Critics of the new Massachusetts health plan say it is ideologically based, and hence it is a bad plan. On the other hand, this plan would not have appeared if federal support, totalling $385 million annually, were not under threat of disappearing. That’s a pretty down-to-earth reason, isn’t it?

Central government was funding a temporary waiver of $385 million. This money was to pay for treatment for uninsured people who were not entitled to receive Medicaid. It order not to lose that big sum, Massachusetts had to bring down the total number of uninsured people.

Half a million people in Massachusetts have no health insurance cover, out of a total population of just under six-and-a-half million.

This new plan, by making it compulsory for people to have health care cover, will bring down the total number of people with no cover. There are three ways people will now have cover (basically):

1. An employer pays.
2. A person buys it.
3. The state pays (if the person can’t)

To date, many younger people have decided not to have cover, in the hope that they will stay healthy until they are old enough to afford it. This new law increases the number of people who have cover – healthy younger people will be contributing, which in turn helps the cash flow, as they tend to need medical treatment less (than others).

Hospital emergency rooms have been becoming the point of call for treatment of people with no cover. This has been found to be an inefficient use of resources (using emergency rooms for routine medical care). This should change when the new law starts increasing the number of people with cover. Emergency rooms are not allowed to refuse treatment.

The bill had a provision to penalise employers who don’t provide cover for their staff. Governor Mitt Romney vetoed it. However, lawmakers say they will override the veto. Many small businesses say that making them pay for this, plus imposing penalties, may mean more lay-offs and bankruptcies. However, the use of emergency rooms for routine medical care has placed a heavy burden on taxpayers.

Whether or not this plan works well and can become a model for the rest of the USA will depend on how well it works. It is bound to have teething problems and may need some tweaking as time goes by.

The United States is the richest country in the world. Very few countries have America’s level of income per capita. No country has an economy as big. However, its health care system is the most expensive in the world – more is spent on healthcare, as a percentage of gross domestic product, than any other country in the world. Out of a total population of around 300 million, 50 million have no health care cover at all – that’s nearly 17% of the whole country. The present state of affairs does not look sound, economically.

Percentage of national economy (GDP) spent on healthcare (2002)
(Source: WHO)

USA 14.6%
Universal cover NO
Life expectancy at birth (years): male 75.0 female 80.0

UK 7.7%
Universal cover YES
Life expectancy at birth (years): male 76.0 female 81.0

Canada 9.6%
Universal cover YES
Life expectancy at birth (years): male 78.0 female 82.0

France 9.7%
Universal cover YES
Life expectancy at birth (years): male 76.0 female 84.0

To say the plan is pure ideology seems unfair.

Written by: Christian Nordqvist
Editor: Medical News Today