"Mass. health overhaul offers lessons for US program; Employees not being dumped on public plan" by Lisa Wangsness, Globe Staff | July 10, 2009
WASHINGTON - A fear that employers will drop private coverage and dump their workers onto federally subsidized health plans is a major concern among lawmakers crafting healthcare legislation on Capitol Hill, leading House Democrats to propose stiff financial penalties for businesses that don’t contribute to employee premiums.
But the experience with the healthcare overhaul in Massachusetts suggests those worries may be overblown. The Bay State’s 2006 landmark healthcare law, often seen as a model around the country, allowed businesses who chose not to cover their employees to get by with just a minimal fee. Yet even without the threat of a serious penalty, employee dumping has not been a problem, said architects of the Massachusetts plan....
Oh no?!!!!
Related: Big Business Benefits From Mass. Health Plan
So it is either SINGLE PAYER or BUST!!!!
******************************
Some warn against using the Massachusetts experience as a template for the federal legislation.
I've been here all day doing just that.
Even before the 2006 law, Massachusetts had fewer uninsured than the nation as a whole, and most employers offered better insurance than their counterparts in other states, said Eileen McAnneny, senior vice president of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, a group representing the state’s business community. Sentiment among some employers, who have long opposed a mandate, may be changing somewhat.
In a letter to President Obama last week,
Yeah, because THEY were on of the PRIME DUMPERS!!!!!
But there is strong opposition from groups such as the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the small business lobby, and the National Business Group on Health, even though its members are some of the nation’s largest employers and nearly all provide insurance for their employees already.
Helen Darling, chief executive officer of the National Business Group on Health, said some corporate executives oppose a mandate on principle. Others worry it could be unaffordable if it is applied to part-timers or seasonal workers....
But Darling said the debate is a distraction from a far more important issue: how to keep costs from growing at a rate that is devouring employees’ wages and employers’ profits and hurting US companies’ ability to compete globally.
If it is HURTING US GLOBALLY, WHY do ALL the OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS have SINGLE PAYER? So that can't be it, liar!
“That really is the key,’’ she said.
Right.
--more--"
More classes for you, readers.
- The Massachusetts Model: Working Or Not?
- The Massachusetts Model: Comes At a Premium
- The Massachusetts Model: Screwing Small Business
- The Massachusetts Model: Going Out of Business
- The Massachusetts Model: Crazy Coverage
- The Massachusetts Model: Immigrant Insult
- The Massachusetts Model: Profit and the Paycheck
- The Massachusetts Model: Doctors' Diet
- The Massachusetts Model: By the Numbers
- The Massachusetts Model: Treasurer's Assessment
- The Massachusetts Model: Care-Keeping Costs
- The Massachusetts Model: Mass. Hospitality
