Joy to Massachusetts


PDA






Sindawe
April 4, 2006, 05:09 PM
Mass. Pols OK Mandatory Health Insurance

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 4, 2006

Filed at 4:09 p.m. ET

BOSTON (AP) -- Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill Tuesday that would make Massachusetts the first state to require that all its citizens have some form of health insurance.

The plan -- hailed as a national model and approved just 24 hours after the final details were released -- would dramatically expand access to health care over the next three years.

If all goes as planned, those already insured will see a modest drop in their premiums, lower-income residents will be offered new, more affordable plans and subsidies to help them pay for coverage, and those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage.

The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.

The House approved the bill on a 154-2 vote. The Senate endorsed it 37-0.

A final procedural vote is needed in both chambers before the bill can head to the desk of Gov. Mitt Romney, a potential Republican candidate for president in 2008. Romney has expressed support the measure but has not said whether he will sign it.

''It's only fitting that Massachusetts would set forward and produce the most comprehensive, all-encompassing health care reform bill in the country,'' said House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a Democrat. ''Do we know whether this is perfect or not? No, because it's never been done before.''

The cost will rise from an estimated $316 million in the first year to more than a $1 billion in the third year, with much of that money coming from federal reimbursements and existing state spending, officials said.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Massachusettts-Health.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin If all goes according to plan... Yea, right.

Note the add wealth redistribution (aka subsidies) for those who can not afford health insurance, the the promise of increasing tax penalties for those who chose to do with out insurance.

If you enjoyed reading about "Joy to Massachusetts" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
KIDGLOCK
April 4, 2006, 05:28 PM
Thank god , the goverments here to help!!:banghead:

ArmedBear
April 4, 2006, 05:31 PM
If you have property in MA, sell it now. There will soon be no business there worth speaking of.

Now even CA has a more attractive business environment, and the weather still doesn't suck.

And since when did making something mandatory to purchase make it cheaper? Didn't happen with car insurance. Why would it happen with health insurance?

The notion that most people will see lower premiums is not just wishful thinking; it's a bald-faced lie.

wild billz
April 4, 2006, 05:37 PM
no new taxes, just increasing the cost of products and services within the state: "The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee." That should be a real help to everyone.

ArmedBear
April 4, 2006, 05:42 PM
Guaranteed way to increase the number of entry-level jobs: charge businesses a $295 "fee" per job.

Freddymac
April 4, 2006, 05:42 PM
who needs capitolism? who needs privately owned companies? ...UGH!

xd9fan
April 4, 2006, 05:49 PM
baby boomers:rolleyes:

If there is one thing the "greatest generation" failed on, it was teaching their children about the dangers of socialism/collectivism that they fought so hard against.

Maxwell
April 4, 2006, 05:53 PM
Vote the bastards out already.

News Shooter
April 4, 2006, 05:53 PM
Maybe this state is out of control when it comes to taxes and limitations on freedom, constitutional rights and free enterprise, but you've got to admit....



it IS snowing on April 4th:(

mbrosch
April 4, 2006, 06:00 PM
One thing about a Democracy; people get what they deserve.

geekWithA.45
April 4, 2006, 06:40 PM
I'm aghast.

If Romney signs this, he can kiss flush his POTUS aspirations down the can.

KriegHund
April 4, 2006, 06:42 PM
So they are essentially bribing people to get health insurance.

Now, i think everyone shoudl have health insurance if they can afford it...

But this is just plain wrong!

Tokugawa
April 4, 2006, 06:51 PM
How to bankrupt your state 101. Predictions- the state will mandate the cost and coverage of the plan. Insurers will leave the state in droves. The high risk patients will be ever more concentated with the remaining insurers. The cost of insurance will go thru the roof. Low income people will flock to Mass. for the coverage, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE SICK. This will overload the system to the point where it will collapse. This is perhaps the dumbest idea I have heard in a really long while. Absolutely, 100% garandamteed to implode. If you ever wanted to see the law of unintended consequences in action, take your seats for a grandstand view.

Standing Wolf
April 4, 2006, 07:04 PM
Yippee! Free health care for everybody!

Cuda
April 4, 2006, 07:06 PM
What would you call it.. Extortion

The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.

If Romney signs this he will be commiting political suicide.

