Wednesday, April 05, 2006
What's the Deal with Mass?
Here is another example of government interference in the private lives of its citizens. The specific case deals with a bill just passed in Massachusetts (naturally) which requires all of its citizens to have some type of health insurance. This, to me, is really bothersome. It falls under the same category as states which require seat belts to be worn while driving motor vehicles. Everyone would probably agree that seatbelts are safe, and that health insurance is good, but for these things to be mandated upon the general public, really makes me mad. If I don't want insurance, why force me?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ok, my take on this article is that this screws over small or private businesses. Take for example a physician who has a private practice with five employees besides himself. For this business to offer insurance to their employees right now in the U.S. the business would have to pay $750 per month per employee (and that is for individual insurance not family coverage). At this price that is insane. First of all because most receptionists and nurses make about twice or three times that much a month. Therefore, the physician is basically doubling the employees salary, when the physician could bank that money for himself. So if the employee chooses not to take that insurance the business pays about $300 dollars a month per employee, which is better than $750 but that still sucks. In the end, basically it's the people actually making the money who get stuck paying for unemployed slackers. That $300 dollars a month that the small business pays going towards the state. So, I guess if I understand this correctly, small businesses will be the ones taking the heat for the state's welfare group.
What's the deal with no new posts?
cut him some slack; he is comping in economics this week...
What most people who read this fail to realize is the heavy burden put on the state by people without health insurance. Because hospitals are required to provide care to those who need it regardless of their ability to pay, but at the same time, there is a limit to the level of care they can receive. This takes the burden of providing free care off of hospitals, and allows even poor people to receive care they wouldn't otherwise afford. It is part of a 'living wage' idea that this country desperately needs.
Post a Comment