Rabu, 13 April 2011

Differences Between Massachusetts And National Health Insurance Reform

Differences Between Massachusetts And National Health Insurance Reform

Mitt Romney is in a bind: he is running for the 2012 Republican nomination for President, yet was governor of Massachusetts when its own healthcare reform passed. The party faithful are obviously against Obama's health insurance reform strategies, and the GOP is planning to run against Democrats with the strategy of "repeal and replace". How does Romney combat the anger despite his previous involvement?

After all, it is commonly acknowledged that the recently passed health insurance reform bill is based on some past Republican proposals. For example, the individual mandate--which requires people to either buy insurance or pay a fine--was initially proposed by Republicans. Now, it is very controversial and sparking lawsuits across the nation that question its constitutionality.

On the one hand, it shows just how much the political climate has changed: in 1994, Republicans proposed a mandate with tax credits for low- and middle-income individuals and families as an alternative to the Clintons' attempt at healthcare reform. Obama initially ran against it in early primaries, preferring a government-run public option to the insurance companies.

The state of Massachusetts enacted its own health insurance bill in 2006, which is similar in many respects. At the time, Romney called it an issue of "personal responsibility", and a free-market solution to the insurance conumdrum. The state has been praised for managing to insure nearly all of its residents, but criticized for failing to control costs.

As the cost of health care continues to spiral out of control, both in his state and nationwide, Romney continues to defend his legislation as a working model. At this point, it would be impossible to run away from it. Republicans believe that the Democrats' bill stripped out some essential cost control mechanisms, but they do not appear to be in the Massachusetts health insurance bill, either. He has been forced to admit more similarities than he was initially willing to mention, because neither Democrats nor Republicans were buying his argument that the two pieces of legislation had nothing in common.

However, there is a logic to Romney's viewpoint: many Republicans believe strongly in state sovereignty. In fact, state's rights is one of the main issues at stake in the pending lawsuits. While reform may have been the correct solution for his state, one-size-fits-all legislation is wrong and possibly unconstitutional. Instead, each state should decide on their own strategy. New Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown feels the same way; he was elected due to his opposition of the national bill, yet supported the Massachusetts mandate as a member of the state senate. His primary concerns lean more towards the over involvement of the federal government and tax increases.

The problem many Democrats have with that approach is that it will lead to further inequality when it comes to access to affordable health insurance. Liberal-leaning states like Massachusetts will make moves, while more conservative states such as Texas may do nothing. The former status quo is appealing to many, but not all. Some point to the education system as proof of the necessity for national healthcare reform; educational standards and funding vary widely among states, meaning that some children receive far superior schooling due to their residency.

(Image: rawmustard under CC 3.0)

Yamileth Medina is an up and coming expert on Health Insurance and Healthcare Reform. She aims to help people realize that they can find quality health insurance plans right now. Yamileth lives in Miami, FL.


Article from articlesbase.com

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar