by Joeb in Health Care, Politics
Posted on August 26, 2009 at 10:35 am
loading…
A five month delay in filling Kennedy’s seat with a similarly minded temporary successor guarantees a health care bill to the advantage of current insurers. Can it be coincidental that CEO of the largest of those insurers in Massachusetts, Pilgrim Health Care, would not materially benefit from a delay in filling this seat? How much stock does Charlie Baker own, and how much more is it worth with a health care bill framed by his industry? How does he explain this apparent conflict of interest? and how does the state Republican Party so blithely ignore so much going to so few for so little? and what in the world is wrong with the state’s Democrats to ignore this incredible evidence of greed posing as a “fairness” argument?
loading…
Joeb – I am a democrat and I have a problem if they change the rule to allow Patrick to appoint someone immediately. The Democrats changed the law when Kerry ran for President in 2004 so Romney could not appoint someone if Kerry were to win. Every time there is a different party running Beacon Hill are we going to change this rule? You cannot change the rules of a game halfway through or continually change them.
loading...
The prospect of a Republican appointee, by Romney, for a state with Republicans fewer than 20% of the registered voters, and less than 15% of the legislature, is even more insulting than the very real prospect of protecting crooks like Charlie Baker by killing a cheap health care program through this kind of pocket veto! You can change the rules as often and as dramatically as you want, IF YOU HAVE THE VOTES! That, by the way, is WHY YOU GET THOSE VOTES in the first place. The Republican Party, most certainly in this state, is about as useful as the Royalist Party in Russia!
loading...
Joe: Regardless of the issue, constantly changing a law or rule because you have the votes makes both parties about as mature as elementary school kids. They are acting like “I don’t like how this game is being played so I am taking my ball and going home.”
Does anyone think a vote is going to take place in the next 4-5 months? I doubt it. Neither party in the House and Senate can get it together enough to come up with a decent bill.
I am already not voting for Patrick based on other issues I have with him and this is just another one to add to the list.
loading...
I’m certainly not saying this is an argument in favor of Patrick – or Romney or even arguing that it’s a reasonable memorial to Teddy, although it is. I am saying that standing on a principle like the one you’re arguing, while people like Charlie Baker laugh all the way to the bank, is absolutely awful.
And I don’t know who you know in Congress or the Senate, but the ones I know think it’s quite likely a single bill will now shoot out of several of those committees in the next few weeks, for a final vote well before the end of the calendar year, which is easily a month before the earliest election. While it’s possible there may be some Republican support, I certainly wouldn’t want to bet on it, which is, quite specifically, the bet you seem willing to make on a principle that seems as soft this time as it did when the legislature changed the rule the last time. I am over 65, so it doesn’t impact me at all, but if you are under 65, you better be prepared to pay more and more to Charlie Baker’s company if that precious principle is your argument!
loading...