At the national level, we have the hideous spectacle of the GOP trying to kick people off of health care. Everyone hates it.
And in Massachusetts, we have our bulletproof-popular GOP governor … doing the same thing.
Under Baker’s plan, which would not affect people with disabilities, adults in two-person households making between $16,240 and $21,600 a year would become ineligible for MassHealth. Parents in this income bracket have been allowed to enroll in MassHealth for 20 years.
The administration also wants to put up a “gate” that prevents many low-income adults with access to employer-sponsored health insurance from obtaining MassHealth. Advocates say this proposal, too, would hit working families who can’t afford to pay premiums.
…
“Making this kind of drastic change, which will primarily affect low-income parents, seems like a really unwise step to take, much less a change to make with a week’s notice,” said Victoria Pulos, a health care lawyer at the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute.
Pulos said the administration appears to be pulling back provisions of the federal Affordable Care Act that expanded Medicaid coverage to more adults — even as the governor has advocated strongly for keeping key features of that law. Republicans in Congress are seeking to dismantle it.
If you’re looking for savings in health care, why would low-income adults be the first place you look? Isn’t this another attempt to avoid having to come to grips with actual cost control — which may well involve the heavier hand of the state on providers?
One telling quote:
“This has been part of an ongoing conversation with folks in the health care community, the business community, and the insurance community for the past several months,” he added.
Whom does this leave out? Take a guess.
This unattractive little thing was dumped on a Friday (sort of) holiday weekend. No wonder it seems to be getting a chilly reception from legislators.
While I’m certainly glad that Baker opposes the horrific GOP wealthcare bills, he doesn’t quite deserve a medal for that. It’s what a normal person of ordinary compassion and decency would do. The politics of Trump, Ryan, and McConnell are no baseline — it’s a moral abyss.
To take away health care from low-income families is the opposite direction of how we should go. We should look to strengthen our commitment to health care for all, starting with those who can least afford it. Look elsewhere for savings, legislators.
A phony ‘compassionate conservative’ like Charlie Faker is someone who, when you’re drowning 20 feet off shore — throws you a 15 foot rope and says he went more than halfway.
Earlier Baker proposals to fix MassHealth included an assessment on employers, to which their trade group, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, objected vigorously. This proposal, by contrast, while including a temporary employer assessment, more than offsets that by reducing the amount of Unemployment Insurance taxes they pay. Bottom line: employers pay in $200 million and get $336 million back.
If surprised, raise hand.
It would be wise to run against this rather than erroneously trying to link him to Trump immigration policies as Gonzalez and Bickford seem to be doing. Not saying they are wrong-I am saying this cuts into Baker’s unenrolled base far more effectively. Like Trump, Baker is cutting the health care for a lot of his voters.
All bad news for anyone over 50 who will be facing unemployment before they are eligible for Medicare at 65 – and our numbers are growing each year.
Why Democrats are not banging this drum beat louder is beyond my understanding.
Campaign on this and organize those who will be impacted. Setti Warren has set single payer as the goal and has talked more generally about being more honest with our budgeting.
Setti has impressed me so far with his leadership on issues and people Baker is ignoring from health care to the Weymouth compressor station. That area is heavily unenrolled and was where the bulk of UIPs grassroots activity was. Those folks hate Baker since he sided with the compressor against the people that voted for him.
Ditto the many many communities across our state that will suffer when MassHealth is eviscerated by these cuts. He’s taking away my sisters health care so this is personal.
Given the disastrous almost comical show of Republicans complete inability to craft a coherent health care policy, maybe, just maybe Democrats will take the lead and push for single payer…..and the party “big wigs” will be behind it as well.
Forcing people with employer plans to enroll in them can be a budget breaker for low income working people. In order to comply with the employer mandate, many low wage employers offer plans with very large employee contributions which are essentially unaffordable at the wages they provide.
Wait, what? The Berwickers and Grossmans were wrong when they told us there’d be no difference between Coakley and Baker?
Hearing Democrats who didn’t support Coakley in the general whine about Chuckie is like listening to the Stein voting Bernie bros cry about Trump.
Elections have consequences,
Not enough of a difference to sway an election. Yup, that was a fact. Elections have consequences,
Ridiculous. What’s more of a difference, in an election, than how they will act on the fucking job??
Meh.
If Bob DeLeo were a Democrat from Democratic wing of the party, this problem would already be solved with or without Ms. Coakley. This has nothing to do with the governor’s office. This is a spending issue, and belongs squarely in the Massachusetts house.
Don’t like what’s happening? Find a way to ditch Bob DeLeo.
Gov Baker took over HP, and just how did he bring it to solvency. He let people go, replacing them with computer technology. Raised rates. Paid providers less. Got AG Riley to count debt as asset, and then promised creditors he would pay them pack with the state allowed shenanigans.
He was an executive at the Pioneer Institute, a near libertarian organization, that hides its true agenda, namely reducing government at the expense of those down on their luck. It is no surprise the governor has favored his present approach to a budget shortfall,. He shares this predicament with our too conservative legislature on this subject.
Health care expenses’s size is a constant thorn in the side of getting to a balanced state budget, and also interferes with the public’s own budget balancing as well as businesses. Instead of constantly beating around the bush,and kicking budget problems down the road, a more bold approach will bring relief to everyone. That means SP.
Before everyone starts jumping all over this idea about political realities, etc., take a good look at what we have now. We are being bullied by insurers who tell us which doctor to go to, have a myriad number of rules to curb use, and stop people from seeing providers in a timely fashion. This is not a warm and fuzzy system.
I know other movements have taken decades to bring justice to African Americans, Women, Children, and working people. However do we really have to follow those same paths when no insurance or under-insurance leads to nearly 30,000 deaths excess deaths per year? For that outcome we spend twice as much as other First World Countries with poorer outcomes. Those countries even do this at a demographic disadvantage. As a percentage they have more elderly in their population.
I recently read the history of Canadian Medicare . It started as you all probably know in a single province, Saskatchewan. This province has less than 2 million people. The same political landscape opposing this change was the same as now only worse. Violence and a doctor’s strike was part of that history. They took too long also to bring Medicare to the whole nation, at least a decade.
It is hard work, but the progress of this nation, and the ability to lift people out of poverty depends on it. Everyone wins. Patients, business, government, and your pocket book. There are two bills creating Medicare for All in the legislature, S619 and H2987. On the national level in the House 113 Dems out of 196 have signed onto John Conyer’s H676. The national polling for a US universal health insurance law is 59%, and over 60% of physicians favor it. An overused line from Churchill: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, but only after they have tried everything else.” The time for the right thing to do has come. Let’s bring Medicare For All to the Baystate, others will follow.