State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, an independent candidate for governor making a play for fiscally conservative voters, said yesterday that the state’s universal health care law is bankrupting Massachusetts and will do the same nationally if Congress passes a similar plan…. Cahill, whose criticism of the 2006 health care law began in earnest last summer as he plotted his candidacy, toughened his rhetoric yesterday, saying the plan “has nearly bankrupted the state.”
Goodness. Even Charlie Baker won’t go that far.
Baker, who released a 10-point “government reform plan” yesterday, agreed with Patrick that the state law is not bankrupting Massachusetts. Like Patrick, Baker cited a report issued last year by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed watchdog group, that found the cost of the law to state taxpayers is about $88 million a year, less than four-tenths of 1 percent of the $27 billion state budget.
I mean, even Scott Brown didn’t go that far! His whole argument was that MA’s health care law is good for the people of MA, and he didn’t want to subsidize people in other states whose state governments haven’t done as much.
Brown said this afternoon that everyone should have some form of health care coverage, but much of that should be done on state-by-state basis. And while he supports the landmark health care proposal that Massachusetts approved in 2006, he said, he doesn’t see any benefit to the Bay State that the federal legislation would provide. “My primary responsibility is to ensure that the people of Massachusetts get the best value for their dollar,” Brown said. “I’m not concerned about subsidizing South Dakota or North Dakota or Idaho or other states.”
Cahill’s rhetoric is absurdly over-the-top on this subject, no?
“If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years,” Cahill said at a press conference.
“Wipe out the American economy” — and within four years! Well, at least we won’t have to wait too long. But seriously, what is his evidence for that? He offered none, apparently, and it seems likely that he has none, since every non-partisan study on the health care proposal shows the opposite.
Anyway, if Cahill is right, we must need truly drastic measures here in MA to save our state’s economy. So, what are they?
Asked for solutions, Cahill suggested “leveling the playing field” between hospitals that charge different rates for similar procedures, though he offered no specific remedy; increasing competition by allowing health insurers to sell plans across state lines; slashing benefits mandated under state law; and directing more patients to community hospitals, which can be less expensive.
I’d call that nibbling around the edges. Sure, maybe some of it will help a bit with costs. But if we’re really on the road to destruction, those kinds of measures aren’t going to do much more than slow us down a tad.
All of which leads me to think that Cahill isn’t really serious about this. He’s just looking for a way to make some headlines (congrats – it worked!) and find a way to create some daylight on the issues between himself and Baker. Well, I guess he’s done that. We’ll see if it helps his current fairly sorry standing in the polls. I have my doubts.
Tim Cahill did not offer any substantive policy ideas relative to health care reform when the bill was being drafted in 2005 in Massachusetts, nor during the months of debate and conference committee deliberations that followed. He continues to do the same.
<
p>Instead of offering concrete ideas for what should be a concerted effort for HC Reform II: cost controls, he takes the more disingenuous path by attacking what is a very successful reform which has covered nearly 97 percent of our population.
…how proud they are of it, with the big proud announcement of getting frontpaged on Drudge.
<
p>Seems like ever since McCain’s people came on, Cahill has turned hard right.
<
p>So, does that imply you are fine with these minor little nibbles? “Slashing” mandated benefits doesn’t sound like a nibble, and I doubt anyone here would be fine with the smallest reduction, let alone a “slash”. Would I like to know more precisely what mandates he means? Of course, but the specifics will be decided on by the legislature, not a candidate for governor. What’s important at this stage is that the candidate recognize the problem as a problem and have the goal of reducing mandates and increasing freedom for Massachusetts residents. Baker seems to love rolling around in mandates in his starch white shirt, which is probably why he’s your choice (ok, second choice) for governor.