The House this afternoon overwhelmingly overrode the Governor’s veto of four sections of the health reform bill. Another four sections remain to be voted on. All Democrats voted to override . The 21 Republicans generally voted to sustain vetoes, though they were divided on restoration of dental and other benefits.
Thank you, House. Please do it soon, Senate…
The provisions overrode were:
- Restoration of dental coverage, eyeglasses, and other benefits to adults on MassHealth (vote was 147-10)
- The employer Fair Share assessment on businesses that don’t provide coverage (vote was 135-20)
- Preventing changes in MassHealth mental health services until a report is completed (vote was 139-18)
- A study on the impact of the employer assessments (vote was 136-18)
Here’s some excerpts (from State House News) from the debate on two key overrides:
1. Benefits Restoration:
Rep. Walrath (D-Stow): The governor said he vetoed this section because it would cost $75 million and was unsustainable. We disagree with that estimate. We’ve done careful estimates, and that would amount to $42 million, reaching to a high of $52 million in FY09. All conferees agreed that they want those services back. When we cut those services, the eyeglasses, dental, it was not something we wanted to do. We had to make a lot of uncomfortable cuts. I was at a senior center in my district two weeks ago, and one lady came up to me and said, we’re going to get the dental back, aren’t we? I said, the governor vetoed it. And she started crying. That’s how important this is. They can’t get jobs if they don’t have teeth.
Rep. Rogeness: It’s difficult to ask that a benefit not be provided. It is ambitious to change the way everyone gets health care. We don’t know what the cost is going to be. We have our estimates. It seems unwise to add a benefit that has come and gone. This might cost $42 million, it might cost $75 million. It’s my experience most health care mandates go up in cost as time goes on. I hope you do not override this veto. It’s easier if we don’t have this mandate tacked on to a $200 million item.
2. Employer Assessment:
Rep. Mariano (D-Quincy): I hope the governor’s veto is overridden. This is a foundation of our plan. This section assesses all employees who use the free care pool. We have arrived at a number of those who have used the free care pool and haven’t contributed. Last year we spent about $620 million on free care in the state. We had employers use the pool to the tune of $279 million. Large employers: Friendly’s, Wal-Mart, McDonalds. This forces everyone to participate. We may hit disagreement, but it is an attempt to spread the cost and do more for employees than any other plan in the past. I hope it is overridden.
Rep. deMacedo (R-Plymouth): … I disagree on this jobs tax. I ask you to sustain the governor’s veto. Massachusetts is one of the most expensive places to do business in the country. We have the highest energy costs. We have the highest wages costs. We have the highest unemployment insurance costs. Now they’re talking about raising the minimum wage. We just heard about giving maternity leave to employees for 12 weeks. All these things have impacts on our business community, which creates jobs. … This is a $1.3 billion bill. This assessment for $45 million is so small that the need to do this is not imperative….This assessment will have a chilling effect on job growth in the Commonwealth.
Rep. Perry (R-Sandwich): I hope the governor’s veto is not overridden today. I’m one of two of us who voted against this bill. … Why don’t we start this effort without a new tax? Let’s try it. Let’s do everything else and let’s not do it with a new tax. … We’re losing people. And if we’re going to straddle people with a new tax and discourage people from coming here to do business, it’s not going to get better. … We should take the next step without imposing a new tax.
Rep. O’Brien (D-Kingston): … If you vote not to override the veto, you’re voting to have government bear the cost and provide health care. Everyone has to play a part. Everyone has to come to the table. The governor says individuals should come to the table. Hospitals should come to the table. But we don’t want employers to come to the table. It doesn’t make any sense….
Rep. Jones (R-North Reading) … I’ve heard members talk about how we need everyone to pay. I read the bill and I thought that everyone under 11 employees is exempt. When I look in the dictionary, everyone means everyone, no exemptions. … If you’re really looking for consistency, you’ve accepted the argument that this is bad for the economy by virtue of the fact that you’ve exempted employers with under 11 workers. A recurring question to me has been, why don’t these employers offer health insurance? Is it really the difficulty in competing because of the high cost of doing business? Don’t let the new math change the definition of everyone. It’s not right. It’s not accurate. And it’s not fair.
Rep. Webster (R-Hanson): … Many people suggest we lost the Taxachusetts tag. I certainly have not seen that. We continue to send the message to business that we don’t want you here. We tax any business more than most other states and we need to put a stop to that. We have the highest unemployment tax rate. Now we will tax employers for not providing insurance to their employees? … Government can not and should not be all things to all people. … Let’s stand up here today and let’s do the right thing and not send the message to businesses in the state that we don’t want you. The more jobs we create the more revenue we raise, and the more revenue we raise the more we can support those we represent.
