I think ^(link) therefore I err

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

The Poor in MA

People who have never been poor really don't get it.
The Washington Post today writes of a new law in MA requiring everyone to have health insurance.
Romney said the bill, modeled on the state's policy of requiring auto insurance, is intended to end an era in which 550,000 people go without insurance and their hospital and doctor visits are paid for in part with public funds.
Here's the problem with that logic. Driving is a privilege provided by the state. Living is a privelege provided by God. To drive the state can make certain requirements of the driver. To live.......
Theoretically the poor won't really have to pay for this:
Uninsured people earning less than the federal poverty threshold would be able to purchase subsidized policies that have no premiums, and would be responsible for very small co-payment fees for emergency-room visits and other services. Those earning between that amount and three times the poverty-level amount would be able to buy subsidized policies with premiums based on their ability to pay. Though no maximum premium is set in the bill, legislators' intent seems to be for it to top out at about $200 to $250 per month.

We'll see. But wouldn't it make more sense to just set aside some of these "subsidized policies" that the poor would be required to "purchase" and then use them when needed vs have a new program that needs to be enforced by requiring bums to fill out insurance applications or get fined?
I would look forward to seeing this one in action except that it's so philosophically off its rocker.

UPDATE: Fixed the spelling.