The New York Times has an article about how San Francisco is going to offer healthcare to the uninsured.
I see this as showing how a State should offer healthcare, and a direct polarity to the Universal Healthcare Bill in Massachusetts.
At first it will be in (in SF) only available to very low income (10K for a single person, 20K for a family of four) individuals, and then it will open up to anyone that’s been uninsured for more than 90 days.
In contrast, in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney pushed through a bill which basically kicks some people in the teeth and helps in the insurance companies by legislating 100% enrollment basically, as auto insurance is in many States. It sounds great, but some people fall through the cracks.
For example, in Massachusetts, it’s required that your employer offer heath insurance if they employee 11 or more fulltime employees in Mass. If not, well then you have to pay for yourself 100%. There’s no mandate on small business owners. I’m normally a fan of small business, but I’m also a fan of some sort of benefits as an employee. Small businesses aren’t going to do anything if they aren’t required (just like large businesses!)
If you do not enroll in health insurance then this year you lose your State Tax Credit (which ends up being worth a little over $100 I think). Next year, if you do not have health insurance, then you are forced to pay a tax equal to one half the cheapest insurance policy that the state would assume you to have otherwise had.
So basically it’s either pony up everything for health insurance, which in this expensive state is hard, or you have to pay half of that… and you’re still uninsured.
Rich conservatives will argue that this is not an issue, and point to the fact that the democrats pushed for the State to provide health insurance for you is you make under around $25,000/year in Mass. That’s nice if you live in Quincy or Dorchester, but if you like to live on a street that you aren’t worried about random flying bullets- as I do… then that’s still no good.
For me it’s hard to say what my ‘income’ until recently, so I have fallen inbetween the cracks. My employer doesn’t offer health insurance, nor pays for it, and I likely dont’ qualify as poor enough to get health insurance for free. I can’t afford to pay for it either.
I am sure that plenty of people fall between the cracks like this. Massachusetts by no means was trying to help people or make a socialized healthcare system here. They were trying to guarantee profit for the insurance companies, and make themselves look better.
I’d say that having no health insurance, but paying 50% of the cost of health insurance as a tax penalty and getting no healthcare for it is pretty much like Taxation without representation. I’m saying throw some insurance agents in the boston harbor maybe and have a Boston Insurance Party (as opposed to tea party).
Good for SF. Maybe we’ll figure it out here some day.
