… almost unanimously: “The House approved the bill on a 154-2 vote. The Senate endorsed it 37-0.”.
I have to imagine Our Ex-Guv will sign it; with that margin, he’d really look pretty silly not to. (On the other hand, maybe that doesn’t matter to him so much while traveling the GOP rubber chicken circuit these days.)
Please share widely!
david says
that he has line-item veto power on this bill, because it appropriates money. He can sign almost everything but strike out individual provisions (of course, any such action is subject to a 2/3 override which will apparently be automatic).
<
p>
That said, my guess is that he’ll sign it, declare victory, and move on.
david says
now he’s saying he may veto the $295 assessment.
rex says
Romney will sign it, but probably veto certain sections, which will then be overridden.
<
p>
But an interesting aspect of this story is Romney’s view of taxes vs. assessments or fees.
<
p>
Tuesday’s Boston Globe has an article on the bill which claimed Romney would support taxing employeers who don’t offer health care to their employees because it is an assessment, and not a tax.
<
p>
Who is he kidding? Do people actually believe him when he says these things? Will the national GOP believe multiple choice Romney or will they call him on it?
<
p>
If nothing else, I hope some journalist or even a member of the Democratic state committee will ask every Republican or conservative activist how they define taxes, fees and assessments.
<
p>
Once Romney leaves, this vocabulary game will likely end. But it will be nice to have quotes to show the hypocracy in Romney followers.
john-driscoll says
Washington Post: âMass. Bill Requires Health Coverage: State Set to Use Auto Insurance As a Model,â by David A. Fahrenthold, April 5, 2006.
<
p>
Great deck header on the front page of washingtonpost.com: âState may address incomplete medical coverage by treating patients the same way it does cars.â
<
p>
Because private car insurance has worked out almost as well as private health insurance, especially in Massachusetts.
david says
We’ve got a long way to go on this.
dave-goodie says
Patients being treated like cars? Those are not reassuring words.
<
p>
Obviously this is not perfect, but we’re getting there. Jim Roosevelt, who represents both the pulse of the party and the insurance industry agrees.
<
p>
USA Today does a decent job of putting the uninsured numbers into a national context.
<
p>
tim-little says
But here’s an interesting take from the co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program. (Both are “primary care physicians at Cambridge Hospital and Associate Professors at Harvard Medical School.”)
<
p>
I guess this bill is a step in the right direction, but I still have serious misgivings about this (in particular the individual mandate and pennies-on-the-dollar “assessment” on businesses).