Regarding the stalled health care negotiations, Somedem asks: “Will it ever happen?”. Well… I don’t know, but maybe we shouldn’t be surprised it’s overdue. This is tough stuff.
Apropos of the Globe article today, and the WBUR story (Martha Bebinger with more great work), I don’t have a lot to add; last night I summed up the possible leverage we might have in influencing the debate. I do think it’s fascinating how Travaglini says he’s “very concerned”, and DiMasi is “optimistic.” Who’s right? That’s the juiciest question of all at this point. Any Beaconologists out there want to tell us?
I have a hypothesis — a hunch: The difference in perception comes from what one sees as “politically viable.” Stay with me…
If you listened to the ‘BUR story this morning, you heard from a number of jes’ folks who would be affected by the personal mandate — and by and large, they don’t like it. Go figure. We’ve been saying for months — David even more vociferously than I — that even heavily subsidized for lower-income folks, this would be a really hard sell.
Now, regarding the employer mandate, the Boston Globe op-ed page recently threw up its hands and said that in the face of business opposition, we should just give up on this. Now, the problem is that it’s pretty popular among jes’ folks. And as Joan Vennochi states, if we’re going to have an employer-based health care system, then employers need to provide health care.
So, if they do the employer mandate, there’s a business revolt. If they do the Mitt thing and impose a personal mandate, jes’ folks revolt. If they leave tons of people uninsured, as Travaglini would seem to prefer, they squander an enormous opportunity, we activists are mighty chuffed, some hard-earned reputations are tarnished (that’s you, Trav, and you, Sen. Moore) and I would guess that even Mitt is a little disappointed; call it what you want, but Trav-Care ain’t nohow Universal Health Coverage.
When we find out who’s blowing smoke and who’s talking turkey among Happy Sal and Sad Trav … we may know where this thing is going.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Trav ever said his plan was universal care. What I believe it is, is more realistic.
<
p>
You can certainly disagree (and I waiver on this point) but as I’ve heard Trav say it, he wants to eventually get to Universal Care, but it’s just too damned radical right now.
<
p>
It would cost the state too much, businesses would be too freaking pissed (and some might conceivably leave, or at least threaten really loudly to) and it’s just too hard. Anyway, I seem to remember that during Dukakis we had a Universal Care bill pass, which he signed, and not much happened after that … anyone who was actually around during that time might have more info.
<
p>
I think Trav subscribes to the “incremental changes” in policy. I don’t know that he’s right, and there’s something to be said for bold, fast, changes … but in this case, that’s what he’s advocating for. I don’t think his reputation would be (or should be) tarnished if he doesn’t pass a universal health care bill, that’s not what he wanted to do.
<
p>
(And yes, there’s certainly an argument to be made against “incremental changes” and that’s mostly that it’s so damn slow … but for the most part, that’s really how this business works, and it’s a good thing, so that we don’t break the system horribly with some great ideas that on implementation completely mess up something else we couldn’t have possibly anticipated)
…only that Mitt wouldn’t have as much of a feather in his cap. Then again, he hasn’t really been serious about his proposal to begin with.