The Massachusetts State Senate passed two bills today designed to modernize our debt collection laws and provide important protections for those struggling with debt from unscrupulous debt collectors - An Act to Remedy Unlicensed Debt Collection Activity, which I sponsored, and An Act Further Regulating Debt Collection, which was sponsored by Senator Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville) and which I was proud to co-sponsor.
According to a May 14th report from the Administrative Offices of the US Courts, bankruptcy filings rose 30% in the past 12 months, with more than 22,000 Massachusetts businesses or individuals filing for bankruptcy.
Even in these difficult economic times, the reality is that most Americans pay their bills on time. Most folks who do fall behind are current with their payments until some sort of catastrophe such as illness, unemployment or disability. These people, and their families, deserve to be treated fairly.
No one wants to be in debt. When people fall on hard financial times, it’s generally because of circumstances out of their control, like those I’ve already mentioned. However, right now, financially-distressed families struggling with debt are susceptible to unfair, abusive tactics at the hands of debt collection agencies. Seniors, people with lower incomes and the disabled are particularly at risk.
The bill I filed, An Act to Remedy Unlicensed Debt Collection Activity, is one step towards preventing these unscrupulous tactics. By specifying that unlicensed debt collectors shall be liable to victims for restitution, the act ensures that victims of unlicensed debt collection are assured of a remedy and that violators will not profit from their unlicensed debt collection activity.
(A second bill I’ve filed, An Act to Regulate Debt Collection Activity, would go further to protect consumers from abusive practices; that bill is currently before the Judiciary Committee.)
The second bill that passed today, Senator Jehlen’s An Act Further Regulating Debt Collection, will update and modernize our general laws regulating debt collection by increasing the value of property, earnings and savings exempt from seizure during debt collection. Because our current debt exemptions are decades out of date, families struggling with debt are often left with almost nothing to live on - making it difficult for them to maintain a job to continue paying their debt. This bill would deal with the serious unintended consequences of the current law.
Key provisions of the bill including updating the law to allow a debtor to keep $2500 in a bank account (up from $500) at any one time - a provision of particular importance for seniors, who often receive their Social Security checks directly deposited into their bank account. It would also help debtors continue to be able to work by including child care in the definition of basic necessities and increasing the value of an exempt car from $700 to $7500.
In addition, it would increase a number of other living expense exemptions, such as raising the rent exemption from $200 to $2500 per month and increasing the utility allowance from $75 to $500 for month, so that no family has to choose between accumulating more debt and paying for heat.
As I’ve met and spoken with people throughout the district, I’ve heard from so many who are struggling to make ends meet or to find work at all. These two bills are exactly the sort of relief people need from economic woes, and I look forward to working with my colleagues toward its passage. As always, if you have any questions or concerns about this issue, or any other, please feel free to contact my State House office at james.eldridge@state.ma.us, or by calling us at 617-722-1120.
Earlier today I was proud to file legislation to respond to the Supreme Court’s reckless decision in Citizens United v. FEC. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve been working on this bill along with Representative Cory Atkins, Representative William Straus, Common Cause, Mass Vote, Mass PIRG and Free Speech for People for some time. Today we filed the bill, the Massachusetts Corporate Political Accountability Act.
Read the bill summary Read the bill You can also listen to an interview I did with Radio Boston on WBUR this afternoon.
Last January, on a 5-4 vote, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court struck down bipartisan legislation that had limited corporations from spending their general treasury funds on political advertisements during the months preceding an election. The Court overruled two of its own precedents and reversed law that had stood for decades. The decision also invalidated similar provisions of state law across the country, including a provision of Massachusetts law that had been in place since the beginning of the last century.
Now, for-profit corporations may spend unlimited amounts to influence elections at all levels of government.
The danger is real: if ExxonMobil had spent just 2 percent of its 2008 profits in the last presidential election, it would have outspent McCain and Obama combined.
