Patrick and Reilly Debate Healthcare
by Aaron Margolis, March 18th, 2006 at 10:24am
The two democratic candidates for governor, Deval Patrick and Tom “Cover Up” Reilly, debated healthcare yesterday, giving voters a little insight into the two candidates.
Gubernatorial candidate Deval L. Patrick offered mild support yesterday for the healthcare plan emerging from the Legislature, while rival Thomas F. Reilly was more cautious.
Speaking at a forum sponsored by Health Care For All, Reilly also sought to distinguish himself by reminding the group of his strong support for Canadian drug imports, while Patrick criticized Reilly, the state’s attorney general, for failing to beef up a state program designed to encourage hospitals to provide more community health programs.
The forum provided an early indication of where the Democratic candidates stand on healthcare issues, and their stances highlighted an early theme of the Democratic primary race, in which Reilly has sought to cast himself as the more moderate candidate.
Patrick has supported plans for healthcare for all residents, even if it means increasing taxes for business owners, a proposal that legislators on Beacon Hill are discussing. Reilly praised House and Senate leaders yesterday for crafting a compromise, but he declined to comment further until more details are released next week.
So the early indication is that Deval Patrick is ready to raise taxes for business owners, and the likelihood is that Tom Reilly is waiting for more details before saying he supports the same thing. Both were critical of the current healthcare system.
Reilly focuses attention on his support of importing non-FDA approved, potentially unsafe prescription drugs from Canada, a practice that puts a serious detriment on drug companies in the United States. Patrick also thinks importing these drugs should be considered, but hasn’t fully endorsed the idea.
Patrick took his chances to criticize Reilly for his role in the current state of health benefits, and Reilly rebutted.
Patrick took a swipe at a community health benefits plan established 12 years ago under former attorney general Scott Harshbarger, saying that it ”has fallen under neglect under the current attorney general.”
Patrick also said he has a more-refined stance on healthcare.
”We’ve put out a plan,” Patrick said in an interview after the forum. ”He hasn’t. I don’t know where he stands.”
In an apparent jab at Patrick, a former top civil rights enforcer in the Justice Department under the Clinton administration, Reilly said: ”Anyone can talk about what they’re going to do in healthcare. It takes a leader to have actually done something, and I have.”
Both Lt. Governor Kerry Healey, the Republican nominee, and Christy Mihos, the independent candidate, declined invitations to the forum yesterday. At this point in the election, I’m not surprised, and it was probably a fairly smart move. With both Democrats touting healthcare plans that will hurt businesses and drug companies, their presence would only have left less space in the Boston Globe to outline the Democrats’ plans. The best thing for Healey and Mihos at this point in the election in the area of healthcare debate is to let Reilly and Patrick talk up their plans that will spell tax increases on business, which would fold over into layoffs, and increase unemployment in this state.
Let the Democrats do as much fighting amongst themselves, the more people know about their ideas for healthcare, the better it will be for Healey and Mihos.
Entry Filed under: Christy Mihos, Deval Patrick, Election 2006, Health Care, Kerry Healey, Tom Reilly
5 Comments
1. JoeM | March 18th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
That’s a very strange way of looking at the employer mandate plan. Right now, it’s the businesses that *do* provide health care that wind up paying extra to support the uninsured. Tell me how exactly you think that’s a good thing for businesses? The truth is, an employer mandate ends the penalization of businesses that are responsible enough to provide health benefits. It only makes sense to level the playing field by assessing the businesses that don’t provide insurance, effectively giving the state almost universal health care. Is this the ultimate solution? Probably not, but it will go a long way towards insuring the 500,000 residents who don’t have health benefits and therefore must dip into the uncompensated care pool that we taxpayers have to support.
2. Aaron | March 18th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
It’s not any business’s responsibility to provide healthcare benefits to their employees, nor should it be their responsibility to provide healthcare to people who aren’t their employees.
Healthcare is a benefit, not a right. My employer covers half of my healthcare as a benefit, not because he has to. I work for a small business, and additional taxation to cover the healthcare of people who never heard of the company i work for, let alone never worked for it, is socialism.
3. demolisher | March 19th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Nice reply Aaron. I’d add what should be obvious to anyone who looks at the issue without progressive blinders on: if the plan to increase taxes on businesses - particularly small businesses - were in any way good for businesses, then they would probably support it. Businesses are vehemently against it.
No, its not a Rovian mind trick. They actually know what is good for them.
4. drew | March 19th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
I think you are missing the real point of debate in this healthcare bill. Right now, all companies have to pay into the “free care pool” which reimburses hospitals for the emergency care they have to provide to people without health insurance.
But if my company gives me health insurance and our competitor does not give health insurance to their employees, and their employees end up getting care in the emergency room, then my company has essentially paid for my health care and that of our competitor’s employee.
So then if my company decides to stop offering health insurance b/c it is a competitive disadvantage - not an irrational decision - then no one has coverage, we’re all in the emergency room for our care, and the government is going to ultimatly foot the bill b/c it won’t let hospitals go bankrupt.
After WW2, this country decided on an employer based healthcare system. Thats the way it is. There needs to be some disincentive for companies to stop offering health care coverage, or we are all screwed.
BTW, Aaron - your small employer is right now helping to subsidize the health care of employees of Wal-Mart, Dunkin’Donuts and other companies that offer no insurance. Shouldn’t they have to pay their fair share?
5. Demolisher | March 19th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
drew,
your socialism is showing!
1. “after ww2, this country decided…” no! *employers* decided! because at the time, it was cheap, and advantageous to them.
2. so, you think you know better than companies what is good for companies? maybe you should start a company.
pay their fair share is total commie talk, btw. whoever uses the service should have to pay for it, or it shouldn’t have to be rendered. the companies have nothing to do with it.