C

jerkyman45
April 4, 2006, 07:10 PM
I live right below those Marxists, in Rhode Island, what worries me is how long before this crazy sentiment starts spreading to other states. Lord knows that the left wing state governments in the north east and out on the west coast will jump on this idea like a starving dog on a T-bone. What the hell happened to the good old days when America hated communism?

xd9fan
April 4, 2006, 07:28 PM
Baby boomers are the most selfish generation ever. When will they learn that Govts cant control prices and can never complete with the free market. They could care less how much the future generstions will be effected and how much it will cost us. Its about them and them only. Baby bloomers.......free your children and grandkids from the economic slavery you are placing them in.
Healthcare needs to be released to the free market. But then this is the generation that does not trust me with my Social Insercurity money either......go figure:rolleyes:

ArmedBear
April 4, 2006, 08:11 PM
They could care less how much the future generstions will be effected and how much it will cost us.

Bingo.

They'll surely cause more damage before they die off. Too bad those drugs weren't REALLY as bad for them as they told us when WE were kids and they were soccer moms.

SomeKid
April 4, 2006, 08:24 PM
If any of those legislators had bothered reasearching what TennCare did to us, they wouldn't have been so happy to pass it. Then again, maybe they would.

On the plus side, once the state gets desperate for money, it might be possible to get some shall issue passed (ok, I know, not a chance). More than likely, you'll see ammo and gun taxes rise. Because after all, guns cause people to be injured, tax those horrid things! It will improve the peoples health after all. We may very well get to see a great example of idiocy at work.

xd9fan
April 4, 2006, 11:58 PM
Its about dependency...which equals control.

cbsbyte
April 5, 2006, 12:07 AM
I fail to see how this has to do with gun rights or politics. Would people try to keep this board topics pretaining to something about firearm poltics and not health insurance.

Pilot
April 5, 2006, 12:08 AM
baby boomers

If there is one thing the "greatest generation" failed on, it was teaching their children about the dangers of socialism/collectivism that they fought so hard against.

You said a mouthful. How did this happen?? We GAVE THE BABY BOOMERS TOO MUCH. Now they feel ENTITLED. That is Socialism. I'm a Baby Boomer and I reject that thought. However, I like a nice Russian SKS.

Pilot
April 5, 2006, 12:10 AM
I fail to see how this has to do with gun rights or politics. Would people try to keep this board topics pretaining to something about firearm poltics and not health insurance.

It will come down to guns if we don't stop this sh*t.

Manedwolf
April 5, 2006, 12:11 AM
lower-income residents will be offered new, more affordable plans and subsidies to help them pay for coverage, and those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage.

Right, then. And how are they going to determine "who can afford it?"

"Sorry, Mr. Smith, you make just above the poverty line for being able to afford insurance as determined in Document CYA-97429 subsection III clause 1a. subclause f. You are now subject to increasing penalties unless you get insurance on your own, or you may hire a lawyer to contest this judgement."

If it's run like all other bureacracy...

Manedwolf
April 5, 2006, 12:13 AM
If you have property in MA, sell it now. There will soon be no business there worth speaking of.

Now even CA has a more attractive business environment, and the weather still doesn't suck.

Nah, all the medical and biotech growth industries are starting to come north over the line into NH. Which is fine with me!

Weather's fine, too. I fail to see ANY reason why anyone would want to live or own a business in the People's Socialist Republic of **********, but that's just me.

MA's just gone insane. I don't even travel there anymore unless I have to. I prefer a state that lets its law-abiding citizens be armed without specific questions and doubts and fees.

Ryder
April 5, 2006, 12:24 AM
So they are essentially bribing people to get health insurance.


I think you have your criminal behaviors mixed up. Isn't it called extortion when your money is taken by force? As I see it our government has become so used to this method of operation they can't do it any other way and they see nothing wrong with threatening us.

Ever wonder what they will do when we have nothing left give?

stevelyn
April 5, 2006, 12:48 AM
I fail to see how this has to do with gun rights or politics.

It amazes me that folks can't see the relevancy what's in front of them sometimes.:rolleyes:

It has plenty to do with gun rights, civil liberties, personal choices and politics. It's all inter-connected. It's all about control..........govt. control.

Once the govt starts dictating how health care is going to be paid for and administered, the govt will want to cut some of it's loses and go after your guns.