And the danger of undue corporate influence isn’t only for national elections. Indeed, the biggest danger to our democracy might be at the local level. A large developer seeking a change in a local zoning law, for example, could spend tens of thousands of dollars to influence a board of selectman race - small change to the company, perhaps, but a substantial amount of money for a local race. A selectman who opposed the company could never compete financially with the flood of advertising.
Corporate lobbyists and other powerful special interests will be able to threaten public officials at all levels with the possibility of unending negative campaign ads if their agendas are not supported — and the voices of ordinary citizens could be drowned out of the electoral process.
As President Obama noted in his State of the Union Address, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC could “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”
Today we filed the Massachusetts Corporate Political Accountability Act, by far the strongest and most comprehensive legislative response to the Citizens United decision put forward anywhere in the country. This bill is about protecting the integrity of our democratic system from the corrosive influence of profit driven electioneering.
If passed, this legislation will:
In addition, we also filed a resolution calling on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overrule the Citizens United decision and protect free speech for people. You can learn more about that effort here.
It’s clear we need action on the national level to deal with this far-reaching Supreme Court decision, and we need it quickly.
But regardless of what happens at the national level, we also need to take action here in Massachusetts to protect the integrity of our elections. By enacting these reforms we can get closer to ensuring that elections are truly decided by “we the people,” and not corporate special interests.
A packed house filled the Gardner Auditorium in the State House today for a public hearing on the proposed Senate gambling bill.
I’ve been a long-time opponent of expanded gambling in our state, and I was there, with several of my colleagues and many citizen activists, to express my opposition to the bill.
Here is the testimony I delivered at the hearing today:
I have been, and remain, opposed to bringing casinos and slot machines to our state because of the negative, costly impacts I think it will have on small businesses and local communities.
I also believe that expanding gambling is a short-sighted and ineffective economic development strategy. It drains money from local economies, hurting local businesses. Quite simply , we can do better: there are better strategies for creating jobs and promoting economic growth in the Commonwealth that don’t come with the significant downsides that casinos bring.
These downsides and costs to local communities include:
o Increase crime rates and public safety costs. Crime, including embezzlement, robbery, DUIs, aggravated assaults and domestic violence rates, increases 8 - 10% right after casino is built, and continues to increase after that — and local communities have to pick up the tab.[1] Local governments also bear the costs of significant increases in emergency service calls and casino-related traffic problems requiring police oversight.[2]
o Impact on local restaurants, hotels and arts and entertainment businesses. Money that would otherwise be spent at locally-owned small businesses will instead be spent at casinos owned by out-of-state corporations, and little of that money is being reinvested in the local community. Our downtowns will suffer as a result.
o Impact on small businesses up to 30 miles away. When discretionary income is spent on gambling, local businesses suffer. Consumers have less money to spend on clothing, electronics, furniture, automobiles, or any other locally-sold product. A study on the costs and benefits of casinos found that for every $1000 in increased casino revenue, businesses up to 30 miles away lost $243. [3]
o Development-related problems: Our state has been a leader on Smart Growth initiatives, but whether it’s traffic, infrastructure costs or environmental impact, resort casinos are often in direct opposition to those goals.
Local communities will feel the impact of increased traffic and gridlock, and mitigation for highway and local roadway traffic impacts within and beyond the host community will be necessary. Ledyard, CT saw a 245% increase in traffic in the years after a casino came to town.
There will certainly be an impact on the local natural environment as well, including the loss of open space and stormwater management issues across municipal borders.
And there will be various infrastructure costs required to support a proposed development, such as road/bridge improvements, utilities, upgrades to water/sewer facilities, water quality/quantity issues, etc.
o Social costs: Problem gambling leads to distressed families, child neglect, suicide and bankruptcy. Domestic violence rates go up, as do foreclosures.[4] Local communities will need support and additional funding for social services to deal with all of these negative social problems caused or exacerbated by expanded gambling.
