Reviewing the OCPF for candidates within the Attorney General race, one thing stood out within Warren Tolman’s filings, expenditures to the Health Connector. Providing health care to campaign staff has been a topic in other state wide campaigns, Scott Brown for example notoriously circumvented providing health care to staff by paying them as independent contractors.
Just to confirm, I went to the Tolman campaign website and under “Contact Us!” contacted the campaign to inquire about health coverage. Within a few hours I got a response from the campaign, which BTW is nice, they confirmed that in fact it was staff insurance coverage.
In reviewing Maura Healey’s filings I did not see anything within her campaigns expenditures to indicate health insurance expenses outside of some filings for Workmans Comp. Republican candidate John Ross who started filings in March 2014 also does not appear to include health insurance expenditures.
In reviewing those in the Governor’s face. Berwick? Mr. Healthcare was the first stop, and yes, Don Berwick filings do include expenditures similar to Tolman’s filings on health care coverage for staff. In fact, Martha Coakley, Steven Grossman, Juliette Kayyem and Charlie Baker all have similar health care filings. Yes, Charlie Baker did choose Harvard Pilgram. Governor candidates where I did not find expenditures for health care coverage included Joe Avellone and Tea Party candidate Mark Fisher.
I’d welcome additional information on health insurance coverage from the Healey campaign, filings are consistent amongst other 2014 races for health care expenditures. In a race where frequent press releases discuss Progressive values, standing with a small group that includes Mark Fisher is not a place where you want to be.
jconway says
This is MA, not MS, surely we can have a primary focused on the issues at stake rather than dueling character assassination attempts, like that southern sepia toned shitfest between Cochran and McDaniels.
I think it was unfair to beat the deadhorse about Tolman’s investments and activities in between campaigns, and it is unfair to go after her on this. I’ve volunteered for campaigns where I didn’t get paid, let alone didn’t get healthcare. Some were lean operations indeed.
theloquaciousliberal says
Your experiences as an unpaid campaign volunteer aside, I believe employers (of full-time paid staff) have a moral obligation to offer a health insurance benefit to their paid staff.
Interestingly, the state employer mandate and Fair Share penalty were repealed last summer in anticipation of the new ACA employer mandate (which itself was delayed but was supposed to go in to effect this year). Also, of importance, the federal mandate coves only employers of over 50 individuals (the state’s law was for employers of 11+ people).
So, there’s no legal violation here.
But experts in health care reform are well aware that an enforced employer mandate is a vitally important component of reform, addressing the “free rider” problem, helping to lower costs, and crucial to ensuring high rates of insurance under the ACA (and RomneyCare) systems.
On her own webpage, Maura Healey says:
It’s at least fair, I think, to note that Healy fails to “walk the walk” here by failing to live up to those principles when acting as an employer of her campaign staff.
jconway says
That directly links it to a stated policy position/value of hers and demonstrates this behavior is a little hypocritical. I get that, it still doesn’t go to the heart of how she will govern as an AG or not. I think asking the questions about privacy and civil liberties that Tom seems to answer, and getting her to comment on the record what she was involved in as an AAG and how that translates to all her issue positions and goals for this office would be a better use of time. But definitely, she says she favors health care for all but doesn’t offer it for her staff does illustrate a contradiction. I just don’t think the race should be decided on this small scale issues.
ryepower12 says
I absolutely would have agreed with you that including health care plans for staff was the mark of a good candidate, but now that health insurance is readily available through the state exchange, it’s more complicated than that and many employees would prefer to keep the insurance they have through the exchange since the job is temporary in nature.
Of course, your piece didn’t want to examine any of those complications. Admitting a subject is complicated makes it so much harder to write hugely negative hit pieces.
theloquaciousliberal says
Says you? That makes absolutely no sense.
Your theory is that people would rather continue to pay for their own health insurance coverage through the Connector rather than receive free or heavily subsidized insurance through their new employer? In order to avoid a little paperwork they’d rather pay hundreds of dollars a month to obtain their own coverage? Yet, despite this dynamic you purport to understand, Tolman, Coakley, Grossman, Berwick and Kayeem (but not Healey) still managed to hire employees who decided they would accept their employer’s offer of insurance rather than keep the insurance they already had?
That all sounds pretty unlikely to me.
ryepower12 says
and cleared this up.
It was obvious that this was what occurred and even were it not so, questions could have been asked instead of a nasty hit piece.
Enough of this nonsense.
We have two good candidates. Let’s have a clean campaign on BMG for once.
jconway says
You honestly want us to believe that the candidate was simply following the consensus of her staff to get their insurance through the exchanges? That reminds me of Khazei’s videos telling his ’employees’ how to get food stamps. Nobody wants to eat government cheese if they don’t have to.
