Charlie Baker continues to brag about personally saving Harvard Pilgrim insurance company….When challenged by the fact that it was state government assistance that made the rescue possible, Charlie the prevaricator denies, denies, denies…and continues to pedal the self-promoting myth.
Hidden under a misleading headline in Boston Globe’s Sept.9. 2010 story by Michael Levenson:
Policy specialists say Harvard Pilgrim did receive assistance from the state insurance commissioner and state attorney general when the Commonwealth placed the company into receivership, a dramatic step akin to bankruptcy protection that put the company under state oversight in 2000.
Baker also got help from the Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority, a quasi-public agency, which issued an $80.9 million tax-free bond in 2002 to help Harvard Pilgrim sell its property in Kenmore Square and lease it back. Under the deal, private investors purchased the bond and assumed the risk.
The Facilities Authority used Civic Investments Inc., a nonprofit entity that it created, to buy the Kenmore Square property and lease it back to Harvard Pilgrim, acting essentially as a “holding entity for some of Harvard Pilgrim’s property,” said Robert J. Ciolek, who was the authority’s executive director at the time.
Who is zoomin’ who here? Depends on the meaning of “Helped”! Let’s make it simple for any average citizen, Democrat, Republican or Tea Party voter or reporter to understand what really went down to save Harvard Pilgrim on Charlie’s watch.
Think of it this way: YOUR family is facing foreclosure, because you lost your job and can’t pay your bills, so the state steps in, puts all your creditors on hold (receivership). Then the state arranges for a public agency to buy your home for full market value, paying off your debts and giving you the extra cash! Then your family gets to live in the very same house for the next 20 years at a very reasonable monthly rent that you can afford! Wow! Wouldn’t that be helpful? That’s essentially what the state did for Harvard Pilgrim insurance company..and if the state didn’t step in, the company would have gone under.
Truth be finally told, the state indeed HELPED Charlie Baker “save” Harvard Pilgrim…the only things Charlie did without state help were to raise policyholders’ premiums 150% and use those bloated premiums to jack up his own salary to over $1.7 million a year (austerity in tough times?)…which is cold comfort to HP policyholder’s when they submit a claim and are told the biggest lie of all :“You are NOT covered!”
I would suggest that if Charlie Baker pulls off this charade…All Massachusetts citizens will NOT be covered for the next 4 years.
Disclaimer: As longtime BMGers already know, I am and always have been an ardent supporter of Tim Murray. I am also a strong opponent of candidate’s like Charlie Baker who find it so easy to lie with a straight face (or smurk, as it were).
http://www.charliebakerhealthi…
…these kind of bailouts incense the tea party types until a Republican does it.
and most of the other outlets let Charlie’s lie slide. I think Joan Vennochi is the best political observer on the field right now…she calls ’em like she sees ’em…and she sees ’em! Others, less fact-finding, either miss the point or choose not to see what is apparent.
<
p>In defense of the Tea Party voters…they only know what they read and hear on the news and are force fed in advertising…can’t blame them for drawing the wrong conclusions. Charlie looks up and up…and people like him who master the “sincere lie” are the most dangerous candidates of all.
<
p>Jon Kellor needs to get his Truth-o-Meter recalibrated, the one he’s using is not detecting errors of omission, parsing to the point of lying and double talk.
I have certainly criticized Baker’s candidacy from the beginning for this — as well as his maneuvering to have the state mandate that you buy his product as part of health insurance reform.
<
p>But is this really relevant as long as Deval (and Barack Obama for that matter) have no plans to change the practice one iota?
…as long as Baker is premising his campaign at least in part on being a successful CEO who turned Harvard Pilgrim around. If it turns out to be largely the government’s doing then that gives lie to the idea Republicans promote about a market free from government intervention. Disingenuous at best and hypocritical at worst.
Well to me it’s like the Wall Streeters getting bonuses. They DID “turn the company around”, they DID “save the economy”. But if you say they did it by getting their buddies at Treasury and the Fed to bail them out, then you are being impolite, rude and overly literal.
<
p>In Baker’s defense, health insurers are now virtually quasi-public entities that have to play by a different set of rules than regular business. I doubt anybody would design the system this way but it didn’t evolve by accident.
is that it either preaches to the choir, or speaks to those Republicans who cannot be convinced. The masses of voters who usually don’t frequent political blogs will never hear of it.
the reporters who read this site (and I am sure some do) will see that although Charlie slipped by the media on this one, he was unable to fool me.
