Sen. Barrios has an interesting perspective, which in a sense may show the general direction of the Senate as much as his own wishes for the legislation. Barrios is a self-described "progressive Democrat", who places the greatest emphasis on covering the greatest number of uninsured. To this end, he endorses what he calls a "progressive mandate"; that is, a mandate on individuals to buy their own insurance, subsidized by the state; combined with a mandate on employers to either cover their own workers or pay into a pool which subsidizes the above-mentioned individuals. (This arrangement would not apply to the self-employed or very small businesses, who would be allowed to purchase from a pool created by the state. They would be mandated to provide themselves coverage one way or another.) Perhaps unfortunately, Barrios calls this arrangement "pay or play", and it is apparently similar to the arrangement repealed in 1996. For Barrios, a personal mandate without "pay or play" is a non-starter.
In other words, Barrios suggests hitting two of the three bases of possible mandates: Individual and employer. The Senator feels that the state taking over more individual cases (i.e. by expanding MassHealth/Medicaid eligibility) without an employer mandate would improperly "subsidize" those businesses that do not offer coverage.
Barrios is also very skeptical of Romney’s supposed $200/month insurance plan, for which the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation apparently provided a back-of-the-napkin sketch: He refers to that as "semi-insurance", which has limited value in preventing or ameliorating illnesses early on, therefore depriving individuals of health, and depriving the state economy the productivity of a healthy worker. In other words, it’s an insufficient investment to be worthwhile. In addition, no insurer has come forth to offer such a plan.
The most controversial part of the individual mandate would be the enforcement mechanism: How do you make someone buy a product that they feel they can’t afford or don’t want? Barrios couldn’t remember, and said he’d get back to us on that. It’s our impression that this is the most politically radioactive part of the individual mandate approach. The legislature would have to consider this extremely carefully to avoid a nasty backlash.
We should mention that Senator Barrios was very frank, cordial, responsive, and generous with his time. We appreciate his talking with us. We’ll have a lot more on this issue this week and going forward.
Barrios the phony!
JG, if you have any basis whatsoever for that comment with respect to Barrios on the issue of health care, let’s hear it. Otherwise, spare us the mudslinging.
I cant believe barrios is actually talking about Senate business for once, he?s been so busy running his DA campaign out of his senate office on the taxpayers dime. JG is correct. Barrios is a self serving politician looking to fool the voters into believing that he?s actually qualified to be District Attorney. Mr. BARRIOS you can introduce as much legislation as you would like in the Senate, it will not make up for your lack of qualifications to be DA. The voters of Middlesex County are smart enough to know that you looking to use the DA seat as a stepping-stone to hire office. I want someone with experience prosecuting criminals to protect me and my family, not a politician; LEONE, KOUTOUJIAN and FESTA are 100% more qualified than you will ever be for District Attorney.
Mary, You either have some specific axe to grind with Barrios, are in the camp of another campaign or are stunningly naïve about elected officials in general- maybe all three. Even if you are right that Barrios is thinking about higher office, so what? Everyone running for this seat for the last 20 years has been thinking about higher office on some level. Harshbarger, Reilly and now Coakly all ran for attorney general out of the Middlesex DA?s office and Harshbarger and Reilly both went on to run for Governor. If a Democrat dosen?t win in 2006, who do you think will be first in line to run? Martha Coakly. So the question isn?t, is candidate politically ambitious (since they all are). The question is will they do a good job while they are there. Barrios is an effective state senator and has been involved constructively and creatively in public safety issues (particularly his anti-gang initiative). True he hasn?t been a prosecutor, but a DA doesn?t prosecute cases himself, he manages prosecutors, and I think Barrios has demonstrated just as much management skill as anyone else in this race. (As an aside the shoe bomber conviction that Leone got is certainly praiseworthy- but it has absolutely nothing to do with running a DA?s office.) A DA who can manage the office and also think creatively about reducing crime is something progressives should get behind. I think Barrios is that guy. If you disagree lets hear your reasons, because what you have offered so far sounds straight out of republican talking points.
Its great to see Barrios is working to improve health care. Health insurance is a major impact to many.