MASSACHUSETTS is truly a great state. From pioneering new budget and tax programs to progressive marriage plans, the Bay State has paved the way for public policies that receive national attention and open up public discourse about possible national versions of new programs. Last week the state passed a new bill that calls for mandatory health insurance from either their employers or the government. While statewide health insurance is a major step, more action needs to be taken, primarily within the federal government. Fully accessible nationalized health insurance needs to be a top priority in the United States with similar yet improved insurance plans.
The original draft of the Massachusetts health insurance legislation was the closest and arguably the best bill for providing statewide health insurance.
The original plan would have simply provided for the approximately 515,000 people in the state who do not have health insurance to receive a statewide package. Unfortunately, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney rejected the draft, claiming that the $800 million needed for the legislation would result in higher taxes in the state. The cost of this program would have been relatively small, comparably. According to The Boston Globe, Boston highway artery errors in 2003 cost the state over $1 billion. Unfortunately, Romney was not willing to allow even small tax increases despite the enormous social benefit.
While the current bill does have its flaws, forcing fines and tax penalties if citizens who are able do not acquire insurance, the Massachusetts legislature mainly provided affordable insurance plans to citizens who are not able to pay, according to the Associated Press. Though the current legislation is a less direct and more modest step towards full statewide health insurance, the law will still provide additional insurance benefits for citizens who cannot afford it. Single adults earning under $9,800 a year will receive full coverage under the new bill, and children in those families will be able to receive free coverage through Medicaid, according to The Washington Post.
Additionally, the plan will enforce employers to supply mandatory health care coverage to employees, charging a $295 fee for each employee who does not have insurance. While this provision will reduce the demand for employees by large companies due to a higher cost per employee, the overall benefit of statewide health insurance will be more than enough compensation to the insignificant percentage of employees crowded out of the workforce. The program will also provide subsidies for insurance companies in order to accept the influx of new customers, as well as give incentives for creating more extensive and affordable plans to accommodate poorer insurance applicants, according to The New York Times.
In addition to the unavoidable reduced employer incentive, the new bill does have some flaws that make the program imperfect, many under the moniker of "personal responsibility." Citizens who are considered able to afford health insurance but do not choose to buy it will receive major penalties, such as losing personal exemptions on their tax return, running to an estimated $189 according to The Washington Post. Individuals who do not want to receive health insurance even if they can afford it should not be required to purchase it if they don't want to do so.
Furthermore, the idea that all currently uncovered citizens above the poverty line can afford health insurance is fundamentally untrue -- there are many extraneous financial factors that the state government would not be able to consider. While this "personal responsibility" provision of the bill needed to be included to include conservatives' support for the bill, any future state or national provisions should exclude the concept of personal responsibility.
Despite the bill's flaws, the overall result is beneficial for all of the citizens of the state. While the federal government is bumbling with a combination of indecipherable prescription drug benefits and endless tax cuts, Congress should take heed of a progressive plan coming out of the little, yet influential, state. As Massachusetts demonstrates, there is a simple way to provide a comprehensive health insurance policy without major tax hikes by putting more responsibility on employers and insurance companies, all the while providing for poorer citizens.
While the new law does have its costs in terms of reduced employment incentives and cases of forced insurance, any good health economist should know that when health insurance can result in accessibility to potentially lifesaving treatment, the benefits outweigh the costs. It's time for a little slice of Massachusetts to be with all of us.
Adam Silverberg's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at asilverberg@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
COHEN: Facing federal cuts, U.Va. must defend affordability
By Ryan Cohen | 16 hours agoIn this uncertain environment, the University must act creatively and strategically to ensure it can maintain its commitment to affordability.
EDITORIAL: Commit to protecting noncitizens on Grounds
By Editorial Board | YesterdayThis has grown into a pattern of failing the rights of noncitizens to due process and overstepping judicial checks and balances on the executive branch.
CASTAGNO: Intensifying security theater in schools does not make them safer
By Conall Costagno | March 24, 2025Adding more stringent security measures will not solve the underlying issue, which is that schools must do more to invest in students’ mental health.