The effect of casinos is regional, not just on host community: It’s also important to remember that it isn’t just the host community that bears the burden - all of the above mentioned costs and impacts will be felt by the bordering communities and beyond.
In my opinion, any benefits we may get from casinos are not worth the costs - the loss, including jobs lost, for small businesses, the negative effects and costs it will impose on local communities, and the harm it will cause to tens of thousands of Massachusetts families.
That said, if the Senate DOES decide to go forward with proposals to expand gambling, I want to strongly urge that all of these costs are taken into account, and that an effort is made to:
o Give local communities the ability to “opt out” of having a casino in their area
o Mitigate the costs to local communities as much as possible and
o Require the industry that is causing the problems (i.e. the casino industry) picks up the tab for these costs.
Some specific proposals would be:
o Regional Referendum: Before a casino is sited in a community, a regional referendum should be held, giving the local communities - host community AS WELL as abutting communities - the opportunity to “opt out” of having a casino in their backyard.
o Cost Mitigation: A Community Mitigation fund must be set up to help local communities - both host and abutting communities - cover the costs caused by the casinos, including the ongoing impacts on the environment, transportation, municipal services, social services, and public safety. We must make sure that we dedicate enough money to this fund to adequately cover all of these costs. Local communities should NOT be left on the hook.
o Requiring casinos to cover the TRUE costs their product has on local communities. At the end of the day, if we expand gambling in this state, the casino industry will make billions in profit off of Massachusetts residents, sucking money away from local businesses while increasing costs for local communities and harming many local families.
And although many of the costs, particularly the human costs, can NEVER be “mitigated” by money alone, we can at the very least require casinos to cover those costs that can be quantified. I would urge the Committee to look at tax rates and fees that are adequate for covering those costs.
Let me be clear: I think no matter what we do, expanding gambling in our state will be a bad deal for Massachusetts.
But if we’re going to do it, let’s at least ensure that the people of Massachusetts are getting the “least bad” deal possible.
[2] Baxandall, Phineas and Bruce Sacerdote. “Betting on the Future: The Economic Impact of Legalized Gambling. ” Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, Dartmouth College. Policy Briefs, January 13, 2005
[3] Grinols, Earl L. Gambling in America Costs & Benefits. Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pg. 77.
[4] National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report, commissioned by the United States Congress.1999
Today the Senate scored two substantial victories for policies that promote the public interest over corporate interest during the Senate budget deliberations this afternoon, and I wanted to take a moment to let you know about these successes.
Responding to Citizens United - Corporate Political Expenditure Disclosure
First, the Senate adopted an amendment I filed that would subject corporate sponsored political advertising to the same disclosure laws that apply to other political spending, and require CEOs to “stand-by-their-ads” by appearing in their ads to say they “approve this message.”
This amendment, which I wrote with Secretary of State Bill Galvin, was proposed as an initial response to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizen’s United case, which gave corporations a constitutional right to unlimited campaign spending and electioneering communications.
I’m currently working with Common Cause, MassPIRG, MassVOTE, and some of my colleagues in the Legislature to craft a more robust and comprehensive response to the Citizens’ United decision, which we intend to file in the coming weeks.
But today’s amendment is a good first step towards a more comprehensive solution — because at a minimum, we should all be able to agree that corporations spending money in political elections should have to disclose those expenditures to the public. When someone stands up to speak at town meeting, the first thing they say is their name and where they’re from. Corporations seeking to influence an election should at least be held to the same standard.
Corporate Tax Credit Transparency
The Senate today also passed an amendment to the budget that would bring more transparency to our tax credit programs, requiring public disclosure of the results of refundable or transferable tax credit programs, including the identity of the corporation receiving the credit.
This is an issue I’ve been working very hard on this session. It’s an important amendment, one that will promote greater accountability at a time when we need to be examining where every single public dollar is going, and what impact it is having.
