about 5.5% of his annual
income. Ross was initially denied the waiver, but showed that he is in
serious financial distress -- including presenting utility cutoff notices --
and was given the reprieve.
That was, in my opinion, a mistake.
Ross is a public school teacher. His union was one of the bigger backers of
RomneyCare. He has no business going against his union in this way,
embarrassing them.
Further, he makes a decent living. He obviously has his priorities out of
whack -- he is arguing that he should not be obligated to provide for the
health care of his wife and three children. He has chosen to expend his
resources in other ways.
And he simply has no right to make that choice. The State has decided that
having or not having insurance is not something one has any say in -- they
must have it. It is not optional, it is a requirement. And if that means
that Mr. Ross has to find a smaller, cheaper home or give up a car or have
his wife get a job (or a better job -- it doesn't say if she's employed, but
the implication is that she does not) or find other ways to cut back, he
has to do it. It's not negotiable, it's the law.
This is exactly what happens when something becomes a mandate. It is no
longer something that you can weigh and balance against other factors,
exercise your own best judgment, and take risks as you see fit. The State
has decided that you will have insurance, that said insurance will meet
certain minimum standards, and you will pay the premiums accordingly. Period
. End of discussion.
The State has determined that Mr. Ross must provide insurance for himself
and his family. His employer -- the Walpole school district -- offered a
plan to him where they picked up the entire tab but $310 a month, or about $
77.50 a week. There might have been other plans offered by the state, but
that was the number given. He simply had to find a way to pay it, and he
didn't. So he should have been fined. Plus, his failure to provide for his
family -- in the way The State determined was mandatory -- is a failing that
calls into question his suitability as a parent. What kind of a father
would let his children go without insurance?
That's the face, the stark truth of RomneyCare. And it is the future of
ObamaCare. |
|
