Lynne posted a question about the proposed Health Care Constitutional Amendment put forth by this group. For progressives, there are basically two approaches to health care: the idealistic (make it universal now) and the pragmatic (cover who you can as soon as politically possible). I would suggest that these approaches are complementary, not antagonistic.
The bill that I’ve been flogging here, the Health Access and Affordability Act ("HA3"), belongs to the second camp. It is not a universal health care bill. It would insure about 80% of the roughly 532,000 uninsured people in Massachusetts, and most of those left uninsured would be those making more than three times poverty-level income. It was fashioned by Health Care for All as an ambitious but politically feasible bill. While one can always wish for the perfect, totally universal bill, that takes more time, energy, and political will — and in the meantime more uninsured people get sick. That’s why the MassACT coalition folks have gotten behind HA3. In principle, they all support "universal health care", but in the meantime, we’ve got to help who we can, when we can, however we can.
I know there are some people — including elected officials — who feel conflicted between the two approaches. I would urge them not to feel that way. Support both. It’s good to hit homers, but singles and doubles score runs, too.
Agreed. And as a general rule in the world of progressive solutions to health care, I find that pretty much anything Health Care for All puts together is a good bet.
While I agree that supporting both makes sense, I have two thoughts. First, do we want two competing proposals on the ballot in 2006? Won’t that be confusing? I suppose one could say that getting either would be a bonus, but why risk neither getting the requisite support. (Caveat: I’m writing this without extensive knowledge of the initiaitive petition/const. amendment process for MA. I’m a lawyer, but haven’t looked into this that much.)Second: wouldn’t making health care a Constitutional right be a good thing? Think about it: you get denied care, you sue in MA Superior Court for violation of your rights, you win. Maybe it’s not that easy, and I know allowing courts to make decisions isn’t that popular today. But if the Legislature knew that the court’s would decide the issues if they didn’t act, then wouldn’t the Legislature be compelled to act in an even more comprehensive manner? I think expanding the most inclusive constitution in the world to encompass health care can only be a good thing. I’d take that rather than get a partial coverage bill that may not even pass. I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on this.
Hi dc, thanks for commenting. As far as I can tell, the proposed constitutional amendment is not a ballot initiative at this point. Those folks are looking for legislative pressure.As for your second point: Well yeah, it might be great to have universal health care mandated by a constitutional amendment. But the Affordable Care Today (ACT, or MassACT) folks have made a calculation that passing their more limited bill, by legislative means or by referendum, is much more likely than the the comprehensive amendment passing. So it’s a question of not “having the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Of course we should strive for universal health care. But success in the more incremental areas is not trivial: for example, HCFA says that 300,000 people have health coverage because of incremental legislation passed in 1996. Those are real people, and who knows what would have happened to them if everyone had held out for a perfect bill.
Universal health care can be a great impact on health care system. It is unfortunate to hear so many lack health insurance. We really need to improve our health care system. Health insurance is a major aspect to many and we should help everyone get covered.