I've been getting some e-mails asking my opinion on MA's health reform bill. The short answer (that leads to a long answer) is check Tapped, where I've got a full write-up on the legislation. The medium answer is that it's a bad bill that does two bad, though contradictory, things: reinforces the link between health care and employment, and charges employers too little for their employees. In MA, if a business of 10+ people doesn't provide health benefits, they'll have to pay a surcharge of $295 per year, per worker. I think the last time you could get an insurance plan for $295 annually, its main function was to cover leeches. So the incentives are rather obviously perverse: like before, it's much cheaper not to offer health insurance to your employees. But, unlike before, it's not quite as socially irresponsible, because you're contributing a per-employee pittance to the state pool, thus obviating your responsibility.
So yeah, I'm unimpressed. Some argue that they'll raise the price on employers (well, maybe), and others are crowing over this codification that health care is an employer-responsibility. I'm not convinced on either count. So while this is probably a bit better than doing nothing, I'm not even willing to say that without reservation. The question, in the end, will be whether the pro-universal care coalition in MA uses this victory to achieve more comprehensive reform in the future, or whether their momentum stops here. We'll see.