Mass. health coverage.(Correction, Please!)

ITEM: The New York Times for April 5 reported that the Massachusetts legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill that would make Massachusetts "the first state to provide nearly universal health care coverage," and would accomplish this feat "in a way that experts say combines methods and proposals from across the political spectrum, apportioning the cost among businesses, individuals and the government." Driving home this point, the Times quoted Stuart H. Altman, a professor of health policy at Brandeis University, as saying: "It is not a typical Massachusetts-Taxachusetts, oh-just-crazy-liberal plan. It isn't that at all. It is a pretty moderate approach." The Times also quoted Republican Gov. Mitt Romney as boasting: "This is really a landmark for our state because this proves at this stage that we can get health insurance for all our citizens without raising taxes and without a government takeover."

ITEM: The New Republic, in its issue for April 24, praised Republican Governor Mitt Romney's action, if not his motivation, saying: "He's still lending the cause of health care reform a conservative imprimatur--making the world safe for, or at least more politically hospitable to, a policy revolution." There are always some people, continued the liberal magazine, "who could buy health insurance but don't, because they would rather spend the money elsewhere. Forcing these people to pay into the health care system--as Romney's plan demands--merely asks these 'freeloaders' to carry their share of the load."

CORRECTION-" When supposed conservatives and avowed liberals get together to expand healthcare coverage and make it mandatory, with a combination of fines, taxes, subsidies, and additional regulations, the chances that anything close to a free market will emerge victorious are so slim as to be nonexistent.

This is why prominent left-wingers and backers of socialized healthcare are smiling: They see their opening and view this legislation as a potential national model. "You may well have fired a shot heard 'round the world," said a pleased Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.)--perhaps the best-known political advocate of a complete government healthcare takeover--at a Faneuil Hall ceremony trumpeting the legislation's passage. Similarly, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), of ill-fated "Hillarycare" infamy, also spoke about how "commendable" the new bill is because it is "bipartisan." A sympathetic Robert Kuttner noted in the Boston Globe that, "advocates of universal health coverage feel they finally have their nose under the tent."

If you are a Bay Stater who has freely chosen not to make a particular purchase--in this case, health insurance--the state government is going to twist your arm until you buy it or slap you with a fine. To make the mandatory medicine go down easier for some, there will be "help" provided by the government, which means other taxpayers will have their pockets picked for the balance. Subsidies will be provided to those making up to around $50,000 for a family of three, adjusting the cost via a formula essentially based on the Marxist doctrine, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

There have been tributes galore about the compromises required for a Republican governor to obtain passage of this bill while working with a left-wing legislature. That is usually the case when conservative principles are abandoned. Yet, the battle is just beginning over many of the bill's details. As the Washington Post admits: "As simple as the idea sounds--buy insurance or else--the proposal is complex and, in some cases, still unfinished. For instance, it leaves the task of determining exactly how much some low-income residents will pay for their new, more affordable policies to a new agency that would serve as a liaison between the government, policyholders and private insurance companies."

In a nutshell, the new law requires most employers to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Individuals without insurance provided by their employer, who can afford it, must buy such coverage or be penalized via their state income taxes; subsidies will help pay for coverage for the poor and "near-poor"; and a government-chartered clearinghouse is supposed to match buyers of insurance with private providers.