Thoughts on Massachusetts’ new health care law

[xiphias]

So, Massachusetts is implementing new rules that are designed to require everyone in the Commonwealth to have health insurance.

It is the most bizarre and byzantine set of health care regulations anyone could imagine. It involves penalizing people on their taxes if they don’t have health care, penalizing businesses that don’t offer health care to their workers because they’re not legally required to do so, having subsidized health care plans, and a bunch of other things.

A lot of people on my friends list are annoyed-to-upset with it on libertarianish principles, in that it’s forcing people to buy a product because it’s good for them, which is very nanny-state-ish. And I see their point. In my mind, I’m less bothered by it, because it’s fundamentally like charging a tax to everyone and then earmarking that money to have the Commonwealth buy health insurance for folks (which, admittedly, wouldn’t be any better from a Libertarian point of view, and, from a practical point of view, would be worse, as the Commonwealth would end up using the money for something else, anyway).

But, there’s one question I’ve not really heard anyone talking about.

Will it work?

And my answer is, “I haven’t a frickin’ clue.”

It is rare for me to have absolutely no gut feeling on what the effects of a piece of legislation will be. I’m not always right, of course, but I usually have SOME sort of feeling one way or another about whether it will have more-or-less the effects it’s designed to have.

I’ve got absolutely no feeling about this one.

It could be horrifically disastrous. It could be brilliant. I really don’t know.

It’d be fantastic if it actually goes forth and ends up with everyone in Massachusetts having reasonably affordable health care. And, well, I’ve got no reason to suspect that it WON’T work.

I’ve also got no reason to suspect that it WILL work.

This is truly a strange situation to be in.

Comments

[jehanna.livejournal.com]

For my part, I tend to guess that any piece of legislation that can be accurately described as "byzantine" will tend to have been a Bad Idea, even if it was meant to be a Good Thing. It greatly increases the chances that nobody involved will have been able to think through all the consequences before voting it in, which inevitably leads to unexpected nightmares for people caught up in it.

The shame of it in this case IMO is that this will lead to a lot of public fulminating along the lines of "See? Universal health care IS a bad idea", and a poor execution will have set back a good cause.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, "will it work" has been the primary, perhaps the only, question I've been asking.

As someone who's insured in Massachusetts (though I don't live there), I find myself somewhat suspicious that this is going to be a fiasco. But I could just be unduly pessimistic.

(Honestly, I'd rather see true, single-payer healthcare on the state level; my worry is that if this *does* work, it'll be an excuse to put off that even better goal because "what we've got is OK," and if it doesn't, it'll be used as a reason why universal healthcare is a terrible idea. Either way, I see a net loss to the final result that I, personally, want.)

[felis-sidus.livejournal.com]

Define "work". Better yet, define "affordable health care".

[bradhicks.livejournal.com]

What exactly does it do to penalize people who are out of work and/or disabled and don't have health insurance? I'm confused.

[burgundy.livejournal.com]

When it comes to nanny-state issues - I don't think that's all of what's going on (says the non-Mass resident, so I may be completely wrong). Uninsured people are a big financial drain. They go to ERs instead of doctors' offices. They wait until things get serious before seeking care. They are often unable to pay the hospital bills. And so on. So you have in many cases more lost productivity, money and services taken out of the public hospital system that isn't put back in, possible public health issues when it comes to infectious diseases... I don't have any kind of data, and I don't know enough (yet) to know all the pieces that would be necessary for a full cost/benefit analysis. But purely financially, this could be the better route (better than the current system, I mean; I'm not even talking about single-payer here).

[hfcougar.livejournal.com]

I completely fail to see any universe where penalizing people on their taxes because they can't afford health insurance is a wise or just idea. It's yet another way to punish the poor and even more than that, the middle-income set.

Take me, for example. I am offered health insurance by my employer, a temp agency. Not only can I not afford the premiums without lifestyle changes, but it's an enormous ripoff for what I'd get vs. what I'd be paying. I make just enough money that I fully expect to get utterly screwed because of this.

[alcinoe.livejournal.com]

I feel for the folks who can't afford thier work insurance but also don't qualify for State run insurance.

[ashnistrike.livejournal.com]

I'm from Massachusetts, though no longer living there. My strong suspicion is that this reads, "Let's try a bunch of things that might work. Then the next time a Massachusetts Democrat wants to run for president and talk about universal health coverage, they can point to the things that worked." In other words, it's a lab. I might have something to say about trying all your independent variables at the same time, but... It's better to try something. Massachusetts appears to have designated itself the Official Social Experiment State, and I'm proud of 'em.

[dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com]

It might make things better, or average, but it will not work for everyone, and I can definitely think of some people who will be hurt by it - in fact I used to be one of them...

The category of people who will be hurt are poor (or poorish) people with a low bureaucratics skill. Or people who lack money but don't qualify for medicare (which, I believe, exist).

Kiralee