The final amendment the Senate adopted was not perfect, and there were some changes made to the language that I would have preferred were not adopted. The legislation will require companies to report on the results of the tax credit program, including the number of jobs created - which is a very important piece. Unfortunately, those job figures will be reported in aggregate for each tax credit program, rather than by each individual tax credit rewarded.
I do believe that this change will make it more difficult for the public - and the Legislature - to analyze the effectiveness of each tax credit program. Aggregating the data makes it difficult to see if there are individual companies taking a tax credit which are not creating jobs, which I believe would be valuable information to have in evaluating the overall effectiveness of a program. I also believe that it is, in the end, the public’s money these corporations are receiving - and therefore the public should have the right to see what they are getting for their money.
We will live to fight another day on this front. Ultimately, I supported this compromise amendment because it is still a giant leap forward in providing greater transparency of the spending of public dollars. I applaud my colleagues in the Senate for unanimously supporting this legislation, and look forward to seeing the amendment passed in the final budget. (As Rep. Sciortino recently blogged the House also passed a tax credit transparency provision in their budget.)
Together, these two amendments make a strong statement that the interest of the greater public - in transparency, in accountability of the spending of public dollars, in the disclosure of who is spending money to influence public elections - should take precedence over the interests of big corporations. Those looking to take public benefits - in the form of refundable tax credits - should at the very least have to account for what they are doing with those benefits, and those looking to influence our elections should at the very least have to disclose that they are doing so.
The Senate Ways & Means Committee issued their draft of the FY11 State Budget last week with the matter set to be debated and voted on for several days, starting tomorrow.
The budget proposal cuts more than $750 million from the level required to maintain state services in FY11, with those spending cuts plus the use of federal recovery act funds being used to close a $2.85 billion budget gap. The proposal would cut local aid by $159 million from FY2010, level fund 154 line items and reduce spending in 321 other line items from FY10 levels.
Over the last few days, my staff and I have spent hours analyzing the budget and talking with advocates and constituents about the budget proposal, and what impact the cuts will have on our district and the people of the Commonwealth. As a result of this work, I have filed some amendments to the budget — to increase line item funding in some cases, and to make no-cost changes to the law in other cases. You can learn more about some of those amendments here.
We’ve heard a lot over the past few years — from both elected officials and candidates for office at all levels — about “doing more with less.” Looking at this budget proposal and the numbers before us, the truth is that we’re going to be doing less with less — and no amount of rhetoric will change that.
We will have fewer teachers, police officers, firefighters, social workers working in our communities.
We will have fewer resources available to help those among us who need help the most - including those with disabilities, mental illnesses, substance abuse problems, as well as those who are homeless and in poverty, or just on the verge of losing their homes.
We will have fewer enrichment and mentoring programs for our kids, and fewer supports for our seniors. Our libraries and community and senior centers will be open for fewer hours, if they don’t close altogether.
We will have fewer resources available to protect our public lands, water, and air from pollution and destruction, and longer wait times to access government services big and small, from the judicial system to the RMV.
All of this — and more — is the truth of our fiscal situation this year, and I feel strongly that we shouldn’t try to sugarcoat it for you, our constituents, or to pretend the situation is better than it is.
I have in the past been an advocate for raising more revenue (through more progressive means) as a way of mitigating the impact of these cuts. I know times are tough for everyone, but some of the cuts we are making, particularly to the programs that help the most vulnerable among us - are, to me, untenable, and unjust. I do believe that we, as a society and a government, can do better.
I am, unfortunately, among the minority with that viewpoint in the Legislature right now - and because the House decided against any revenue-raising measures, the Senate is constitutionally barred from adding any broad-based revenue measures to our budget, either.[1]
As a result, we will work with a pie of limited size this year, with no way of increasing that pie. We will do much less — because we have much much less.
Yesterday, the Massachusetts State Senate passed a number of important pieces of legislation to make our Commonwealth a better place - for our youth, for families, for homeowners, AND for renters.