I am currently on a Silver Plan through the IL Exchange, and while our website in IL and the experience is significantly better than what people tell me about the abyssmal Connector in MA, I still would’ve preferred the security and ease of having employer coverage. I resent the fact that they have kept me part time partly to prevent that eligibility. If all the other major candidates, including the Republican, can offer insurance it begs an explanation for why she can’t.
I will stand by my initial comment that there is likely an innocent or financial motivation to this, and we shouldn’t ascribe anti-progressive health care beliefs to Healey on the basis of this one particular lapse. But it is a lapse all the same.
ryepower12 says
A little thought on your part, j, and you would have realized that yes, ‘I honestly want[ed] you to believe.’ Would I go saying anything where I was intentionally misleading people? Has that been something I’ve ever done?No. It hasn’t.
So is it something I would know anything about? I’ve only worked on numerous campaigns in various capacities over the years, always getting my insurance through the connector because it was easier and usually cheaper. So of course I must have been some trickster spinning yarn! /snark off
As David Guarino pointed out below, what I suggested is almost exactly what happened. The ACA makes it so that many campaign staff aren’t going to be interested in a campaign’s temporary insurance, whether they’re getting it from their parents or getting it from the Connector.
There’s a bigger issue than this one nasty diary. How many posts have you written decrying nasty comments about this race on this site because Healey supporters have said something you didn’t like or thought unfair? A dozen? More? You were crusading on that issue. Now you were piling on — and on an issue that was not going to hold up.
You can’t have it both ways.
jconway says
My first post on this thread decries the OP-I was responding to your response to LL. But I agree-the oxygen is quickly getting sucked out of this race and we could probably both use a break from it.
jconway says
I strongly feel that anything that critiques Healey is a cheap shot to you, and anything that critiques Tolman is a “fair question”. In my first reply to the OP on this thread I actually defended Healey, I welcome you to read it as I feel like this race should be about issues and not Mississippi primary style ‘gotcha’ politics and purity tests. I will also note that I always end my criticisms of Healey and her campaign by saying I will be proud to vote for her if she is the nominee-something I have yet to hear from some of the more rowdy Healey supporters on this blog-though I will acknowledge you have said that about Tolman and also critiqued the unfair union attacks against him.
I think a lot of the acrimony is coming from the Healey side directed at Tolman, and trying to turn him into the villain of this race. It is a road they did not have to go down.
But since they have, expect attacks like this from the Tolman campaign, and I am 100% sure if Tolman didn’t cover his employees a Healey supporter would’ve had a post bashing it and you’d be defending such a post as ‘fair game’.
But to you’re overall point I still agree-as I did on my first reply in this thread-that this is a small ball issue that shouldn’t determine how someone votes. Just like Tolman’s investment, just like this spat over the Peoples Pledge, and just like their personal votes on the casino referendum. NONE of these things have any direct bearing on how they would conduct themselves as AG.
What DOES have direct bearing is their record on the issues. They both say they will fight for gun control, against big business, for consumers, for clean elections, for marriage equality and women’s rights. Both candidates have a strong record of fighting for marriage equality and women’s rights. But only Tolman has a paper trail of votes taken, bills passed, bills sponsored, and elections lost over those other priorities. That is why I am supporting him over Healey. She may very well be just as good or better, but her record on those particular issues is just not as well known or strong in my opinion. And at the end of the day-it’s just my opinion-which I am entitled to as much as any Healey supporter.
What should be troubling, as SomervilleTom has often noted, is that neither candidate has said anything substantial about real privacy and overreach concerns regarding civil liberties and security issues. It is far more likely the next AG will have to deal with a massive anti-terror or anti-crime scenario than most of these other issues, and we have no idea how either candidate’s values are informed on those questions regarding the limits on police power and how to protect privacy and civil liberties under those circumstances. And I’d much rather be talking about that than about Healey’s health care coverage or Tolman’s business relationships.
davidguarino says
Johnk,
Thanks for the question but I’m afraid it is misplaced. Every staffer on our campaign has health insurance and we’re fully compliant with the law. That’s been our policy since Maura launched her campaign and consistent with the values of the campaign.
All staff are offered health insurance when they are hired and will be covered if they work here, period. Other than our campaign manager, current staff are all under 26 and, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, are covered under their parents’ plans. Before he was hired, the manager, treasurer and Maura discussed various options and our campaign manager decided to purchase his own care through the Connector. His salary is supplemented to cover a generous percentage of his costs. The campaign is 100 percent committed to covering all future employees as well and will figure out the best way to do so to make sure every employee has access to quality health care.
I must say as a side note that it is unfortunate that you apparently decided to contact the Tolman campaign for clarification but didn’t contact the Healey campaign before posting what amounts to an accusation in the form of a question. We’re happy to set the record straight here as necessary but it seems like fair play would have been to contact both campaigns before starting this post.
~ David Guarino, spokesman, Maura Healey for Attorney General
Jasiu says
This was my first thought after reading the original post (but never got around to making that comment). I hope in the future that all of us posting here will do such outreach before making further accusations – against any of the candidates.