ConCon kills health care amendment without a vote on the merits

so (0.00 / 0)

if the health committee reports back in time, reconvening the con con in november could be good for health care, but bad for marriage. pity we have to trade off basic human rights like this

---

by: mattbc @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 14:10:32 PM CDT

Kiss of Death (0.00 / 0)

As I understand it, voting to "study" is the same thing as killing it.  No chance it comes back up again.  Typical, and pathetic.

---

by: Jim Weliky @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 14:29:35 PM CDT

during (5.00 / 1)

my understanding of answers given to the many points of parliamentary inquiry is that the amendment is most likely dead. however, if the committee reports back before the con con (hypothetically) reconvenes and gets the requisite number of votes, it could appear on the ballot.

---

by: mattbc @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 14:34:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't hold my breath. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: David @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 14:38:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sister Souljah time? (5.00 / 1)

Isn't Patrick in favor of this amendment?  This might be a good time for him to demagogue against the "anti-democratic legislature", to reinforce his outsider credentials.

---

by: DaveMB @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 14:41:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it would... (6.00 / 1)

if Deval hadn't already endorsed using similar tactics to kill the anti-marriage amendment.

---

by: alexwill @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 14:59:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah. Awkward! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: David @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 15:01:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

pathetic! pathetic hacks! (0.00 / 0)

but, there might be one good outcome today,

maybe dick moore will enjoy that big fat steak that charlie baker and jack connors will be buying him tonight.

---

by: fairdeal @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 14:41:08 PM CDT

Why did I trust Dick Moore..and how about Spilka..what wimps (0.00 / 0)

Again, can't believe how the health care amendment went down today.  I was giving Moore benefit of doubt on his intentions..now it seems he is dining with the HMO and Hospital Industry folks.

---

by: JJA @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 17:39:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

depressing news (0.00 / 0)

this news is really depressing and shows why we citizens have to get involved and call and write our politicians in order to get a fair vote on a valid constitutional amendment

---

by: dan64r @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 15:01:45 PM CDT

Yes but I get involved, called, visited, and they still went with the powers to be (0.00 / 0)

I can't believe the way the healthcare amendment went down today.  Sen. Trav was actually laughing as he was taking the committee votes and saying "oh -yes votes are the good votes" and he avoided a question of clarification if the vote to study means it is dead.  Again, he said something odd like "we have our ways..powers or magic..".

I am so disgusted.  Several Senators and Reps promised to vote for the amendment and yet they did not stand up today.  I am really dismayed.. (P.S. I am organizer for Mothers for Health and think Ch. 58 is not enough.).  Shame on our legislatures today.  I can't even call them leaders. 

---

by: JJA @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 17:35:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Contributions (5.00 / 1)

Anyone have the time to research who voted to "study" and how much they've received in contributions from the health care industry vs. those who voted against "study"?  Just saying...

---

by: Jim Weliky @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 15:04:34 PM CDT

Roll call available tomorrow? (0.00 / 0)

This page says that the Senate Journal is normally available by the day after a session.  I'm interested in this one.

---

by: DaveMB @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 15:33:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How about now? (6.00 / 2)

Free your mind, and your ass will follow.

---

by: rollbiz @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 15:46:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Daaaayum (0.00 / 0)

You guys are good.  Also, looks like most of "our" legislators voted the right way, as usual.  But boy, Rushing sure has left the station hasn't he?

---

by: Jim Weliky @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 16:06:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Donato (0.00 / 0)

Well, he's gonna get an earful. Awful.

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 18:23:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank goodness (0.00 / 0)

Marzilli represents our little corner of West Medford!

Donato is bad news - serious DINO material.  Charley, you should run against him.

---

by: David @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 18:38:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

thanks. (0.00 / 0)

Peteresen voted no. Good.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 22:06:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And... (6.00 / 1)

Free your mind, and your ass will follow.

---

by: rollbiz @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 15:47:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One and the other (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for posting the complete Rollcalls.  Very Helpful!

I don't know what to think since we are trying to have it both ways here.  1) putting off Health Care is bad because we want it.  2) putting off Anti-Gay Marriage is good because we don't want it.  But that's the way I want it!

I see that my fabulous Senators and Representatives of Somerville all voted the "correct" way in my opinion. 

---

by: Katie Wallace @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 16:32:02 PM CDT

Double standard? (0.00 / 0)

If the Con Con adjourns without voting on the report of this study committee, will Romney call it back into session?

Or do the people only have the right to vote on things that will help Romney's Presidential hopes to champion?

---

by: Trickle up @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 18:43:34 PM CDT

Gee, (0.00 / 0)

what do you think?  :)

---

by: David @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 20:27:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Very disappointing. (0.00 / 0)

But why so many votes to send it to study from erstwhile progressives?  Rushing?  Gloria Fox?  And why did the entire Republican delegation vote not to send it to study?  Anyone know what they dynamics were here?

---

by: fieldscornerguy @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 20:32:29 PM CDT

"to enact and implement such laws, subject to approval by the voters at a statewide election" (0.00 / 0)

seems to be a sticking point.

---

by: mattbc @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 20:45:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 0)

What indicates to you that that was a sticking point?

