Wednesday, April 12, 2006

 

Romney vetoes "employer mandate"

As foretold, Governor Romney this afternoon signed sweeping health financing reform designed to provide coverage for all Massachusetts residents. This is a rather substantial accomplishment by a Republican governor in a very, very "blue" state - getting a free-market based health insurance program through this particular legislature is a feat very few people could have accomplished. The Governor is to be congratulated.

However, as also foretold, the Governor exercised his line-item veto authority to nullify - for the time being - the truly nutty part of the legislation:
However, the governor vetoed a key portion of the bill — a $295-per-worker assessment on businesses that do not provide health insurance. Some critics have called that provision a tax on businesses.

It's worse than a tax on businesses, actually - it's a foot-in-the-door toward requiring all businesses to provide insurance - and only insurance acceptable to the Massachusetts legislature - to all of their employees, whether they can afford it or not.
"It's a very small feature of this bill. It's a very insignificant and unnecessary and, in some respects, counterproductive element of this bill," Romney had told The Associated Press in an interview on Tuesday. "It applies to a tiny number of employers, and it raises a very small amount of money relative to the scale of this entire proposal. So I don't think it's necessary."

Obviously, the Democrats in the legislature - desperate it seems to demonstrate their "compassion" by passing yet another mandate on to businesses, thereby claiming credit for a great accomplishment while incurring none of the icky costs - are less than pleased with the veto:
"To change anything will disturb the delicate balance that made this law possible," House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi said in a statement. "Each and every element of this law is critical to accomplishing our intentions and goals."

Sure, Mr. Speakah. We all know the "goal" of which you speak - and it has very, very little to do with insuring the uninsured.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?