Oh my goodness … do we have a serious case of Liebermanitis/Naderitis with Steve Lynch here?
“There's a difference between compromise and surrender, right? And this is a complete surrender of all the things that people thought were important to health care reform,” Lynch told reporters. When asked what might cause him to vote for the bill, Lynch said: “There's one thing. If they put reform back in the health reform bill, that would change my position.”
“We're paying the ransom, but at the end of the day, the insurance companies still hold the hostages, even after this is all done,” Lynch added. “This is not meaningful reform.”
This is from a guy who wouldn't commit to the public option? Who had to endure the “PUBLIC OPTION” chant at the rally on the Boston Common?
Now, as far as the whole notion of wanting to pull out if we're not getting more goodies for our fair Commonwealth: Let's remember that the Federal government subsidized our health insurance expansion — that was the result of the “waivers” worked out by Ted Kennedy and Gov. Patrick.
Steve Lynch: You deserve mockery. But what you need is phone calls. Cut the crap and vote for the bill. You'll get primaried otherwise. Maybe you should get a challenger anyway.
Discuss
8 Comments . Comments are closed.He's running against Scott Brown, isn't he....
Hmmm ... there's an interesting hypothesis!
If he is,
it's not exactly a great strategy to get past a primary.
Actually, I can't see any way for Lynch to win a statewide Democratic primary in Massachusetts.
Depends on how the bill shakes out, doesn't it?
If it passes, and one thing goes wrong, and MA doesn't get the booty to prop up our system, or if we gt penalized for being an early state, and so on - he can point to the vote and say, 'See? Penalized MA to help other states that DIDN'T step up to the plate, and now your unearned income is taxed, your health care is taxed (as Cadillac, when MA regulates out cheaper alternatives so you can't help it), etc. etc'.
Jeff Perry is ahead now in the GOP Congressional primary on the strength of voting against Mitt's bill. At the time, voting against a sitting Governor/potential presidential candidate was seen as suicidal - now, it seems brilliant.
True, but...
I see this vote as a vote of conscious and faith, because the vast majority of the impact won't be measurable until a number of years down the road. It doesn't mean that it won't have impact, but rather that the data won't be there. By 2012, we wonks still won't know much about the results of the law, we'll only know the results on the politic.
Stomv - I would suggest running against Scott IS a product of the politic.
How many wonks vote in a Democratic primary? How many unenrolled voters will (since Scott won't have a primary challanger)?
I mean, really - you're talking about not deciding how it's working out for several years, when most people expect punishment this November!
Instant gratification
Could go two ways, IMO. The GOP has characterized this bill as an IMMEDIATE disaster. Like the dems characterized the stimulus as immediately stimulative.
The GOP will get the benefit of the people thinking: the economy still sucks, the stimulus failed, even though there hasn't yet been enough time for it to work.
Likewise, people will expect the sky to fall right away if/when this bill is signed. When it doesn't, the issue could simply evaporate as a source of traction for the GOP.
SSM in Massachusetts went from Highly Divisive and Acrimonious Wedge Issue to white noise, interesting only to activists, in a matter of months.
Even if they manage to ride it to a majority in November, it may be popular before they can mount an effort at repeal.
Lynch's position
Lynch is a longtime member and official of the ironworkers, a union that provides health benefits. He's in the unusual position of being both anti-business (especially insurers) and very concerned about the cost of insurance.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sat 4 Feb 7:18 AM