In addition to giving final approval to a bullying-prevention bill that was largely based on a bill that I filed at the beginning of this session, and that I have been working on for many months, the Senate passed a series of consumer protection laws designed to protects residents from mortgage fraud and unsolicited loans, protect tenants in foreclosed properties from arbitrary evictions and help people stay in their homes.
The foreclosure crisis has had a serious impact on many communities in my district, hurting both homeowners and tenants and destabilizing neighborhoods. Over the past year, it’s only grown worse, with the number of affected units in the district growing by 15%, according to the Massachusetts Housing Partnership.
Before I was elected to the Legislature, I served for several years as a public interest attorney with Merrimack Valley Legal Services in Lowell, a non-profit organization that provides free legal services to the poor and the elderly in the areas of housing, unemployment, disability and domestic violence. In this position, I sometimes worked with families who were struggling to keep their home from being foreclosed upon. Many of these families had been talked into bad loans and mortgages they couldn’t afford by unscrupulous mortgage companies looking to make easy money. Many more were being evicted from their homes, with little or no reason or warning, because the house or apartment they rented was being foreclosed upon by a bank that didn’t want them to stay.
Foreclosures and unfair lending practices are a problem affecting tens of thousands of families across the Commonwealth. I’m pleased the Senate is taking action on it, and I was proud to support this legislation.
Major components of the bill, S2407, An Act to Stabilize Neighborhoods are:
Growing up, I never heard the term “transgender.” While in college, I became aware of the civil rights movements for the gay and lesbian community and worked on issues like opposing the U.S. military’s discrimination against gay and lesbian soldiers, but the first time I really learned about what it means to be transgender was during a dinner table conversation with my family one summer while I was home from school.
My dad, an electrical engineer at the time for Raytheon Company, which does a great amount of work with the U.S. military building weapons and defense systems, mentioned over dinner that an employee named Terry came to work that day wearing women ’s clothes. As my dad explained, “One day he was a man, and the next a woman.” My dad explained further, in that analytical manner of an engineer, that Terry had had a sex change over the past year apparently, and now had come out fully as a woman.
I was reminded of this memory today as I listened to the parents of transgender children at the State House, asking the Legislature to pass H1728, An Act Relative to Gender-Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes, to prevent discrimination against people based on gender identity or expression.
What I remember best from that dinner table conversation with my dad is how matter of fact the discussion was. I really can’t remember any more details, other than how proud I was of my dad — and still am now — for being so unconcerned about someone’s gender preference. I am also extremely proud that there were no stories of Terry’s co-workers discriminating against her, or that Raytheon had taken any action against her. In fact, as I learned today from talking to my dad, Raytheon has always been a company ahead of the curve in supporting co-workers who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. The company even had a transgender chapter.
Raytheon is a company that — whether or not you agree with every defense program that the military builds — makes tremendous contributions to keeping the United States and all Americans safe. I was always proud of my dad’s contributions to the company in creating new radar systems to defend against missile attacks around the world. By having a firm anti-discrimination policy in place, including for transgender people, Raytheon was not just protecting Terry’s civil rights, but it was helping make the company’s workforce as strong as it could be.
One of my colleagues last week commented that the Massachusetts Legislature should be focused on creating jobs, and not on allegedly less trivial matters like protecting people’s civil rights.
But creating jobs isn’t done by some wave of the magic wand by the Great and General Court and Governor Patrick. By passing laws, Massachusetts creates an environment where jobs are either created or not created. I would argue that one of the key factors that makes Massachusetts such an attractive place to create jobs is that both through our culture and ours laws, the Commonwealth is a very inclusive society, and has a long history of eliminating discrimination.
There are lots of pieces of legislation that Massachusetts can pass to make the state a better place, and hopefully create more jobs. Passing this legislation to make sure that people like Terry who might work, live or go to school in places that aren’t as friendly towards people like her as my dad or Raytheon was, will not only make life better for her, but foster an atmosphere that is also more job-friendly for everyone.
