Affordable Care Today (“ACT”), the backers of a ballot initiative that would have gone far beyond the health care plan enacted earlier this year, have decided not to file the signatures necessary to put the question on the ballot. The group said it had 135,000 signatures, way more than they needed, but decided not to file them in favor of giving the new law a chance to work.
Seems like a smart move. At this point, with a law already on the books, everyone’s efforts are better spent on ensuring that that law is implemented in the fairest and most effective way possible. Proceeding with the ballot initiative would likely have meant months of divisive campaigning, while people who need health insurance remain caught in the middle. Kudos to ACT for putting the interests of the as-yet-uninsured first.
UPDATE: The Globe notes that there is still one health care initiative alive, assuming it gets 50 votes in the legislature next week: the proposed constitutional amendment making health care a “right.” It’s far less specific than ACT’s proposal, but it might give rise to litigation down the road if it passes and if the current plan doesn’t manage to cover everyone.
Business interests have already received huge concessions in the writing of the bill, and they’re likely to now that it’s in the implementation phase. They’ll stay on the offensive. But with this decision, ACT has decided that the most they’ll do is play defense. I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect that ACT has just hobbled their bargaining position as we enter the period of crucial definions on how the health care bill will be implemented.
From what I’ve read, ACT is pushing for single-payer plan for MA, paid through general tax revenues, subsidized by business, run by the state. If you thought health care is expensive now, wait until it’s “free.”
<
p>
I find it totally disingenuous that ACT would even consider filing anything at this point. It makes it look like the current health care “reform” was simply an unserious stepping stone to a Canadian-style, state-run system. “We supported reform. That was then. Now let’s go further.”
<
p>
Try to remember that “reform” was a compromise. ACT’s plan — don’t know the financial details — sounds like a job-killing idea.
<
p>
Is this what we want for MA?
Shep, since you opposed health care reform in its previous incarnation as well, I can’t be too surprised that you don’t like efforts to defend it. Bolsters my point, really–ACT’s decision is great for business and bad for those who actually want everyone in the state to have health coverage.
You read absolutely wrong. ACT’s plan was never single-payer, not Canadian-style, and indeed wasn’t actually “universal”, contemplating that 80% of the currently uninsured would be covered. (Under the new law, “universal coverage” will be enforced by the personal mandate.)
<
p>
And please don’t tell me how expensive “free care” would be. In 2004, Canada paid 9.7% of its GDP in health care. The US? 16%. And that doesn’t cover everyone. We pay a hell of a lot more in the US for health care, and we get lousier results (warning, pdf):
<
p>
The goverment spends only 9.7% on healthcare in Canada. Who says that’s the right amount? Why not 5%? Or 20%?
<
p>
As a society, we choose how much to spend on healthcare, a luxury the Canadians do not have. I’m sure we spend much more on many things — video games, perhaps. Canadians probably spend much more on hockey tickets. But they’re NOT FREE to spend their own money on healthcare. It’s illegal.
<
p>
I’ve read all the studies on longevity, infant mortality, and more. The US isn’t #1. We’re 12th or 15th or whatever. That’s a shame. Let’s do better.
<
p>
But in terms of severve health issues and critical care, do American’s flock to Toronto or Montreal? No. Canadians come here to the US, to Mayo Clinic, Anderson, Sloan Kettering, MGH or any hospital with an MRI or CAT scan opening (usually next day scheduling.) The whole world comes here when it matters. Not Canada. Or France, Or Germany. They come here.
<
p>
Average Canadians arrive in the US to spend their own funds for MRIs, CAT scans and other diagnostics which are strictly rationed in Canada and for which the wait times are legendary.
<
p>
The Canadian Rx formulary excludes many ethical drugs not yet available as generics, such as Lipitor, the world’s most effective statin. If I have to pay out of pocket for this drug, which I do since it’s the only statin which works for me, let me. So what if it costs $80 a month, it’s saving my life. In Canada, it’s against the law to purchase this medication out-of-pocket.
<
p>
The Canadian system is so out of whack their supreme court ruled in favor of legitimizing private expenditures which in Canada is permissible for cats and dogs but not humans.
<
p>
That’s not the system I want. Do you?
<
p>
And why are US healthcare expenditures, essentially still private, the only occassion where progressives want to spend less? When have progressives wanted to spend less on anything? Progressives aggitate for more spending everywhere but only if “they” can do it through government largess. Why aren’t progressives complaining about our % spending on movie tickets, vacations, cars or t-shirts? “Europeans spend much less on cars! We must too!”
<
p>
When was the last time the public sector provided any service for less than the private sector? Name a couple. Help me out.
<
p>
If I want to spend 20% of my income, or zero, on healthcare, please allow me.
<
p>
PS — health care is not a right.
A six-word sentence is not an argument.
“When was the last time the public sector provided any service for less than the private sector? Name a couple. Help me out.”
<
p>
would you admit that there are cases of excess profiteering in the private healthcare model?
<
p>
such as, perhaps exhorbitantly priced pharmaceuticals, or insurance rates increased far beyond that of inflation or cost, or perhaps providers overbilling knowing that it will never be seriously questioned by anyone in the layers and layers of administrative transfers.
