First, the bad (or good, depending on how you look at it): Massachusetts receives additional federal funding for its health plan. I see this as a bad, and so does Kevin, M.D., because it indicates that the state is having problems funding the program on its own. And it most definitely is.
The plan’s rapid growth has generated fiscal pressures. The legislature and Mr. Patrick filled a health care spending gap that approached $200 million for this fiscal year by increasing the tobacco tax by $1 a pack, levying one-time assessments on insurers and hospitals, and raising more money from businesses that do not contribute to their employees’ insurance. The state expects to spend $869 million on subsidized coverage this year.It's great the government gave them to money to continue the program, but bad that they needed it to begin with. It's not exactly replicable on the federal level if a small state can't do it. As Kevin writes, "If enacted nationally, who will bail out Washington?"
The good: A panel of US Court of Appeals judges rule in favor of San Fran's universal health plan, by saying that the charges on businesses who don't provide health insurance to workers are constitutional. I've liked this program from the beginning because it provides very basic health insurance (so basic, by definition, it's not health insurance) to city residents. Given the groundbreaking nature of the ruling, we'll have to wait and see how/if it holds up in high courts.
