CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Healthcare Reform - the next "Big
Dig"?
Following more than eight hours of "very productive"
meetings Monday, lawmakers are expected today to finalize the remaining
provisions of legislation that will expand access to affordable health
insurance, Senate President Robert Travaglini said.
Legislative leaders announced 11 days ago that they'd reach an agreement
in principle on a bill.
Speaking to reporters with Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Therese
Murray, Travaglini said the remaining work relates to "fine-tuning
definitions and preparing it for debate on the floor," which will most
likely come next week....
Lawmakers have been working to finalize details of the final legislation
that will offer state subsidies for health insurance products, mandate
that state residents have some form of insurance, and require certain
employers who do not offer insurance to pay an assessment, believed to
be about $295 per employee.
State House News Service
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Senate conferees:
Health car bill "just about done"
In the sausage factory where public policy is crafted,
victory is apparently measured by how much federal money can be snared in our
statewide health-care net.
But in this case, the damage will be measured in so many increments of blood,
sweat and tears that are poured into small businesses across Massachusetts every
day.
And so it goes that on Beacon Hill, the scramble to score a win on health-care
reform is almost certain to deal a loss to our little engines of economic
growth....
The state’s big hospitals flexed their muscles, and a good chunk of corporate
Boston rolled over in the name of compromise....
"They’re looking around for someone to bear the burden," says Sam Wakeman, who
"offers insurance" for workers at his lumber yard in Kingston. "The Legislature
decided, 'We’re going to give health insurance to (everyone).' And now they have
to find a way to pay for it."
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Insurance for all? Pols back tax on biz
By Cosmo Macero Jr.
Romney allies had hoped to persuade healthcare negotiators to
reduce or eliminate a $62-per-worker fee on companies that already provide
health insurance to their workers. The bill also would impose a
$295-per-employee annual fee on companies that have more than 10 workers and do
not provide coverage to their workers.
The governor, who has made a point of opposing tax increases, expressed concern
that the Democrats' health plan could be construed as a tax or a broad-based fee
rather than an assessment....
The Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, including the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, have helped broker the deal for the business
assessment. Key figures in the negotiations included Peter Meade, the president
of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts and John Connors, the chairman of
Partners Health Care System.
Romney has support from some business groups that have advocated reducing or
eliminating the $62-per-employee assessment on businesses that provide health
coverage. They are critical of the influential role that insurers and hospitals,
who stand to receive millions of dollars under the healthcare bill, have played
in the Beacon Hill negotiations.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Romney rebuffed on health proposal
Bid rejected to cut employers' fees
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
This is a distasteful issue, as so many givens --
realities we don't necessarily agree with -- must be swallowed.
We've traveled so far down this road for so long now that turning the
clock back isn't even conceivable.
Back in 1989, as the national opposition's spokesman
I was invited to testify in Washington before a U.S. Senate subcommittee
hearing a bill for a national mandatory seat belt law. During my
testimony before the committee, I pointed out that first came our
inalienable rights; next we formed a government to protect those rights;
subsequently that government has grown so large and powerful it has
reached beyond its seminal purpose; and now we have government-provided
health care. That day's argument of national law proponents was
that government-provided medical services can no longer afford the
resources to care for the tragically-injured, so we must give up the
rights we formed the government to protect. Massachusetts, though
were we promised it'd never happen back then, is now pushing a primary
enforcement seat belt law. And so it goes, always.
Unfortunately today in Massachusetts, the question
isn't whether or not the state should be in the business of
providing healthcare. The fact is, the state is in the
business of providing healthcare, one way or another, and has been for
so long that it's expected by most if not all -- another
"entitlement." It is from this point that we must work now.
Currently, those companies which do provide
healthcare insurance are charged an additional "assessment" of $62 --
because they are "responsible." Those who don't are not charged.
Just like those who provide for their own
nursing-home costs at the end are charged an "assessment" of an
additional $10.99 per day -- a surcharge on responsibility -- to fund
publicly-assisted Medicaid nursing home patients who depend on
"charity."
(By the way, we are told that CLT's bill [S.378] to
repeal that tax has been reported out of the Elder Affairs Committee as
a combination of three bills on repeal of this tax and that, although
not yet online, the new bill number is H.4728; it would repeal the
tax over three years. More to follow.)
This seems to be a growing trend in government, at
least here in Massachusetts: responsibility equals deeper pockets.
Penalize "the responsible" to fund everyone else and call it good state
social policy.
So why be personally "responsible"?
What do you think will happen if this concept is
adopted in only one state in the union?
If you lack health insurance, where would you rather
live, or move to?
We just went through this debate with
taxpayer-subsidized college tuition for illegal immigrants and heard all
the arguments. One was that we'd get not only more illegals, but
more out-of-state residents flowing into our taxpayer-subsidized state
college system, either overwhelming it or driving up costs.
What do you suppose will happen if Massachusetts
becomes the first state to provide universal healthcare for all its
inhabitants?