<
p>Someone on the thread felt that it was not relevant because policies have not changed in regard to bailing out sinking companies…but this post was not about policy, it was about a candidate’s willingness to lie bold-faced to get elected…and get away with that.
A bailout is a bailout is a bailout, and Charlie Big Dig Baker got a whopper of a bailout, and then raised my health insurance premiums and took a huge salary increase. Don’t get fooled again – Patrick-Murray in ten.
Ok, one more time….
<
p>I was the Executive Director of HEFA at the time that Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare came to HEFA to refinance its outstanding debt.
<
p>HEFA was created to assist the community of Massachusetts non-profit organizations in terms of their capital financing programs.
<
p>HEFA treated Harvard Pilgrim the same way it treated all of its client non-profit organizations…no better or no worse than the hundreds of other institutions which were served by HEFA. Assistance, yes; bailout, no. Harvard Pilgrim received absolutely no benefit for which is was not entitled. Period. End of story. Put a stake in it.
<
p>*** *** ***
<
p>The real story here is that the Patrick Administration, acting through the state legislature, recently put HEFA out of business. The main reason they did so was to eliminate stiff competition between HEFA and MDFA for bond business, thus allowing MDFA to ultimately raise its fees for bond transactions. Those fees are paid by non-profit institutions. Not a smart move in my judgment. The other reason was to get their hands on a Trust Fund of over $12 million, created to benefit non-profit institutions. An evil move in my judgment.
<
p>*** *** ***
<
p>Patrick supporters are way over the top in suggesting that Harvard Pilgrim received some untoward benefit to which they were entitled; in truth, it is a mark of desperation and an early indicator of November’s results. It will be interesting to see how many staffers of the Governor end up with newly created positions at MDFA come the end of the year.
<
p>Bob Ciolek
I am no expert on the Harvard Pilgrim – HEFA transactions but I recognize a spurious argument when I see one.
<
p>Mr. Ciolek you are arguing against the premise that Mr. Baker and Harvard Pilgrim received undeserved or special treatment. I do not believe that anyone has made an argument that they did.
<
p>I think the state saving Harvard Pilgrim was probably a good thing. The argument being put forward seems to be that Mr. Baker is denying that state assistance was involved at all.
<
p>This is frustrating to Democrats on a number of levels. first, as pointed out above, it smacks of dishonesty. Second, the Republicans are running on a platform of “Government is bad and just gets in the way and if you rely on the government to help you it is because you are to lazy to help yourself.” or something like that. So when they themselves are bailed out by government it seems just a tad hypocritical.
There is, indeed, a distinction between “assistance” and a “bailout”, and in that sense you are correct.
<
p>But it is Patrick supporters who are trying to blur the distinction between the two concepts…all you have to do is read the blog entries to prove that point.
<
p>I have not seen where Charlie Baker has denied receiving assistance. He has only attempted to show that he received no financial assistance. No one who is serious about government, be they Republican or Democrat (I am unenrolled), would argue that the Commonwealth did not have an significant interest in providing assistance to Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare as they provided health insurance to over 1 million people. And that is what happened. By moving as quickly as possible HEFA did not just assist Harvard-Pilgrim – it protected every insured family. But, did we provide funds? No, we did not. So, was there a bailout? Only in the imagination of the most partisan Patrick supporter and unconnected to the facts.
<
p>And to those die hards, can’t you find a legitimate issue on which to attack Charlie?
<
p>I would only point out that I WAS a Patrick supporter, but not anymore. No way, no how….
<
p>The boys over at General Motors said the same thing. They too received absolutely no benefit for which they were not entitled.
http://dictionary.reference.co…
<
p>
People shouldn’t conflate the two, there is an important difference that should be maintained.
Excellent Globe article. I must say that I laughed out loud when I came to the part where our old friend Tom Reilly weighed in.
<
p>Well, isn’t that special! Who put Tom Reilly’s feet to the fire on this one? Perhaps there is a well defined, universally accepted distinction between “state aid” and “state assistance” (I don’t think so), but, regardless, Tom, thanks for the help.
<
p>Maybe he hopes to be working with Loscocco next year.
Would “Governor” Baker cut Lawrence and Fall River loose, too??
I truly believe he would. That is Republican philosophy 101. Spending money to help the weak is “Socialism”.