Afterall since they are paying the bills they'll determine that your gun ownership is a risk factor and jack up your premiums or eliminate the risks entirely by mandating you either give up your guns by force or coersion.

Don't believe me? Look at how people convicted of DUIs are required to purchase SR 22 insurance for 3 years after their conviction. Most people still have to drive after they get their license back, and they still have to have mandatory insurance on their vehicles. A DUI conviction makes them a high risk for the insurance companies. So the insurance companies charge high premiums for this mandatory "protection".

Mandatory health insurance will eventually work the same way. Insurance companies with the help of tools like the Brady trash will determine that gun owners represent a risk that they feel can and should be eliminated. You'll either be forced to pay higher premiums or give up your guns............which in MA isn't much further to go than where they already are now.

Yes. It's a relevant issue. :mad:

xd9fan
April 5, 2006, 02:10 AM
oh is it ever related!!!! Once your on the plan, any risky behavior will be forbidden. You will run the risk of your health insurance being dropped and/or preiums will go sky high....all as a tool to control you and make you give up your Rights.....because in the end how could you as a parent put your childs health in jeoparty over some 16th Century "Right"!!

Looks like property taxes will go sky high in Mass. How else could they possibly pay for this. This is america??

Manedwolf
April 5, 2006, 02:11 AM
Look at how people convicted of DUIs are required to purchase SR 22 insurance for 3 years after their conviction.

I don't see that as relevant, myself, because you CHOOSE to give up your civil rights as a law-abiding citizen when you choose to drink and drive, thus endangering others. That would only be relevant if there was some insurance penalty for someone having been found to have been wilfully negligent in discharging a firearm. (like the guy who was shooting towards a neighbor's house trying to shoot down a hornet's nest)

And having seen the burnt-out shell of an SUV that a family didn't get out of after being hit by a drunk driver, I have little sympathy for those judged guilty of DUI.

El Tejon
April 5, 2006, 08:02 AM
What is it that Lenin said, that the West will not be conquered by Communism but will eagerly embrace it.:eek:

Soon there will be a heavy increase in "fees" and other taxes to pay for this white elephant. As well, behaviors such as parachuting, motorcycles, boating, smoking (tobacco at least), drinking alcohol (unless Scotch), and, of course, using deadly weapons (knives and swords will be included) will be forbidden, or people will be "assessed" a higher "fee" for such dangerous behavior that will impact the hive.:uhoh:

Live Free Or Die
April 5, 2006, 09:48 AM
Over the last 24 hours I've heard this story on several radio news stations, and watched it being told on several local and national TV news shows. In each and every case, the MA law was referred to as a "model for other states to follow" -- or words to that effect. Does the mass media exist primarily to proselytize whatever socialist, authoritarian, or just outright insane (but I repeat myself) policy that a government body comes up with? It appears that way.

I rue the inevitable day -- which will probably occur within a week -- when I overhear some average joe on the street referring to the MA healthcare legislation as a "model" for what my state should do.

Fletchette
April 5, 2006, 12:37 PM
The next question: How do we keep Massachusetts from raiding Federal funds to pay for this in a few years when Massachusetts goes bankrupt? A few years back King Kennedy and his Royal entourage managed to steal several billion form the rest of the country to pay for their "Big Dig" fiasco. I predict another such episode.

We need to make Massachusetts pay for their own folly.

Manedwolf
April 5, 2006, 12:50 PM
Does the mass media exist primarily to proselytize whatever socialist, authoritarian, or just outright insane (but I repeat myself) policy that a government body comes up with?

The mainstream media is no longer journalists. They are stenographers.

Phetro
April 5, 2006, 03:16 PM
...one by one.

First, they were told most people wanted it. This was repeated until they believed it. Then, the weakened among them reinvented their own philosophies in order to accommodate it. They ended up liking it after all.

The end result was that most people wanted it--not out of choice pursuant to critical thought, but out of conditioning programmed into them by none other than the media and "entertainment" industry.

This is how democracy/socialism/communism/fascism/all other leftism works. All you must do is make 51% of the people (more if you're lucky or efficient) weak-minded, passive, and blind. Once that is accomplished, there is no value, no moral, no principle for which they will fight. On a subconscious level, they will adopt your policies as their own so that they do not have to face their own consciences. Consciously, they will actually believe that they do favor your policies--and they will likely fight against the very values, morals, and principles which they probably once held dear. This goal has been accomplished in major metropolitan areas, whose citizens are more effectively subjected to media exposure. Rural areas proved to be a tough nut to crack, however, and most citizens remain opposed to the ever-increasing power of government.