Remember the Big Dig's "$4.5 billion" cost-estimate
back in the late-'80s? How much do you think healthcare for all
will eventually cost us, say by 2010, 2015?
|
 |
|
Chip Ford |
State House News Service
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Senate conferees:
Health car bill "just about done"
By Amy Lambiaso
Following more than eight hours of "very productive" meetings Monday,
lawmakers are expected today to finalize the remaining provisions of
legislation that will expand access to affordable health insurance,
Senate President Robert Travaglini said.
Legislative leaders announced 11 days ago that they'd reach an agreement
in principle on a bill.
Speaking to reporters with Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Therese
Murray, Travaglini said the remaining work relates to "fine-tuning
definitions and preparing it for debate on the floor," which will most
likely come next week. Murray, who leaves tomorrow evening for a
vacation in Ireland, said she is confident the conferees will agree on
all remaining parts of the bill when they meet Tuesday afternoon.
"I think we'll probably finalize everything," she said. "Once we agree
to agree on the last remaining things that are out there, the actual
writing of the bill is going to take an extensive amount of time. We're
close. We're very, very close."
Murray declined to provide details on what the legislation will look
like, but legislative leaders have said they agree on the principle that
employers should be required to share in the burden of providing
affordable health insurance.
"You know I can't tell you that," Murray said, when asked about what the
final legislation will contain. "There's just a couple of things left,
but they still have to be written, that's the tricky part."
Kimberly Haberlin, spokeswoman for House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, said
the speaker is confident conferees are on track to advance a bill for
floor action shortly.
"We concur with the Senate assessment that talks and negotiations are
progressing and significant progress has been made," Haberlin said.
Lawmakers have been working to finalize details of the final legislation
that will offer state subsidies for health insurance products, mandate
that state residents have some form of insurance, and require certain
employers who do not offer insurance to pay an assessment, believed to
be about $295 per employee.
In addition, lawmakers are hoping to ensure that $385 million in federal
money continues to flow when the new fiscal year begins on July 1. That
money is contingent upon the state approving a plan that complies with
the terms of a waiver negotiated by Gov. Mitt Romney and officials at
the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) last year. US Sen.
Edward Kennedy assisted in those talks.
On Monday, Romney said he would be "very surprised" if the federal
government withheld that money, even though federal officials have asked
for 120 days to review the new plan before July 1. Today, Travaglini
said he agreed with Romney on that point.
"Based on the number of conversations that we've had with CMS, HHS
(Health and Human Services) and the relationships between Senator
Kennedy, Governor Romney and those in positions of influence down in
Washington, I would be very surprised if we were short-changed in that
account," Travaglini said.
Murray said she did not believe her travels abroad would affect the
negotiations "because we are just about done." She plans to return to
Beacon Hill on Tuesday, but will be reachable by cell phone in Ireland,
if needed, she said.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Insurance for all? Pols back tax on biz
By Cosmo Macero Jr.
In the sausage factory where public policy is crafted, victory is
apparently measured by how much federal money can be snared in our
statewide health-care net.
But in this case, the damage will be measured in so many increments of
blood, sweat and tears that are poured into small businesses across
Massachusetts every day.
And so it goes that on Beacon Hill, the scramble to score a win on
health-care reform is almost certain to deal a loss to our little
engines of economic growth.
"This good employer/bad employer morality play is ridiculous," says Bill
Vernon, from the National Federation of Independent Business. "It’s just
not reflective of reality."
The state’s big hospitals flexed their muscles, and a good chunk of
corporate Boston rolled over in the name of compromise.
So lawmakers were closing in yesterday on final language that would
allow time for perhaps another feel-good press briefing before Sen.
Therese Murray’s flight to Ireland.
Pity the sorry little bodegas that can’t swing the cost of a deluxe PPO.
The turning point in this health-care policy scrum was agreement on an
annual $295 per-employee fee, to be paid by every business with at least
11 workers that doesn’t offer health insurance.
Still unclear to the entrepreneurs that stand to be hurt most: Exactly
what is the definition of "offering insurance."
Is mere access to a group policy enough? Or is an employer contribution
required? And how much?
Ten percent? Thirty percent? Fifty?
Ralph Wilbur employs 17 people at his Graphic Litho printing business in
Lawrence. He pays 50 percent of workers’ health insurance premiums.
As it stands he’s in the clear from the $295 assessment. But he’s not
exactly dancing a jig.
"It’s just another tax on employers," Wilbur was saying yesterday.
"Massachusetts is a very hostile environment for business. Sometimes
it’s almost an accident that we get work from other states."
Nobody said this would be easy. Especially with so many conflicting
interests clamoring for a voice.
But your state lawmakers - while allowing Big Medical to treat them like
wind-up toys - have all but ignored a critical truth: The work
experience of many folks in Massachusetts does not fit into one tidy
little box.
Some businesses exist solely because there is a demand for second jobs.
Some workers build a life earning an income any way they can.
"It all comes down to a realization that a lot of people in this state
do not work 40 hours a week behind a desk, or at a factory," says
Vernon. "It’s very hard to legislate equitably and fairly for those
kinds of arrangements."
How will a tiny neighborhood restaurant cope with that $295 assessment
if it comes time to cross the 11-worker threshold?
Why should a landscaper, or a painter, or a guy who does sheetrock with
a good crew of college kids be placed in the same column as a software
firm with $10 million in venture capital behind it?
"They’re looking around for someone to bear the burden," says Sam
Wakeman, who "offers insurance" for workers at his lumber yard in
Kingston. "The Legislature decided, 'We’re going to give health
insurance to (everyone).' And now they have to find a way to pay for
it."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Romney rebuffed on health proposal
Bid rejected to cut employers' fees
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff
Democratic legislative leaders rejected a last-ditch effort yesterday by
Governor Mitt Romney and his allies to water down a proposed business
assessment that would help pay for a comprehensive healthcare bill, a
move that would have rescued Romney from a politically difficult
decision on whether to veto the legislation.
Romney allies had hoped to persuade healthcare negotiators to reduce or
eliminate a $62-per-worker fee on companies that already provide health
insurance to their workers. The bill also would impose a
$295-per-employee annual fee on companies that have more than 10 workers
and do not provide coverage to their workers.
The governor, who has made a point of opposing tax increases, expressed
concern that the Democrats' health plan could be construed as a tax or a
broad-based fee rather than an assessment. The Democrats' plan would
raise up to $48 million to help pay for what they call near-universal
coverage, but Romney wants the business assessment restructured so that
it does not raise new revenue, according to four Beacon Hill sources
familiar with the negotiations.
The healthcare bill, long sought by Romney and Democratic legislative
leaders, would add some heft to his resume in the event he runs for
president. Backers say it would eventually provide coverage for most of
the state's 500,000 to 600,000 uninsured and would be a ground-breaking
program nationally.
But, in considering the bill, Romney also must be sensitive to the
antitax sentiment that runs strongly through the Republican presidential
landscape.
House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, in an interview in his office
yesterday, rejected Romney's suggested changes. He pointed out that, in
a major breakthrough in their negotiations on the bill two weeks ago, he
and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini agreed to include a
$295-per-employee fee for companies that do not provide health insurance
and to retain the $62-per-worker fee that all companies are charged
under the current system.
"That's what we agreed on," said DiMasi, who said that he had not been
presented with any formal proposal by the administration for a change.
"The terms and the parameters of the agreement had already been set."
Other negotiators who are working out the final details of the
legislation said that the Romney proposal was also rejected by the
Senate leadership.
Travaglini told reporters yesterday that the bill is near completion.
"The biggest obstacle that we're left with is just fine-tuning the
language and the definitions and preparing it for debate on the floor,"
he said.
Senate minority leader Brian Lees, taking the administration's position,
made a pitch yesterday to Democrats to accept Romney's plan for reducing
the assessments on businesses that provide health coverage, lawmakers
said. The assessment is designed to charge companies for the state-paid
medical services that their uninsured workers received from the
so-called free care pool.
Reached late yesterday, Lees, who serves on the House-Senate conference
committee working on the bill, said he would not comment because the
negotiations are confidential. "This has been a long and arduous
process, and all views have been expressed at the conference meeting,"
said the East Longmeadow Republican.
Romney said Monday that he has made no decision on whether he would sign
the healthcare overhaul and will wait to see what emerges from the
conference committee.
"I'm going to see how this is characterized as it's related to use by
employees of the free care pool -- is it instead something that looks
like a broad-based fee? -- and I think how I will react to it will
depend in part on how it's applied and to whom," the governor said after
a speech to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce.
One of the major provisions in the governor" version, a mandate that
individuals be required to carry health insurance, has been accepted by
the lawmakers.
By late yesterday, House and Senate negotiators finished deciding the
last major details of the bill, though it still must be written into
formal legislation. It is expected to be reported to the House floor by
next week. Lawmakers predict that a final version will be on Romney's
desk by late next week or early the following week.
With overwhelming Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and the
support of both leaders in the Legislature, it appears likely that
lawmakers could override a veto of the bill if Romney were to reject it.
In addition to vastly expanding coverage, the bill is designed to
preserve $385 million in federal Medicaid funds the state receives
annually.
The Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and other business groups,
including the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, have helped broker the
deal for the business assessment. Key figures in the negotiations
included Peter Meade, the president of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Massachusetts and John Connors, the chairman of Partners Health Care
System.
Romney has support from some business groups that have advocated
reducing or eliminating the $62-per-employee assessment on businesses
that provide health coverage. They are critical of the influential role
that insurers and hospitals, who stand to receive millions of dollars
under the healthcare bill, have played in the Beacon Hill negotiations.
Return to top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|