A:
That’s right – there are Robert Travaglini, Ted Kennedy, and Sal DiMasi, along with a host of other Democrats, handing Mitt Romney the biggest gift his presidential campaign has received to date. How they can stand there and smile while Romney guts the bill they worked for months to create is beyond me. Yes, I know, the vetoes will all be overridden. It doesn’t matter (it matters substantively, of course, but not politically). This just feeds into the “bipartisan problem-solver” myth that Romney is attempting – so far pretty successfully, based on the national coverage of this issue – to create for himself. Why help Romney do that, when you don’t have to?
Anyway, speaking of vetoes, here they are. In addition to the employer assessment (sections 47 and 134), Romney vetoed:
UPDATE: “Statements” on the bill signing are flying. At least Sal DiMasi had the gumption to take a modest poke at Romney’s vetoes: “Governor, this bill was crafted after long and difficult negotiations. It is the result of compromise and concession among legislative leaders. To change anything will disturb the delicate balance that made this law possible.” Trav’s statement, by contrast, says nary a word about the vetoes, instead just congratulating everyone and happily “sharing the credit” with Romney among others. Is he looking for a job in President Romney’s administration or something?
Not surprisingly, Tom Reilly’s and Deval Patrick’s statements are much more aggressive, with Patrick decrying Romney’s “something for nothing, unrealistic approach,” and Reilly declaring that “the Romney/Healey administration has once again put the Governor’s national ambitions over the interests of our people and businesses.”
You realize that any picture of Mitt with a smilin’ Ted Kennedy spells death for his presidential ambitions.
we can blame the flaws in this on Romney. Chances are they will be his fault anyway.
“Teflon” Mitt has done it again. His veto is criticism-proof because the Democratic legislature will override it. Now, if the heathcare plan works, Mitt will take credit. And if it fails? Mitt will claim that the employer mandate was a waste of money by liberal legislators. Frustrating, I know, but this is how it will play out.
<
p>
The irony, of course, is that Romney escapes any and all accountability, which is the very reason we (the collective electorate) supposedly like a Republican Governor, right? Shared power keeps both parties honest, isn’t that the idea? Well, it sure hasn’t worked out that way.
<
p>
This is why I believe it is so important to elect a Democratic Governor – not in the interest of partisanship, but in the interest of good government. And that is why, in part, I am supporting Tom Reilly. We need a candidate who can make it with the majority (literally) of Unenrolled voters who still want a “check and balance” on the legislature, but a candidate who also, as a Democrat, can get things done. A moderate Democratic Governor will give legislators more options and I think the public will see immediate results.
<
p>
An unsolicited plug for Reilly, I know, but this situations speaks to my belief in his candidacy.
hate to say it , but romney really does deserve credit for kickstarting a debate about our dysfunctional healthcare system. the sad thing is that this has more to do with the timidity of the democratics than any brilliant vision on romneys part. he just filled the void.
on a national level, save for john conyers no democrat is really working and (here’s the big one) risking political capital to push for any bold new solutions for the healthcare mess. and it’s not really that different in massachusetts.
the democrats have ran the leg forever. and since the dukakis universal care bill, what really ever got pushed? nothing, that’s what. until romney threw in the individual mandate idea out of right field. if he hadn’t done that, do you think that we would finally be having a substantive discussion about a solution?
do you think the sacramento bee would be running stories right now about travaglini increasing funding for masshealth by 9%?
Individual mandates are the only practical way to reform health care and move toward single-payer. Just try to cut the insurance companies out of the picture and see how far you get — nowhere (cue implosion of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaign).
100% of the written analysis I’ve seen thoroughly picks apart the economics of Mitt’s so-called “reform.” From the dozen or so analyses I’ve read, this legislation will create many unintended consequences and will become financial unsustainable over 2 or 3 years.
<
p>
One predicted effect: employers opting to cancel their employee health care plans and instead opting to pay the $295 annual per employee penalty (assuming Mitt’s line item veto is overridden.) Makes sense as $295 is a lot less expensive than what employers pay…per month.
<
p>
Given the state’s generous premium subsidy being made available — families with up to $45,000 annual incomes qualify — and the zero-co-pay, benefit-rich plans being mandated, people will flood into the program blowing up its projected economics.
<
p>
The only thing worse than what was passed would have been a single-payer Canadian system. But not to worry. That’s exactly what were headed for.
Moving towards single payer is not necessarily the worst thing in the world. Insurance companies are probably the biggest rip off this country has to offer and by having a government run program, it would definitely make insurance more affordable. Another interesting fact, Blue Cross Blue Shields of New England has more paid administrators for 2 million residents than Canada’s health care system has for 27 million residents. Something is not right with that.
Is there a link to a source for that statistic?
…stinks. It’s devolved into national rationed-care. Clinical outcomes are inferior to ours, to boot, especially in critical care specialties. 6 month waits for MRIs? You betcha. Whole provinces want to opt out. Pets receive better, and faster, treatment than their owners.
<
p>
But it’s a good deal for the hospitals and clinics in Michigan and Pennsylvania where Canadian flock for routine care by the busload (literally), all paying out-of-pocket, to avoid the wait-lists in Canada. Mayo Clinic (where I go annually) is filled with rich Canadians (MGH and Sloan Kettering and Anderson, too.) Do you suppose Amercians go to Toronto for specialty care? Of course not.
<
p>
And just wait until the reimportation of US Rx gets out of hand and cuts too deeply into profits. US pharmas will simply begin cancelling their contracts with Canada, much to the average Canadian’s detriment. I don’t care about reimportation anyway because the Canadian formulary excludes the $1 per day Lipitor I take to control my cholesterol … they’re too cheap to include it.
<
p>
Maybe someday Canada will begin spending the requisite many billions of dollars researching and developing life-saving drugs of their own instead of leeching off our efforts. Or not. Same goes for most western nations with nationalized health care. When it comes to Rx, America rules.
<
p>
I don’t know about the ratio of MA-BCBS’s administrative costs to total outlays compared to Canada’s, but the fact that people from around the world come to the US for treatment — not Montreal, not Paris, and not Frankfurt — says despite the distortions in our own system, and it’s Cadillac cost, it’s vastly more efficient and certainly medically superior.
<
p>
A single-payer system, designed and run by politicians: what a terrible idea. Good thing we don’t have that here in Massa … oh wait.
Their health care system is apparently an even better deal.
In India, or perhaps just parts of India, if you can’t pay, they turn you away at the hospital. That’s one way to keep costs down.
<
p>
Better hope you don’t lose your insurance card and get hit by a bus, though.