Today is Earth Day, the day we take each year to appreciate our natural environment and raise awareness of ways we can all help to preserve and protect that environment.
Last year around this time, I blogged about some of the great work being done in local communities to combat global warming, as well as steps I was personally taking to reduce my carbon footprint. This year, I’d like to talk more about what the Massachusetts Legislature can do to protect our earth.
The unfortunate truth is that the Legislature this year has yet to pass any environmental legislation of any significance - despite the many good proposals with broad support that are out there. Although it is my hope that we will see some environmental victories before the session ends on July 31st, time is growing short and there is much work to be done.
Some of the good environmental bills that still have a chance of being passed this year include:
Although it is important and understandable, given the economic crisis, that so much of our time has been spent on large-scale reforms and economic development proposals, we can’t — as a legislature or a society — ignore the growing problems our environment is facing. And, many of these bills I’ve highlighted would actually help create jobs — and more sustainable ones at that.
Finally, in this season of reform, I’d argue that many parts of our environmental protection laws remain in need of reform, too. If we don’t take action, the continued destruction of the earth - including our open space, clean air and clean water — will only continue. What better reform is there than reforming the way we interact with our planet?
This Earth Day is a good day to focus our attention on some of these problems, and things we all can do to help. I’ll be working hard over the next few months to try and pass some of these important environmental bills, and I hope you’ll lend your support as well.
***Cross-posted on BlueMassGroup***
Along with my colleague in the House, Rep. Carl Sciortino, I’ve been a frequent poster on BMG on the issue of transparency and accountability in government spending, particularly around the issue of corporate tax credits and economic development spending.
As time goes on, evidence continues to mount that the millions we give out in tax credits and subsidies to corporations each year are not having their intended effect, and that despite big promises, job creation numbers too often fall far short of expectations.
The Boston Globe recently did some great investigative journalism work looking into the hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local tax breaks we’ve given away under the Economic Development Incentive Program, which aims to encourage companies to invest here and create jobs. As the author noted:
“Often the incentives work and new jobs result. But far too often taxpayers have not come close to getting their money’s worth.”
I encourage you to read the whole story here.
And again today, another Globe story about the lack of transparency surrounding tens of millions in tax breaks being given out by the Economic Assistance Coordinating Council this afternoon.
As our budget situation worsens, and as many legislators make it clear that they have no interest in looking at ways of increasing revenue, leaving deeper cuts to local aid, human services, and other important programs as our only option, I’ve become more and more passionate on this issue of transparency.
We spend hundreds of millions on tax credits and subsidies each year — and yet legislators, and the public, have no idea where the money is going or what effect it’s having. How can we continue to cut important programs and services and still refuse to even look at the impact and effectiveness of the money we spend on these economic development packages?
Tomorrow the Senate will debate an economic development bill designed to, among other things, increase the efficiency of the state’s economic development agencies and direct more lending to small businesses to create jobs. There are many good things in this bill – but one major thing is lacking, which is data collection.
If we are truly looking to increase efficiency, then we need to be collecting the performance management data that will allow us to make informed decisions and ensure that our economic development dollars are being spent as efficiently as possible. Quite simply, you can’t manage what you can’t measure.
Without this level of accountability neither the public nor the legislature can have confidence that we are spending our economic development dollars wisely.
I’m proposing an amendment to the bill that would add data collection, transparency and accountability measures to the bill. You can read a summary or full text of the amendment (#69), but in brief it would:
• Provide greater transparency, by requiring public (online) reporting of all economic development spending (including tax reductions, credits & subsidies) • Require uniform economic development reporting requirements, including current in-state employment levels, salary and benefit structures as well as job creation proposals • Establish economic developments standards (including a per-job subsidy limit) and require clawbacks (recapture of taxpayer dollars) when job promises are not met.
Adding strong disclosure requirements and making this data publicly available in a searchable database, would bring Massachusetts more in line with such states as Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island that already have similar provisions in place.
