If so, please tell me about your state health care.
I live in Mass. We have state-mandated health care that was signed by Governor Romney in 2006 and residents are required to be insured. I have been covered by private plans since this was mandated so I don't know that much about it but Mass. does provide some state-sponsored health plans.
As far as I know, there is Mass Health for low income residents and they pay no premium, and several plans available thru Commonwealth health for moderate income residents that don't have other options available, and premiums are based on a sliding scale.
Each taxpayer must provide proof of insurance when filing returns or they will pay a penalty (I've heard some people go ahead and pay the penalty).
What options did you have? You chose a private plan. You did not have an employee plan?
To whom must you provide proof? In what way? When you pay state taxes?
What was the direct effect on your taxes?
Hi Elly, I have insurance through an employer so I'm not eligible for Commonwealth plans. I have an "employee & child" plan for son and I, but he has just gone to college so he will go on the university health insurance as soon as possible, and I'll go on a single person plan, which will be significantly cheaper overall.
I did at one point look into the state insurance plans, and got a brief idea what they're about. As for providing proof, there is a schedule that you file with your taxes, and if you can't provide insurance info then you pay a penalty.
Oh, just wanted to add, my insurance premiums are deducted from the paycheck pre-tax, and the same is true is you are on one of the Commonwealth connector plans - so you save a little tax on your state and fed return.
We've been using it since the inception. We have never had any other kind so cannot make comparisons.
Universal health-care is a type of wealth redistribution. First started in the US under Romney's watch. This is a fact that seems to be widely ignored.
There are differences in Romney's plan and the one Obama mandates. One of the most important differences is one is run by the State and the other by the Federal government. I'll take a State run program any day over a national run program that in the end will be a disaster.
GGM, leave it to the states and there will be how many plans running?
Considering MA has been the only one so far, it's doubtful there will be any more state required health insurance plans like MA has, least of all in Republican run states.
Your fear and paranoia about anything government run, I mean Democratic in nature, Democratic in law, just permeates everything you post.
It really is getting scary to read your posts, GGM. You might want to consider getting some help to deal with these fears of yours.
"Let the states do it" Is about as useful as that old 'Personal Responsibility" garbage. It completely ignores reality and makes the speaker and his sycophants feel self-important and avoid any societal responsibility what so ever.
Ya don't suppose that MA, the wealthiest state in the country, might be able to come up with a health care plan while a state with half the per-capita income, say Mississippi, might not? But hey, Mississippi just made poor decisions and nobody said life was fair. Its tough to be poor - now just trot along and try to be more responsible.
The fact that Terrene hasn't noticed any change from his/her previous plan because absolutely nothing happened to change it when universal state care was instituted is very telling in the face of some poster's claims -- I'm thinking of Nik -- who hysterically decry that they will lose their current plan and be forced to switch to some kind of bogeyman socialist plan under Obamacare.
Thanks Elly for the question and thanks Terrene, it's refreshing to have some actual facts on hand.
Dave, if MS is half as wealthy as MA, mightn't it be so that health care costs half as much in the former, measured in dollars?
BTW, the wealthiest state in the wealthiest country on the planet has both rural and urban poverty, enough of both. What can we make of that? I would say measuring wealth by state doesn't mean much.
Pat, at the link is per-capita spending by state, with MA second only to the District of Columbia - with what looks like Utah at the lowest, about half of MA.
I can't remember where I read about the differences in health outcomes vs expenditure, it wasn't necessarily the same at all - has more to do with the over-all health of the states' citizenry and medical practices within the state. If I don't disremember, with the same age cohort, Florida was the most expensive and Minnesota the least. Which translates to cold weather is better for you than hot, I guess.
Colorado legislature tried for decades to do some sort of health care reform, but it routinely gets shot down. After great effort, they did create a
'high risk' state-sponsored/subsidized insurance pool. There was a year-long waiting list before I could get on it, and it cost about twice what a normal individual policy would cost, which translates into 4X what someone covered by an employer would cost. There is some provision that they will subsidize the cost if the state budget has enough, but they rarely do.
Here is a link that might be useful: link