The Globe seems a little more optimistic this morning; John McDonough is very upbeat about the possibility of a deal; Steve Bailey says “Reports of the demise of healthcare reform on Beacon Hill are premature.” Glad to hear it.
It would seem that the Senate is indeed considering some kind of employer assessment, per employee, I suppose as opposed to a payroll “tax” a la Social Security. According to Bailey, three of the big four business groups have suggested a $300/year assessment. Now, this is nothing like real equity, when some employers pay many thousands per year to insure their employees; but, it’s more than nothing, and much better than the absurd $62/year that was floated previously. Hopefully this money provides the state with the means to provide people with genuine health care, as opposed to nominal “insurance” which protects mostly billers. And it’s good that the business community is playing ball a little.
Another thing: Isn’t the solidarity of the House just really impressive? We know that the Senate is bitterly divided against itself (Barrios vs. Moore vs. Montigny vs. Trav vs. Jehlen etc. etc.), but the House is solid:
DiMasi told a closed-door meeting of House Democrats yesterday that he would not agree to the Senate’s scaled-back measure, which calls for stripped-down insurance plans, either free or subsidized, for those below a certain income limit. Representatives who attended the meeting with DiMasi said there was broad support for the speaker’s position.
“I think it’s a fair statement that he received the overwhelming support of the members of the House,” said a representative who went to the meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity, because such meetings are confidential. “We told him to stick to his guns.”
Is this the power of personality, DiMasi’s hugging and mugging vs. the more dour Travaglini? Or does the House just have the courage of its convictions? It would be instructive to all of us to know the hows and whys … hopefully we’ll find out someday.
As the more progressive of the two bodies (it certainly seemed that way during the gay marriage fight), but in this case, the reverse seems to be the case. One reason that the House has managed to stay more unified may be that more senators have ambitions of moving up that are keeping them from banding together more on health care (representatives have ambitions to move up too, of course, but if you’re a rep its harder to get the spotlight during a policy debate, so there’s less incentive to stake out a position opposed to your leadership).
I think you have to put “progressivism” on two axes: Social and Economic. There are plenty of folks in MA who are economic progressives (pro-health-care, pro-union, pro-education-spending) who don’t support gay marriage or abortion rights, for instance.
that thinking will start winning elections for us charlie
Well, the MA Dems do win a ton of elections, at least partly because it’s a genuinely big tent party. That makes for infighting, strange bedfellows, discomfort all around… and Republican governors. But let’s face it: It’s better than Republicans winning everything.