Massachusetts's health plan affects privacy and liberty

People across the nation are applauding the Massachusetts effort to increase access to health care, improve its quality, and reduce costs by forcing every resident to purchase medical insurance. It's going to be an interesting and important task to measure objectively how the Massachusetts experiment actually works-or doesn't-to achieve those goals during the coming years.

But some results we don't need to wait for. It's crystal clear (upon reading the actual bill text) that the plan invades everyone's privacy by requiring insurers and health-care providers to submit patient data to a centralized clearinghouse (a new council). And it's clear that forcing Americans to buy a product from a limited number of government-approved insurers limits their freedom of choice. There is a huge difference between freedom and choice: freedom means one is free to choose from an array of options not artificially limited by the government, while choice may include only an artificially limited number of options.

Also, it's obvious that the Massachusetts plan will interfere with every citizen's right to maintain private contracts with health-care providers. If providers are forced to submit patients' data to a centralized clearinghouse, there is no way for patients and their providers to maintain truly confidential relationships.

Perhaps New Hampshire and other surrounding states should make sure their laws uphold the precious ethics of privacy and consent. Then at least some Massachusetts residents (those with means to do so) would be free to go out of state to maintain confidential doctor-patient relationships. And after all, New Hampshire's state motto is "Live Free or Die." Better yet, all states' policies should encourage citizens to live free and thrive! Laws that uphold the ethics of privacy and consent can ensure that.

Source




Massachusetts Health-Insurance Bill Mandates New Taxes and Privacy Invasions

On Tuesday, April 4, the Massachusetts House and Senate Conference Committee reached a compromise on a first-of-its-kind legislation that requires everyone in the state to have health insurance or pay a fine... The plan includes new taxes on businesses that don't provide insurance, a requirement that everyone purchase health insurance or be penalized and chilling new invasions into personal privacy.

The legislation includes new Medicaid expansions and the "Connector," modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, a per-person business "assessment" (read: tax) on firms not offering insurance. Most problematic, the bill provides new government authority to extensively track each person's private health insurance and medical data. "This program is being sold by the governor as a 'free market' proposal," stated JP Wieske, State Affairs Director for the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI). "But this plan is a roadmap for a single-payer system that will be a disaster for Massachusetts taxpayers and patients."

The legislation gives the government broad new invasion-of-privacy rights:

* Individuals must provide "Health Insurance Responsibility Disclosure" forms-signed under oath-that can be investigated by the insurance commissioner. The bill also includes other extensive data-reporting requirements. Business owners must also sign the disclosure.

* The "Connector"-a non-state entity-and other information-gathering agencies can request any information on the business and its employees they deem necessary. Employers not providing insurance not only pay a $295 tax [per employee], but once their employees' and dependents' state-paid health care costs exceed $50,000, employers are responsible for between 10 and 100% of the bill....

"After years of debate over health-care reform, is this the best Massachusetts can do!?" asked Dr. Merrill Matthews, Director of CAHI...."It's not a model for reform, but a costly, invasive boondoggle..."

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?

Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Page is here or here.

***************************