Thus, in a move that went all but unnoticed – the reporters and TV crews had apparently all left the building after the marriage amendment advanced – the health care amendment was killed. The amendment, which would establish a general state commitment to quality, affordable health care, had already passed one legislative session and would have only needed 50 out of 200 votes to win a spot on the 2008 ballot. Ninety-two legislators voted to bring it to the floor, well short of the two-thirds required.
Among other things, the decision is a slap in the face to the SJC, which left no doubt last week that procedural moves to avoid a vote on the merits were unconstitutional. Travaglini’s predecessors, Bill Bulger and Tom Birmingham, had used similar tactics to thwart citizens’ initiatives before, but this move was particularly brazen, given the spotlight the marriage amendment had put on the issue of constitutional process.
It is also particularly hypocritical for anyone who voted to advance the anti-gay marriage amendment on the grounds that the people deserve to vote to turn around and deny a spot on the ballot for a different issue. Joining Travaglini in voting for the marriage amendment but against bringing the health care amendment were several MetroWest legislators: Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham; Sen. Richard Moore, D-Uxbridge and Rep. Marie Parente, D-Milford.
Other local legislators who joined in burying the health care amendment included Sen. Karen Spilka, D-Ashland; Rep. Steve LeDuc, D-Marlborough; Rep. Pat Walrath, D-Stow; and Rep. Peter Koutoujian, D-Waltham.
Blogger David Kravitz of Blue Mass Group reports that, after Spilka cast her vote against bringing up the amendment, Travaglini’s voice was picked up by an open mic saying, “Good girl.”
With this act, Travaglini and his followers have thoroughly discredited the Constitutional Convention. Gay marriage supporters have said all along that the constitution’s low threshold for getting a question on the ballot was being enforced only when it comes to taking away their rights. The lawmakers have made their case for them, and made it much harder for those of us who care about constitutional process to argue against using a procedural move to kill the marriage amendment the next time it comes up.
Since the Legislature has deemed constitutional requirements optional, we must assume these votes were about the substance of the amendments. If that’s the case, the insurers, hospitals and other health care interests came up winners this week on Beacon Hill, while gay couples lost another round.
Copyright © 2006 GateHouse Media, Inc.
Congratulations to Metro West.
<
p>
The Globe drew no such conclusions from the burial of the healthcare amendment.
<
p>
Maybe that’s because the Globe hasn’t even reported the burial of the healthcare amendment–two days later.
Steverino, you’re absolutely right.
<
p>
But what does the Globe gain from ignoring coverage of any type of a reform proposal that would affect the lives of every Massachusetts and the entire economy whether for good or ill?
<
p>
What does it gain from reporting what everyone knew before the paper went to press – that the gay marriage ban moved forward in the process – and missing what only MetroWest Daily News, Bay Windows and BMGers understood – that the ConCon was all about hypocrisy?
<
p>
What do they gain from ignoring questions as basic as why does a Legislature that purports to have enacted near universal coverage oppose a constitutional amendment to do the same?
<
p>
Why have they decided just to present the happy side of health reform without any discussion of the challenges ahead:- – premiums growing 5-6 times the rate of wages and about 50% higher than tax revenues – a $200 million deficit by 2009 (on top of the $1 billion deficit we now face) – commissions dominated by insurers and hospitals looking at ways to save money and improve the quality of care – a “fair share” structure paid for by individuals whether through taxes, premiums or lower pay checks.
<
p>
It goes on and on.
<
p>
The answers in the end might not be favorable for the Health Care Amendment – although I think they would have been.
<
p>
But they never got asked and that’s a disgrace.
<
p>
Barbara Roop
do.
<
p>
It’s a very bigoted, biased newspaper. But it’s not a liberal bias–that’s a laugh, after all the crap they wrote on the hate amendment, and all they didn’t write on the HCA.
<
p>
It’s an insider bias. If you’re not Jack Connors, if you’re not the head of Partners, if you’re not “important” in the eyes of other insiders–you just don’t matter.
<
p>
Actually, it’s not that you don’t matter. You don’t exist.
We have to be careful to distinguish these two. The Wall Street Journal has an editorial page that spans the entire range of far right opinion, but its news coverage is actually pretty good at exposing corporate malfesance. The New York Times editorial page has been excellent on any number of issues, but their former reporter, Judith Miller, gave neocons cover on going to war in Iraq. The Boston Globe editorials would put make them ideologically average on this site, but their news coverage bends over backwards to balance that.
Except on this issue, the Globe ran multiple columns from process liberals and pseudo-process conservatives like Charles Fried–only on SSM, of course.
The Globe’s coverage of the double standard has been thin–almost nothing on the failure of the legislature to vote on the HCA as required.
and let him get away with the whole shell game.
<
p>
<
p>
Yeah, a victory for the people’s right to petition…except for health care.
an 11-paragraph Op Ed by constitutional dotard Charles Fried lambasting Patrick for suggesting the legislature adjourn without voting for the SSM amendment.
<
p>
As for as the legislature actuallly adjourning without voting on the HCA? Not a word.
<
p>
I’ll let you all know what I hear from ombud@globe.com.
“I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find gambling going on here!”
<
p>
“Monsieur, here are your winnings”
<
p>
“Oh, thank you very much….”
we shut down the Globe? Round up the usual suspects!
It’s interesting that Travaglini gets the entire blame and DiMasi and the rest of the house leadership aren’t even mentioned though they voted as a block to oppose the health care amendment. (And that the House Republicans voted as a block for it. I wonder if they would have done so if the Democrats hadn’t been so clearly fixed on killing the amendment.)
Since the legis voted on one initiative, then our very best christians(TM) are apparently satisfied that that constitutional duty to vote they were so concerned about has been satisfied. True Guardians of the Process