---

by: fieldscornerguy @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 21:42:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My guess about the Republicans (0.00 / 0)

is that they wanted to be ready to make a big stink if anyone tried a similar maneuver for the anti-marriage amendment, so they couldn't afford to be seen as supporting it for this but opposing it for that one.

---

by: David @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 21:06:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We're Consistent! :~) (0.00 / 0)

For instance, eve though I think Clean Elections is a terrible idea, I thinkk it should be fund for people other than Warren Tolman.  After people see how badly it works, they can ask for repeal.

It comes down to - who do you think should govern?  The electorate or an elite caste?

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 21:15:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

[Health Care Amendment] would have prevailed had lawmakers voted (5.00 / 1)

on the amendment itself. "It felt like a slap in the face to democracy,"...

State House News Service
Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:12:06 -0400

HEALTH CARE PLAN ASSIGNED TO CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION COMMITTEE

By Michael P. Norton
and Jim O'Sullivan
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JULY 12, 2006….The Legislature on Wednesday afternoon dealt a huge blow to thousands of citizen activists pushing a plan to make health insurance access a constitutional right, rerouting the petition to a committee where most on Beacon Hill believe it will die.

Members of the House and Senate voted 118 to 76 to send the proposal to a special committee of the Constitutional Convention. The Convention recessed Wednesday until November 9, two days after the statewide election where sponsors of the constitutional amendment had hoped to secure a historic vote.

In July 2004, the Legislature advanced the amendment to the current convention on a 153-41 vote.

Ann Eldridge Malone, a registered nurse from Boston and one of the ten original signers of the amendment, which had attracted tens of thousands of signatures of support, said after the vote that "words can't describe the depth of disappointment."

Citizen volunteers were shocked, Eldridge Malone said, and felt they would have prevailed had lawmakers voted on the amendment itself. "It felt like a slap in the face to democracy," she said. "It was a slap in the face to citizens who have given their all for three years."

Legislative negotiators of this year's historic health care access law said the constitutional amendment deserves more scrutiny while the new law is given a chance to work.

Supporters of the constitutional amendment, during debate on the amendment, said it might be the only option available to force the new law to be implemented and to prevent an erosion of its ambitious goals.

The constitutional amendment, approved during the 2003-2004 session, needed only 50 votes to merit a statewide vote on this November's ballot.  Technically, the amendment is still alive as long as the convention remains open, but its chances appear severely diminished by today's vote.  Legislative leaders acknowledged a chance that the proposal could be approved and placed on the November 2008 ballot.

The amendment would obligate the Legislature to "ensure that no Massachusetts resident lacks comprehensive, affordable, and equitably financed health insurance coverage for all medically necessary preventive, acute and chronic health care and mental health care services, prescription drugs and devices," and subject legislation needed to meet that constitutional mandate to statewide voter approval.

Amendment sponsors consoled each other in the halls of the capitol afterwards.

Barbara Roop, co-chair of the Health Care for Massachusetts Campaign, said after the vote that the campaign would do everything it could to get on the ballot, even in 2008.

"Clearly, we're extremely disappointed that an amendment that had the overwhelming support of members, based on the testimony, was put into a study with no direction, no date certain, and unclear to be honest what they're studying, when in fact the amendment itself is the platform and lock-in for what they've done," said Roop.

Lawmakers acknowledged the vote had seriously wounded the measure's prospects.

"We didn't give it an injection of adrenaline by what we did," said Sen. Steven Tolman (D-Brighton), who spoke in favor of the amendment and wondered why his colleagues would not support a measure that was philosophically in sync with the law they just approved.

During debate on the floor, Sen. Richard Moore (D-Uxbridge), who co-chairs the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing and helped negotiate the landmark reform, said implementation of the Chapter 58 changes deserve "a chance to work." His committee co-chair, Rep. Patricia Walrath (D-Stow), another top negotiator, concurred and will sit with Moore atop the House-dominated committee handling the measure.

Both Senate President Robert Travaglini (D-East Boston) and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi (D-North End) voted to reassign the petition to committee. Several senators changed their vote during the roll call from opposition to support of the motion.

Rep. Frank Hynes (D-Marshfield) asked Travaglini how to ensure the committee would report. Travaglini, the presiding officer, drew laughter with the remark, "The speaker and I have talents that manifest themselves occasionally" in influencing committee chairs.

Eldridge Malone said she feared the health care access law, like others before it, would disintegrate without a constitutional mandate. "Everyone knows if you look closely at Chapter 58, it has some good sections, but it's like Swiss cheese – it's full of holes," she said.

"History does have a tendency to repeat itself. We've passed other far-reaching reform laws with good elements that were never fully implemented because there was opposition that spent a lot of money on sophisticated lobbying and spreading misinformation, perhaps, and then the laws were never implemented.  And that could very well happen again."

- END -

---

by: AnnEM @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 21:59:02 PM CDT

thank you for all of your good and hard work, ann. (0.00 / 0)

the special interests can hold out against the will of the people for only so long. we will prevail.

---

by: fairdeal @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 22:26:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

roll call (0.00 / 0)

Where does one find a listing of how all the legislators voted? I couldn't locate it on the general court website.

---

by: letsfixthis @ Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 09:46:51 AM CDT

The roll call on the motion to "study" is posted upstream on this thread. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: David @ Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 12:06:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]