I am totally against the MA Health Care changes. From what I have read so far, it forces the individual to pay out a lot of money for insurance with very little coverage in return. It also leaves the actual cost of the premiums open. It basically tells me that I must pay for something no matter what it costs. It mandates to its citizens but not to the insurance industry. (This coming from someone working in the industry - me).


>>Daniel, I went and read a number of articles about this proposal/law, and I think it pretty much proves Walter's point. This is not "public health care or at least affordable health care." This proposes that everyone must go and buy their own health insurance coverage, but there is no provision for making sure that the insurance providers make it affordable. I think it's a safe bet that when everybody has to buy coverage and there are no controls on the providers, the price will rise, and rise, and rise - seller's market. This is hardly what anybody who has actually experienced Universal Health Care would call Universal Health Care. At least if a person can't afford auto coverage, they can choose not to drive. But with this....?
>>
>>I know there is provision for those below the poverty line (not great provision, but provision nonetheless), but when premiums start skyrocketing, being above the povertly line is likely not going to be much consolation.
>>
>
>Personally, I find it very interesting that everyone here worries about health care coverage, as opposed to actual health care. It is definitely not the same thing as what you have up north.
>
>A lot of state legislatures are going to be paying attention to what happens in MA; I don't think the MA government even knows how this is going to shake out. The point is that the bill is a step - albeit a small one - towards state-mandated health care.