New State House News/Suffolk Poll out today on a host of political issues, one of them — Do you support or oppose the provision of the state’s health insurance law that imposes a fine on people who can afford to buy health insurance for themselves, but don’t do so?
Support: 49.8
Oppose: 45.5
Don’t Know: 3.5
Refused: 1.2
Men oppose 46.3 to 48.5%, and women support 53.1 to 42.7%. All age cohorts support by slender margins, younger folks (18-39) the most, 51.5 to 46.1%. Higher education equals higher level of support.
Dems support 56.0 to 37.6%; Independents oppose 43.8 to 51.5%; Republicans support 50.0 to 47.5%.
Here’s the fun part: Hillary Clinton (who includes an individual mandate on adults in her health reform plan) backers barely support 47.4 to 47.1%; Barack Obama (who does not include an individual mandate – on adults – in his health reform plan) backers support 61.2 to 35.6. Go figure.
The problem is the State legislators forgot that in a democracy the citizens matter.This State I’m afraid has no term limits and the career politicians own our State.We the people need to run our state.Ben Franklin “In free governments,the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors” Our state government does not feel they need to answer to us or anyone and that is why they are arrogant and self serving!
When the question is phrased: “Should individuals be forced to buy insurance when the government deems it affordable or face fines.” support for the mandate evaporates. An informal poll conducted on New Year’s Day by the Worcester Telegram found that around 72% of respondents were vehemently opposed to the mandate. A recent poll conducted in California for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights produced similar responses. Beware the spin doctors!
john,
Forced charity? Isn’t it more like kleptocratic enslavement?
John says:
“If health insurance is extended the quality of medical care will decline.”
What on Earth does that mean, please?
Yes, there is a shortage of primary care physicians in the state. Now that there are more people (patients) who are getting health care (fully free 126,810 and for the 24,531 very heavily subsidized enrollees, not to mention the 91,000 MassHealth since May 2006), are you saying that you’re worried that your MD won’t have time for you?
If there were are increased demand for Kellogg’s corn flakes, is there a market law that says that the quality of the product must decline?
It doesn’t have to be that way.
Yes, the mandate is poorly planned and executed and should be abolished. It is arbitrary, inhumane and obviously politically ($$) driven. “Thar’s gold in them thar hills!”, be it federal gold, state gold or gold right out of your pocket, it’s still citizens’ money. Much of this citizen money isn’t going to health care.
As Ann Malone RN writes above, “Improved and Expanded Medicare For All” – Single Payer National Health Insurance – makes the best sense for dollars and for people.
Universal health-care insurance, or its mandated provision, is unjust. It is nothing more than a forced charity, which is no charity at all. In this vein we might flatter ourselves into believing that we are doing good works, but it simply is not true. True mercy is extended as a matter of voluntary choice. It is not forced. Government mandates which require some to provide for others is false philanthropy. It is fundamentally selfishness unleashed and it will thwart future prosperity. If health insurance is extended the quality of medical care will decline. The end result will be exactly the opposite of what such schemes purport to offer. Instead of provision and prosperity, pain and hardship will follow. Let’s change the law and get rid of the mandate.
If you change the question to: “Do you support or oppose the provision of the state’s health insurance law that imposes a fine on people who THE STATE says can afford to buy health insurance for themselves, but don’t do so?” I wonder how the results would change…
Beware of misleading poll language – and misleading laws!! Here’s a glaring example of this: “…that imposes a fine on people who can “afford” to buy health insurance for themselves, but don’t do so?”
I have the moral and professional obligation to point out that how the MA law defines “affordable” is bogus.
Anyone who gives this law scrutiny will likely share my outrage at how misleading and disingenuous the details actually are.
Look at the fine print of the regulatory language and you will discover that the law’s definition of “affordable” factors in only the price of the monthly premium insurance policy expense but it excludes all of the other real costs that exist when a person needs to use the insurance to access health care.
The law defines “affordable” as a policy that has monthly premiums that cost no more than 10% of a person’s income!! What planet do the people who gave us that definition live on? I guess they’re not like the people I know who have steep housing costs, high heating bills, gas tanks to fill to get to work if there’s no public transportation, kids to feed and clothe, and so on.
It gets worse. The reality is that for the least expensive policies there is a $2,000 annual deductible and significant co-pays, and also 20 to 30% co-insurance costs that exists after the deductable has been met!!! And NONE OF THOSE COSTS are factored in for the definition of “affordable”.
The politicians who voted for this were either seriously misled or do not deserve to be in office unless they put a quick stop to the harsh and unreasonable tax penalties that to be levied on people who “who can afford to buy health insurance for themselves, but don’t do so.”
Please join the growing movement of people who are mad as hell about this law and who know there’s a much better way to reform the system and achieve affordable quality care for all. It’s called “Improved and Expanded Medicare For All” – with the option to keep your private insurance if you think it’s such a swell deal.
Call your legislators – every day if you have to (it only takes 2 minutes) – at 617-722-2000 and tell them to stop the mandate penalties and to enact real reforms that put people before insurance companies.