State's leaders need to get to yes on healthcare
BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL
Romney's recommendation
August 11, 2005
IT MUST seem to Governor Romney that everyone in state government with a vote is conspiring against him getting anything done. The governor, always swimming upstream against a Democratic Legislature, hasn't improved relations by posing for national magazines and otherwise allowing rumors of his presidential ambitions to fly. It has made for a difficult summer.
Romney's vetoes of stem cell legislation and $110 million in budget spending were thumpingly overridden by the Legislature, and his veto of the emergency contraception bill faces the same fate. His housing, education, economic stimulus, and healthcare initiatives are stalled. This week even the slumbering Governor's Council roused itself to oppose a Romney judicial appointment for the first time, prompting the nominee to withdraw.
It would be best for Romney to clarify his intention whether to seek reelection as soon as possible so that legislators and the public could know for sure whether their governor is a lame duck. But even in Massachusetts some things ought to be above politics. Plans to improve housing, education, and especially healthcare need to be attended to with vigor when the August doldrums pass.
How to provide health insurance to the 460,000 Massachusetts residents still without it is a puzzle that has confounded governors going back to Michael Dukakis. Romney's plan would offer three solutions: basic, but mandatory, private plans for residents who can afford insurance but choose not to enroll; Medicaid coverage to those who are poor enough to be eligible but not registered with the program; and heavily subsidized, low-cost plans for everyone else.
One problem with Romney's initiative is that real people don't stay in static categories. They lose jobs and then become employed again, suddenly earning too much for the subsidized plans. Or they become ill and find they need more coverage than the bare-bones plans can offer. Without a single universal plan for everyone in the state, people in many circumstances still won't be covered.
Another weakness is that Romney's plan does little to control rising healthcare costs, other than leaving it up to the insurers to deny or restrict care -- part of the problem in the first place. The proposal needs to be independently analyzed for its cost.
Several other plans are circulating on Beacon Hill, and most have something to offer. The individual mandate idea at least recognizes that few people today get coverage all their working lives from one large employer. And Romney's bill includes protections against companies that do offer coverage now from dumping the benefit. The state's leaders need to get to yes on healthcare. A victory would benefit everyone in the state, not just Romney.
Romney's recommendation
August 11, 2005
IT MUST seem to Governor Romney that everyone in state government with a vote is conspiring against him getting anything done. The governor, always swimming upstream against a Democratic Legislature, hasn't improved relations by posing for national magazines and otherwise allowing rumors of his presidential ambitions to fly. It has made for a difficult summer.
Romney's vetoes of stem cell legislation and $110 million in budget spending were thumpingly overridden by the Legislature, and his veto of the emergency contraception bill faces the same fate. His housing, education, economic stimulus, and healthcare initiatives are stalled. This week even the slumbering Governor's Council roused itself to oppose a Romney judicial appointment for the first time, prompting the nominee to withdraw.
It would be best for Romney to clarify his intention whether to seek reelection as soon as possible so that legislators and the public could know for sure whether their governor is a lame duck. But even in Massachusetts some things ought to be above politics. Plans to improve housing, education, and especially healthcare need to be attended to with vigor when the August doldrums pass.
How to provide health insurance to the 460,000 Massachusetts residents still without it is a puzzle that has confounded governors going back to Michael Dukakis. Romney's plan would offer three solutions: basic, but mandatory, private plans for residents who can afford insurance but choose not to enroll; Medicaid coverage to those who are poor enough to be eligible but not registered with the program; and heavily subsidized, low-cost plans for everyone else.
One problem with Romney's initiative is that real people don't stay in static categories. They lose jobs and then become employed again, suddenly earning too much for the subsidized plans. Or they become ill and find they need more coverage than the bare-bones plans can offer. Without a single universal plan for everyone in the state, people in many circumstances still won't be covered.
Another weakness is that Romney's plan does little to control rising healthcare costs, other than leaving it up to the insurers to deny or restrict care -- part of the problem in the first place. The proposal needs to be independently analyzed for its cost.
Several other plans are circulating on Beacon Hill, and most have something to offer. The individual mandate idea at least recognizes that few people today get coverage all their working lives from one large employer. And Romney's bill includes protections against companies that do offer coverage now from dumping the benefit. The state's leaders need to get to yes on healthcare. A victory would benefit everyone in the state, not just Romney.
1 Comments:
Universal health care can be a great impact on our health care system. It is unfortunate to hear so many lack health insurance. We really need to improve our health care system. Health insurance is a major aspect to many and we should help everyone get covered.
Post a Comment
<< Home