What “risk” is Anderson speaking of? Romney and Trav are right there in the sand box with him. Is it risk from DiMasi? The Speaker is rumored to have made overtures of compromise on the issue, but the other boys in the sandbox keep throwing sand in his face.
Romney, Trav and business leaders should realize the necessity of the business community’s participation. (Remember, we are talking about businesses with over ten employees that do not offer insurance and who rely on the state’s free care pool to take care of their sick or hurt employees.) If Romney, Trav and business don’t realize this necessity, Massachusetts will produce a system that does not work, that does not cover anyone with preventive care and does not reduce costs to the state, to hospitals and to the same businesses who are unwilling to come to the table with any substantive alternative.
The only alternative from the business community to date relies on the state to finance any reform through the Commonwealth’s general fund. With cost estimates starting at $200 million in the first year and nearing $750 million in the third year this scheme is by no means fiscally sustainable.
Romney, Trav and business also endorse a free rider system in which employers who do not offer insurance would be responsible for the costs of their employee’s health care if they become sick or hurt. I wonder how interviews would proceed under this scheme. Who is the healthier candidate? Selective hiring? Survival of the fittest anyone? This plan won’t have that many negative effects anyway…there is always the individual mandate that the business community has no problem with.
The only true risk that everyone in Massachusetts faces is not a political one, it is the risk that without all the players – government, business and individuals – particpating and taking responsibilty in this reform, Massachusetts will be left with failed reform with few results at more costs for everyone.
It’s interesting to note that two of the letters in the Globe are from business leaders who, unlike Anderson, understand the unfairness to good-guy businesses in the current system and who want to see a solution that actually addresses the problem instead of just making life easier for “business.” As I’ve said before, the AIM/Chamber of Commerce/Mass High Tech. Council line on this does not represent all businesses – a lot of them see the problem and want to see the right thing happen. We should do everything we can to support those businesses and to make sure the legislature is aware of their existence.
Why does everyone want to experiment with some odd new way to fund a fundamentally dysfunctional system? Help me see the downside here: Single-payer systems cost half as much per person, produce medical outcomes at least as good as “free-market” healthcare, and cover everyone.
<
p>
Every other developed country (except Switzerland) has successfully adopted single-payer universal care; is there something special about us that will cause us to do a bad job of it?
<
p>
Massachusetts has led the nation in the past; our Commonwealth led the Revolutionary War and the Abolitionist Movement. We have the best public education system in the country – at least we score better than all other states (by a good margin) on the “No Child Left Behind” tests. It’s time for us to lead once again. We can do this – heck, everyone else has!
<
p>
C’mon people! Let’s see some spine!
… we need organization. I hitched up to the incremental HCFA plan (and the ballot initiative) because those folks were motivated and organized, and they got 110,000 sigs, and showed up at the State House, and have real pull with the lege. Are they “more right” than the single-payer folks? Not necessarily. But they’re better organized, and leverage it better, and because of that have more chance to influence more peoples’ lives for the better because of it.
<
p>
All of your points are correct, but as I’ve said before in other threads, it’s not enough to be right. You have to be powerful, too.