Patrick lukewarm on health mandate
Gov. Deval L. Patrick has been noticeably silent as Obama has leveled his criticisms, as he did during a nationally televised debate this past week. It turns out it is not just because he has endorsed his fellow Chicagoan for president.
It sounds as if Patrick has a lukewarm view of his current homestate's provision himself.
"It's a feature," was what the governor first mustered on Wednesday when asked about the mandate. It required everyone in Massachusetts to have some form of health insurance by Jan. 1.
Patrick went on to say, "I think it's a component; if it were freestanding, if it were all on its own, it wouldn't make any sense. Otherwise, you could cure homelessness by ordering everybody to buy a house."
The governor added that requiring people to get health insurance which has proved fundamental in helping reduce the number of insured in the state by 300,000 since the law went into effect will make no sense going forward if premium costs continue to rise.
Fresh proof of that challenge came Thursday, when state officials postponed a meeting where they were to consider rate increases for those buying subsidized policies. Bids from the four insurers who were to provide the coverage came in far over budget, so the officials were forced to consider alternatives.
"We have a whole lot more work to do to make the overall system costs affordable to people, and obviously, we want to make sure that we're not penalizing people for not buying something they can't afford," Patrick said.
Under the terms of the Massachusetts plan, the state government is providing free coverage to the most needy, offering subsidies for those struggling to pay the cost, and has helped create discounted policies for those left to pay for coverage on their own.
Those who have not signed up face a series of escalating fines unless they get a hardship exemption.
State officials have estimated that could be 60,000 people.
"I have no objection to Senator Clinton thinking that her approach is superior, but the fact of the matter is ... we still don't know how Senator Clinton intends to enforce a mandate, and if we don't know the level of subsidies that she's going to provide, then you can have a situation, which we are seeing right now in the state of Massachusetts, where people are being fined for not having purchased health care but choose to accept the fine because they still can't afford it, even with the subsidies," Obama said Wednesday night during a debate in Cleveland.
The senator added: "They are then worse off: They then have no health care and are paying a fine above and beyond that."
Patrick drew the line at that comment. He said he disagreed that anyone is worse off for the institution of the plan.
"No," the governor declared. "The system as a whole is about getting insurance to everybody, but just ordering people to have insurance, without the other components, is just not going to work."
He added: "A mandate with cost controls, and the other features of our system, including the subsidies where they apply, is part of what we have here and what we're trying to make work."
The bifurcated opinion illustrates two points.
First, the danger in endorsing someone for political office is that you can become liable for their negatives as much as you might become the beneficiary of their positives.
Second, Patrick's muted support for the mandate highlights his challenge as he implements a program signed into law by someone else.
That has left Patrick walking the fine line between a policy that appears to be working and an enactment tool for which he and Obama have little regard.
- Copyright © 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
TALK TO US
If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.