So the leftists brainstormed, and their social engineers came up with what was an admittedly brilliant idea. The result of its implementation is precisely what they sought: reduction of individual liberty with simultaneous increases in government power, spending, and arrogance. And they didn't have to get a single person to change his party loyalty, either. No, their plan was much simpler than that.

No one's vote has made the slightest difference in the overall effect--votes for the R or D only choose who will confiscate liberties, and in which order liberties will be confiscated, but certainly neither the speed at which the confiscation occurs nor the extent to which it is committed is affected. You see, the communists figured out that controlling the representatives of one party alone would never yield them the nation--the People would merely have the choice of electing the other party, and would do so (obviously this party traditionally wore the R). So the communists adapted their approach to incorporate both parties into their expanding influence--nearly all of the Ds, and over half of the Rs. This way, even if the entire People voted every D out of office and replaced them with Rs, they would still get the same result: a majority of elected officials sympathetic to communism, whether unwitting or otherwise (to their credit--and also detriment--often the Rs are unwittingly conditioned).

No doubt most people with more than a few brain cells to rub together have noticed the Souter effect at work in all political and legal circles.

However, this left one last problem. The People could be shocked (by seeing their nation's decline unfold) into thinking independently again, and abandoning both parties altogether. They could elect a third party, consisting of members that still believed in serving one's constituents rather than ruling them and gaining wealthy from their taxation. Interestingly, however, the media and "entertainment" industry were able to preemptively eliminate this problem, by systematically conditioning the People to believe two things:

1. That spending one's vote on anything but an R or a D was merely a waste, as no other party had a chance, and
2. That any other party could never represent the "mainstream," and that "fringe groups" (as every third party is classified by the M and E industries) had beliefs that were undesirable.

The first point is laughably false, as spending one's vote on something other than an R or D--done en masse by the People--was and is the only way not to waste one's vote. Many people acting in concert actually could use the voting system to regain control of the government. However, the leftists' solution was much easier than worrying about the complexities: the people simply had to believe third parties were a waste of time--it didn't have to be true, and it never was. But it would take courage for the people to shift their vote en masse, and courage had been conditioned out of them long ago, having been neatly replaced with materialism and multiculturalism, the latter more accurately known as outright cultural destruction.

The second point, ironically, is true, because of the success of the M and E industries in conditioning the public to believe--through repetition and suggestion, and finally emotional manipulation--that it wanted what they wanted it to have. They convinced the public that it had needs only government could solve. To the objective viewer, this too was laughable. Not only has government miserably failed to fulfill a single need since it took the left turn in the early 1930's, but private citizens and organizations have consistently succeeded, as they have throughout all of history when they were allowed to operate freely.

And so, we have come full circle. The majority of people will accept the behemoth government. They will accept the steady, gradual loss of their rights--and they will like it. Most of the patriots will eventually die one way or another, and the few that remain will have insufficient numbers and arms to stand up to the behemoth.

The patriots, in their failure, will have one last lesson to add to history: you cannot change a system by working within the confines of its own self-preserving rules. Once a system itself has been corrupted to work against its original principles, it cannot be restored to order. Those in doubt can try changing a tire, while being inside the tire. But with any luck, the M and E industries can convince most people to say "why would you want to change a tire? No one needs to change a tire!" anyway. Unappreciated lessons become useless lessons.

One by one.

Phetro
April 5, 2006, 03:17 PM
(Edited to remove duplicate.)

Erebus
April 6, 2006, 08:34 AM
It's all about taking more control of your life from you. Eliminating choices, freedoms, liberties, and self determination. In short power over you.

Life - Well they are still allowing us keep that one. But now that we have universal health care euthanization will become a reality because old or chronically sick people are going to be too expensive to the hive.

Liberty - Forget it, if it's dangerous in any way that the govt dictates they will either make it too expensive or outright illegal as such things will be too expensive as dictated by the hive.

Pursuit of happiness - You are happy that the hive takes care of all your needs. If you disagree watch the news/re-education television, see you are happy that the hive takes care of all your needs.

If you enjoyed reading about "Joy to Massachusetts" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!