thread: 2009-05-08 : Super Briefly for Seth and Rob
On 2009-05-09, Emily wrote:
The health coverage for low income people has always been a plus for me wrt the Commonwealth. Commonwealth Care is free for those making 150% of the Federal Poverty Level (which is $10,830 in 2009), Those making below 100% of the FPL get free care plus dental. And those between 150% and 300% pay on a sliding scale schedule. MassHealth (free care provided by the state) now covers primarily folks who are vulnerable: families with children, disabled persons, pregnant women, people who are HIV positive).
These are great things. What sucks is that the approach doesn't extend to folks making more money. The intent of the universal coverage push was to make premiums lower—through state subisides and presumably by bringing more people into the pool. Competition? But, I haven't really seen that. Average employer plan premiums for a family of four cost $12,700 in 2008. 2006 figures for individual plans were $218 to $311 per month. I'm paying about that, though if I make less next year, I can look into Commonwealth Care.
Many people were choosing *not* to have health care, because they couldn't afford not to. The penalty gives incentive to get insurance, but in many ways, the beneficiary here is the state (setting aside the real, positive benefits that are offered to folks making less)—if people who can possibly afford insurance do get it, it means they are less likely to fall back on state resources if something does go wrong.
