Massachusetts bill evokes strong reactions

John Kern and Charlie Crystle both run businesses. Both are passionate about health-insurance issues. Both oppose a bill that Massachusetts lawmakers passed this month that attempts to ensure that all of the state's residents have health-care coverage.

But the similarities end when Kern and

Mixed emotions characterized local observers' reactions to the Massachusetts bill, which would place the burden of providing coverage on the state, individuals and businesses. Some trashed the bill as government intrusion, while others said it did not go far enough. Still others liked that the legislation tried to bring various stakeholders together to solve the state's insurance problems.

"That intrigues me," said state Sen. Pat Vance, a Republican who represents Cumberland County and part of York County. "I'm interested in seeing how it all falls out."

The Massachusetts legislation would achieve universal coverage in three ways:

* The state would provide subsidies to health insurers to help them provide free or low-cost coverage to lowincome people;

* Individuals who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it would be penalized on their state income taxes; and

* Businesses with more than 10 employees that do not offer coverage would have to pay an annual $295 fee for each full-time employee.

The bill takes a different tact from legislation in other states that forces businesses to bear much of the burden of paying for expanded insurance coverage. In October 2003, then-California Gov. Gray Davis signed a bill that required large businesses in that state to offer health insurance to employees by 2006. California voters repeated the legislation in late 2004. A Maryland law scheduled to go into effect next year requires employers with at least 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health insurance or pay the difference into a state health-care fund.

Although the Massachusetts bill seems less onerous to businesses, Kern is wary of government officials getting involved in the health-insurance system. He cited the confusion that erupted after the federal government rolled out its Medicare prescription-drug plan for seniors Jan. 1.

"Anytime they get their fingers in there, they screw it up," he said. "They should keep their hands out of our pockets."

Crystle opposes the bill because he thinks it relies too heavily on a fragmented health-care system that leaves too many people uninsured. He advocates a singlepayer system like that proposed in a bill introduced in February in the Pennsylvania Senate. The bill would replace private insurance and many government programs with a single-payer system.

"I don't think (the Massachusetts bill) provides adequate coverage," Crystle said.

The bill is not perfect, but at least it tries to share the responsibility for health-care coverage, said Tom Henschke, director of SMC Business Councils' central region office in Wormleysburg. SMC Business Councils is a small-business trade association.

"I think it's great that they're going after this differently," he said. "I like that everyone has a share in the game."