Rmoney signed a Massachusetts Democrats plan.
Wikipedia:
I was saying that words have meaning. They do.
Rmoney signed the bill because it would have passed anyway over his veto (as the over-riding of his section vetoes indicated). As the article indicates, expiration of various state wavers meant that the state had to pass something and the something they passed was pretty good.
The political parties are not the same. You don't get more progressive policies by beating up on the more progressive party. You don't get more progressive policies by demanding purity.
Pure legislation doesn't pass legislatures. All (significant) legislation is a mass of compromises. Nitpicking and refusing to consider the context of passing something as complex as the PPACA makes you seem like a crank sometimes.
That's just one example.
Stop it. Spend more of your efforts beating up on Trump and (actual) GOP policies. It will do much more to create the future you claim to want...
(sigh)
Cheers,
Scott.
Legislation
In Fall 2005, the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.
On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed the health legislation.[21] He vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[22] He vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[23] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[24]
I was saying that words have meaning. They do.
Rmoney signed the bill because it would have passed anyway over his veto (as the over-riding of his section vetoes indicated). As the article indicates, expiration of various state wavers meant that the state had to pass something and the something they passed was pretty good.
The political parties are not the same. You don't get more progressive policies by beating up on the more progressive party. You don't get more progressive policies by demanding purity.
Pure legislation doesn't pass legislatures. All (significant) legislation is a mass of compromises. Nitpicking and refusing to consider the context of passing something as complex as the PPACA makes you seem like a crank sometimes.
That's just one example.
Stop it. Spend more of your efforts beating up on Trump and (actual) GOP policies. It will do much more to create the future you claim to want...
(sigh)
Cheers,
Scott.