Too good to be true?

Massatchusetts has a plan for universal health care. That's great, I think. The New York Times story leaves some of my questions unanswered.

For example, the story says that businesses with more than 10 employees that don't offer insurance to their workers will be charged $295 per employee. I'd say that's a great deal for the employers. Insurance for my family through a former employer's COBRA plan was more than $850 a month and only lasted 18 months. A current employer offers insurance at more than $1,100 a month.

But as I read the story, employers don't have to pay for the insurance, they just have to offer it. I'm sure there's a cost associated with offering the insurance even without paying for it, but $295 per employee per year may be the lesser of the two costs.

The proposed employer fee may not matter much, Governor Mitt Romney says in the story that he will use his line-item-veto to get rid of it.

In any event, this isn't really universal health insurance coverage. The Massachusetts legislature is merely forcing insurance companies and employers to offer the insurance and forcing the citizens of the state to buy it. Goverment subsidies to help the working poor pay for insurance will be available, but in my experience, the working poor don't have anything to spare. The article doesn't answer my questions about how much people will be forced to pay. Seems like the same logic involved in Heath Care Savings Accounts -- the government will give you a tax break to self-insure by setting money aside for an emergency. If I had the money to set aside, I'd use it to buy insurance.