Ben Foreman of MassINC, which has been a leading voice for transparency in Massachusetts, wrote about the proposed amendment on his blog yesterday. As he noted:
“The vote on this amendment will provide a good measure of whether the bill’s economic development planning components are a sincere effort to protect taxpayer investment.”
If you support this idea, I urge you to please contact your Senator today and ask them to support Amendment #69 to the Economic Development bill, An Amendment Relative to Economic Development, Transparency and Fiscal Accountability.
It took a whole day to sink in. After watching the final vote late Sunday, I jumped off the couch and cheered the passage of the national health care reform bill by the U.S. House of Representatives, 219-212, for a few minutes, then off to bed to get some sleep ahead of a busy day.
It was a typically-busy day. Meetings in the district and at the State House, emails, returning calls from constituents on various local issues, and lunch with seniors at the Southborough Council on Aging. As I ran from meeting to meeting, I didn’t have much time to think about what had happened the night before.
It wasn’t till the end of the day, talking with some of my staff, that I had a chance to really think about what had happened less than twenty-four hours before. We had passed health care reform -what the pundits had been saying was virtually dead since the eve of January 19th. And not just incremental changes to health care, but a dramatic, historic, life-changing expansion of health care that — while not totally overhauling the broken health care system — would go great lengths in providing health insurance for tens of millions more Americans.
Though it wasn’t the Medicare-for-All (single-payer) system I believe we eventually should move towards, the details of the bill are exciting. Health insurance coverage for 32 million more Americans, including expanding Medicaid for people with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL), and health care exchanges offering health insurance for families up to 400 % of the FPL. Reducing prescription drug costs for seniors facing the “doughnut hole”, including 80,700 seniors in Massachusetts. Increasing Medicaid reimbursements for primary care physicians and more spending on community health centers, while moving away from the privatization of Medicare through shifting funding from Medicare Part C to Parts A and B.
It was an incredibly happy moment, to think of all of those Americans who will begin receiving health insurance coverage over the next few years. That despite all of the rancor over the past 15 months over the need (or, in the minds of some, lack of need) for health care reform, the rubber now hits the road, and many, many people across the country will be more secure in their lives. If they happen to become sick, get in a car accident, or need an operation, the likelihood that they will be able to access the care they need is much, much greater.
When I got home, as I did my physical therapy exercises for my shoulder, I thought about some of the men and women I got to know while I was recovering from own health care emergency at Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital in Boston, a little less than six months ago. While many of these patients had the same excellent health care that I did — which won’t be affected by the national health care reform that passed on Sunday night — there were also patients who were cut off from receiving the therapy they needed to properly recover and were sent home early. There were patients who didn’t have a primary care physician to check in with during their recovery. These less well off individuals were much more likely to have the same health insurance coverage that I was lucky enough to have.
Reading (and watching) the news coverage of the previous day’s events, I noticed the focus was all about who voted for the bill, who voted against, a possible primary challenge to U.S. Congressman Steven Lynch, and Republicans’ plans to somehow repeal the bill as soon as they possibly could. But this obsession with the politics of health care didn’t change my enthusiasm and hope about what had happened on Sunday night. As Paul Krugman wrote in his New York Times editorial, “Fear Strikes Out.”
There is no doubt there are still some significant battles ahead for Americans, including here in Massachusetts, for transformative, universal health care reform. Despite the passage & signing of this law, health care is still not a right, health care costs will still be too expensive, and some Americans will still not receive the health care coverage they deserve. There is already a growing coalition of stakeholders in Massachusetts focused on filing legislation next session that tries to reach these goals for Massachusetts residents, which I am proud to be taking a lead on.
But the reality is that soon, millions more of Americans will be more secure in their lives, can take better care of their families, and will have less to fear, because of a bold act by Congress, and the courageous leadership of a visionary president. Not a bad way to start the week.
Campaign Constituent
Economic Development & Small Biz Health Care bills have many details, but both share increased transparency that will lead to bigger reforms #
