A major transition: Jeffrey Sanchez has been picked by Speaker DeLeo as the next House Ways and Means chair. Ways and Means could be a stepping stone to the Speakership; that’s where DeLeo was 2005-2009. DeLeo has given no indication that he’s leaving anytime soon.
Does the House tilt somewhat more to the progressive side with Sanchez? Sanchez receives only a B- from ProgressiveMass voting scorecard, compared to DeLeo’s C+.
Most intriguing about Sanchez is that he’s been House Chair of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing, and has worked on controlling health care costs. This is a massive part of the budget, of course; and represents the politically-elusive El Dorado of policy.
We’ve watched Congressional Republicans clownishly squeeze the balloon of costs: If you squeeze premiums, deductibles bulge; squeeze risk, coverage losses bulge. The costs don’t magically disappear! And unlike, say, socks, prices in health care are inelastic; people can’t, won’t, and probably shouldn’t “shop around” for the lowest prices. (And Republicans always seem so amazed to find this out: Who knew it was so complicated …)
They’ve avoided tackling the central, real problem of the Affordable Care Act, which is the failure to live up to the word Affordable. There are indeed certain cost controls and attempts at efficiency, but it hasn’t completely remade the health care cost structure, applying the potentially very heavy hand of government to keep prices of services, drugs, and devices down: Price-setting, basically. Even single-payer advocates tend to soft-pedal this approach.
In Massachusetts we’ve had a health care Cost Advisory board since Chapter 58 passed in 2006. But the state is reluctant to confront its prize industry and employer — from PhRMA and devices to docs and hospitals — even as it strains to pay for its Medicaid population. Sanchez’s remarks to the Health Policy Commission in 2016 reflect this tension.
But at least that’s the correct emphasis. Gov. Baker consistently tries to constrain MassHealth eligibility to cut the state’s costs. That this is counter-productive should go without saying. Insuring people of limited means is the whole purpose of the program.
In any event, this might be a sign that Speaker DeLeo is at least looking in the right places for budgetary savings. It’s not the coverage, per se — it’s the costs.
Good news. I don’t know anything about this guy, but change is good.
Rep Sanchez let H2987 languish in his committee without any debate on its merits. He joins Speaker DeLeo in thinking that any taxation even if it is less in toto than what is being spent is still bad. On another point SP systems do not price fix, but negotiate what is paid out to vendors and practitioners, much as insurers do, but with an all encompassing risk pool adding to its clout to bring down exorbitant costs.
Huh, I didn’t realize that English had borrowed in toto from Latin. I always assumed that people were just saying the Spanish phrase en todo, but I grew up in California, where more people mix Spanish into their speech.
I’ve a feeling we’re not in California anymore. Toto.
Does en todo also translate as in total? If so, then in toto is the root of both!
Yes, it’s meaning is essentially identical to the Latin/English.
So, why did he let it languish? Was it:
I’d love to know. Rather than assume that legislators are just morally deficient, I’d like to find out the actual reasons for their actions.
Then Sanchez should say why. Otherwise, assume the worst.
Well, although this sounds like something I’d say on a bad day, for now I’d assume the simplest: that the bill had no chance of passing, and everyone knew it.
I agree that it would be nice if he explained, though.
My point was just that it’s in a legislator’s power to explain his/her position. It’s not up to the public to put the best face on legislative actions if the legislators themselves can’t be bothered.
I’m all for explanations, but in case you’re wondering I downrated your previous comment because words cannot express how profoundly I disagree with “assume the worst”. That is NEVER how we should treat or relate to people! Innocent until proven guilty is for me an ethical and not just legal maxim. We should always look for plausible positive, or at least benign, reasons first and only acknowledge the worst when evidence that such is appropriate has been presented.
While some of these answers are more acceptable than others for personal opposition, I’ve never liked the idea of a chair allowing a bill to languish in committee. IMO, every bill referred should be acted upon in committee, and every bill passed out of committee should get a floor vote.
Not sure what “languish in his committee without any debate on its merits” means upthread. The Health Care Financing Committee had a big hearing on single payer bills, including House 2987, a month ago and IIRC both proponents and opponents presented testimony.,
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
A sidebar story to the Speaker’s elevation of Jeffrey Sanchez is his gratuitous demotion of Russell Holmes of Mattapan after Holmes suggested that his colleagues might begin giving consideration about the best candidate to succeed the Speaker when the time comes. Commonwealth Magazine has the story here.
And Holmes isn’t taking it lying down. From today’s PoliticoMA, quoting a Herald Radio interview: