Cracks in the Dam This is exactly what I expected to happen:

Bridges' issue is just one of many hiccups those trying to comply with the ambitious state law have run into since it went into effect nearly two months ago. Many find they are earning just above 300 percent of poverty — right around $30,000 a year for a single-person household — and don't qualify for state-subsidized health care, but make too little to afford the monthly premiums.

One 67-year-old Lowell woman who falls into that category said she's unable to pay for the $608 monthly premium offered by the cheapest insurance provider and might have to take the $219 charge against her taxes instead of complying with the new law.

The argument has been that health insurance should be treated like auto insurance - you have to have it. That's a great approach to pooling risk, but a lousy way if you have very expensive premiums that kick in at $30K a year.

This approach needs *major* revisions if Beacon Hill doesn't want a huge revolt on their hands when the penalties for not having insurance become more and more draconian. Mark my words. That is going to happen with the current plan.

My biggest fear is that the plan will implode and set the cause of universal coverage back by a decade. Remember the political damage done by the failure of the Clinton healthcare task force in '93-'94? It bought us Speaker Gingrich.  ¶ 7:45 AM