Healthcare Solved in Massachusetts?
By Isaiah Z. Sterrett (04/07/06)
TO BE SURE, Massachusetts’ brand-new healthcare legislation is flawed. The Conservative Response, posted immediately by the libertarian Cato Institute, is that it represents a massive increase in the role of government in the institution of private healthcare—which is of course true. As Cato’s Michael Tanner said, “This is the first time in the country's history where simply by virtue of living somewhere you are mandated to purchase a product.” His point is well taken and no doubt correct.
But we had to do something. Healthcare is an issue—a terrifically boring issue, but an issue nonetheless. We have decided that a problem exists which we must consequently solve, which is why I, for one, am pleased that somebody finally decided to call a vote on something. Bill Clinton talked about healthcare for eight years but did nothing. George Bush also enjoys the discussion, but hasn’t yet gotten around to anything resembling a coherent piece of legislation. Mitt Romney’s “solution” may not be much of a solution at all, but at least he acted—and with a Democratic legislature, no less. For this, he is to be (tepidly) commended.
And while conservatives may not like the idea of forcing insurance down the throats of Massachusetts’s fine residents, they should appreciate the fact that it is now the responsibility of the individual to find his or her healthcare. Mitt Romney’s plan recognizes—theoretically—that healthcare is not the responsibility of the collective. True, it’s not as simple as all that, but Romney’s logic is sound, if somewhat superficial.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the legislation is that employers with more than ten staff, who do not provide health insurance, will be required to contribute about $295 per worker. That’s not a great deal of money—unless you happen to be a small-business owner who’s decided to put everything you have into your new restaurant or boutique. This could be problematic, slowing business, increasing unemployment, etc. But healthcare is important; perhaps—and one cannot be certain about this until the legislation is actually implemented—the increase in insured citizens (there are currently 500,000 uninsured in Massachusetts) will more than compensate for the small drop in commerce.
What, then, are the political implications here? Mitt Romney is clearly in the very early stages of running for the Republican nomination, which, contrary to the opinions of some, he is quite able to obtain. His critics in the GOP will use his reputation as a liberal Republican to attack him—and those attacks, in some respects, will be legitimate. But I hardly think one can say that this legislation is “liberal.” Maybe it’s not as good as it could be, and certainly in won’t eradicate the problem totally, but it is not “liberal.” Recall that liberals believe the government should control healthcare—not just mandate insurance.
In the end, the key at this juncture is to wait: wait for the results, wait for the response to the results, and wait for voters’ reaction to all of it. Only at that point will we truly be able to assess Massachusetts’ plan. Team Romney certainly hopes it goes well.
© Copyright 2006 by Isaiah Z. Sterrett
(Printer friendly version) Email: Isaiah Z. Sterrett
