Sen. Moore (D-Uxbridge), a knowledgeable Senator, especially on health care (and perhaps the most boring speaker in the legislature), just made a motion to have a “study committee” take another look at the health care amendment, rather than vote on it today. [SEE UPDATE BELOW] He argued that the health care law should be given a chance to work. As a practical matter, a “study” is likely to kill the amendment without a vote.
Senator Tolman is now speaking against Sen. Moore’s motion. If you want the legislature to vote on the amendment, now would be a good time to contact your legislators’ offices.
IMPORTANT UPDATE: Sen. Moore has withdrawn his motion to refer the amendment to a study. They’re back to debating the merits. It’s going to take a while.
please keep us advised on this as it transpires.
<
p>
(this will be where we see who each legislator really bows to)
I’m not going to “live blog,” exactly, since it’s so incredibly slow-moving. I will put up new posts as events transpire.
The law should be given a chance to work, assuring adequate care for all.
<
p>
The amendment may well be a ball-buster for the lege to get health care costs under control. More pressure is good.
though i haven’t really heard a credible case made that this amendment would inhibit in any real material way the newly passed healthcare bill. have you?
<
p>
it seems really to bolster the original case for reform, rather than to act as an alternative to the new/upcoming changes.
I think it would strengthen it!
it’s there.
you just have to listen a little closer.
. . . closer . . . . .closer . .
. . . now bend over just a little bit more . .
<
p>
[ đŸ˜‰ ]
and the answer is that is DOES NOT obstruct implementation of the new law, but it does set standards for the implementation of Chapter 58 and for additional reforms that will be needed to ensure that ALL residents have conprehensive, affordable, equitably financed health insurance coverage.
<
p>
As written, Chap 58 allows individuals and families to apply for a “waiver” to avoid a financial penalty if they cannot afford the available health insurance coverage, but, HELLO, those people will still not have health insurance–the ticket to accessing timely preventive care and controlling health care costs.
<
p>
fairdeal gets it right with her comments about what dynamics are at play here–not pretty stuff, nor easy to beat, but we’ll try.
<
p>
We need the HC Amendment in our State Constitution. Call Moore, Travaglini and DiMasi and tell them that, swithboard# 617-722-200, if you agree.