<
p>
what would be a realistic example of profiteering in a publically administered system? and who would be benefitting from that?
Honestly, I think it’s important to keep the pressure on and if this passed by a good margin (which I think it would) that would really apply pressure to make sure that businesses pay their fair share into the new healthcare bill – which is more of a guideline without teeth than actual bill.
HCFA-MA and other groups are hard at work lobbying for effective implementation of Chapter 58. They need to be able to deal with the Administration, Legislature, and others to make it work in the way it was intended.
<
p>
Once the petition is on the Ballot, it can’t be withdrawn by its sponsors–it “belongs” to everyone who signed it. And once its on the ballot, the business groups, such as AIM, retailers etc, would feel forced to raise and spend big bucks for a PR fight. I think in that context, the ability of the advocacy groups to continue to negotiate with the Administration would be greatly reduced. It might also split support for reform in the legislature, which could be counter productive.
<
p>
Its a judgment call, and a reasonable one.
… when I say this:
<
p>
Health care is not a right. You can not have a right that requires any other party to provide something for nothing.
<
p>
Speech is a right: other parties must yield nothing and a repression of speech infringes on you. The same is so for press, religion, the right to form a well regulated militia, etc.
<
p>
To be clear, I believe a well functioning society takes care of the weakest — the hungry, the homeless, and the sick. But, I don’t believe anyone has a right to be provided food, shelter, or medicine. They have the right to persue it of course, but not the right to a handout from the government, however responsible, ethical, and reasonable such a handout might be.
in the most classical, laissez-faire sense. And that’s precisely why I don’t define myself as a liberal. I believe that there is a communal responsibility for one another. And simply to say that a well-functioning society takes care of the weakest–but then to assert that such care is not a right–sets up a dynamic of paternalism that breeds resentment on both sides and ultimately falls apart. As we’ve seen over the past few decades with the dismantling of social programs, an appeal to care for the “weakest” doesn’t go far.
<
p>
To take such an individualistic approach with health is particularly ironic. Health is the product of social systems, and diseases are passed from one person to another. We promote the health of the community–in part by assuring that everyone has access to medical care–because all of us benefit. When our neighbors, our co-workers, or the people we walk past on the street are sick, then we risk getting sick. And when they’re healthy, we’re likely to be healthy.
<
p>
Rights are defined through political struggle–including the consititutional rights you cite. We define them in the ways that we think will make the best society. And I hope that Democrats consider economic and social rights–which are included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but which the US currently does not recognize–to be part of the society they want.
due process? trial by jury? right to counsel? It sure would be a lot easier to convict people if we didn’t have all those pesky procedural protections to provide.
<
p>
So I’m not sure it’s as simple as you hypothesize. You’re talking about “negative” rights – that the government may not do certain things to you. All very important, no doubt, but existing constitutional rights don’t fall quite so easily into neat boxes. Granted, health care goes a step beyond what’s in the US Constitution – but it’s certainly not much different from education, which a lot of states guarantee as a constitutional right.
is actually a really good point. That’s a specific case where the government pays money to provide you with a service. I hadn’t thought about that one, and it would seem to be the most “like” providing free health care.
<
p>
Providing an attorney is important to protect the entire legal system — to help assure fair trials, to keep the justice system moving along, and to maintain equality.
<
p>
Maybe providing a doctor is important to protect the entire medical system — to help reduce communicable diseases, reduce the future need for more costly emergency procedures, and to maintain equality.
<
p>
That’s something I’ll chew on. Thanks.
Should the right to counsel give every criminal defendant the right to the OJ Simpson dream team? The right to the CSI guys to run every available forensic test on whatever physical evidence there may be?
<
p>
Or is it that there is assistance of counsel, and then there is the assistance of counsel?
The way I see it, the fact that some people can buy better representation than others really makes a mockery of our legal system. And lack of access to forensic investigation has resulted in many people being locked up for years for crimes they didn’t commit. I know that isn’t the kind of system I want.
that should be “counsel,” not “council.”
MassAct’s throwing in the towel makes the need for a successful advancement of the Health Care for Massachusetts ballot initiative all the more critical.
If voted on and passed in next weeks Constitutional Convention, it will put before the voters in November an opportunity to declare that every citizen of the Commonwealth has a right to access to affordable, appropriate healthcare.
In contrast to conservatives appetite for using the federal and state constitutions to restrict a persons opportunities, liberals and progressives have recognized that beyond a legal document, the constitution is an expression of basic human values and a testimony to the fundamental decency and humanity that we as a society should hew to.
And really, what carries a more basic sense of humanity than guaranteeing that someone with a terribly sick kid is not going to be thrown into the jaws of the insurance combine just because she or her kid don’t fit their model of an ideal cost-efficient case number.
In the post romneycare lovefest, all of the parties waxed about how this new bill was going to provide for all citizens. And if that is true, then no legislator should fear this ballot initiative. It merely codifies the promises that Mitt, Sal, Charlie and the boys were slapping themselves on the back about a couple of months ago.
<
p>
CALL YOUR REPS THIS WEEK AND TELL THEM TO PASS THE HEALTHCARE AMENDMENT SO THE VOTERS WILL CAN BE HEARD IN NOVEMBER