A Triumph for Divided Government?
posted by Frank Pasquale
Apparently Massachusetts politicians have hammered out a plan providing universal health coverage in that state. The bill is an interesting mix of mandates, incentives, and taxes. There’s still some chance a squabble over taxes on businesses that don’t provide insurance coverage may scuttle the deal. But overall, it’s a very encouraging sign.
As the deal is finalized, I’ll be watching my indefatigable friend Nathan Newman’s blog (and that of PLAN, a group advocating social justice on a variety of fronts in state legislatures, and the Center for American Progress). Newman appears pretty pleased with the direction of reform now. If it works, it might stand as a great argument for divided government. Everyone knows health care reform is necessary, but few interests appear willing to give anything if “the other side’s” party is the only one responsible for legislation (remember the scorched earth tacticians Harry & Louise?). A Republican governor in Massachusetts, balanced by a strongly Democratic legislature, appears to have broken the gridlock.
April 4, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Posted in: Economic Analysis of Law, Politics
Print This Post
Responses (1)
Ron Norton - July 8, 2007 at 4:48 pm
The Massachusetts Universal Health Law is nothing more than a huge consumer scam. How dare the government force us to buy worthless insurance products with high deductibles and co-pays that cover catastrophic illness only? This misbegotten legislation is really just a regressive tax on the middle class. We had little chance to comment on the bill, and no chance to vote on its merits. The last time the citizens of the Commonwealth were faced with taxation without representation they threw a “tea party”. Perhaps it is time for an encore. I will defy the personal mandate and encourage other free minded citizens to do the same. We will never solve the problem of equitable health care access until we take the greedy, parasitic insurance companies out the delivery equation!
Leave a Reply