my local paper linked with an POLITICO article quoting Kerry.

[Mass]

http://www.wickedlocal.com/belmont/town_info/government/x342381432/Unions-say-No-to-pay-freezes

But Obama has asked Reid to strike a provision that would send $1.1 billion in extra Medicaid funding to Massachusetts and Vermont -- states that have already expanded Medicaid coverage but would otherwise not be reimbursed at the same level as states that would boost their Medicaid populations for the first time under the bill's mandate.

"What I told Harry Reid is that Vermont does the right thing, and I don't want Vermont to be penalized for doing the right thing," Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said in a statement.

Through a spokeswoman, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said he, too, was working with the president "to make sure Massachusetts's past investment to expand health coverage to low-income individuals is recognized in health reform."



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10070/1041902-473.stm#ixzz0hs17nGew

BTW, if you wonder why the state is not so hot with the healthcare bill, here is an example. Because MA has extended Medicaid way before this bill, they will not get the subsidies that other states will receive. So bad behavior will once again be recompensed.

I hope Senator Kerry will prevail. Because otherwise, it would show that there is no point being ahead of the curve.

Interesting that the local media had no time for this issue, which concerns us, or for explaining which MA democrats voted to end the war in Afghanistan, but had time to show us an excerpt of Pat Kennedy's fit yesterday, a fit totally justified, but where he looked like a lunatic.

Another bill that our dear local media did not cover

http://www.seattlemedium.com/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=101826&sID=3&ItemSource=L

Republicans Block Amendment That Would Save 100,000 Jobs For Struggling Parents, Create 500,000 Jobs for Young People Across The Country
by Seattle Medium
The Seattle Medium
Originally posted 3/10/2010

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Tuesday, Republican Senators obstructed passage of an amendment by Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and John Kerry (D-MA) that would save at least 100,000 jobs for struggling parents and create up to 500,000 jobs and training opportunities for young people across the country.

[karynnj]

1. The Boston Globe sort of covered the blocked amendment in an article that focused on Brown's

position on the health care bill. They then get a little dig at Kerry for not responding to Brown's position because he was on the way to the WH. Then covering Nelson - on health care, but saying Jobs should be the issue - but he voted against the Jobs bill, finally going to Brown's vote against Kerry's (even though Murray is the chief sponsor) amendment.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/03/10/brown_calls_his_election_a_message_against_health_bill/

It is completely wrong that the states that extended Medicaid do not get the same subsidies. This is completely cynical - as the assumption is clearly that it saves money (making the bill look better) and they know that even as the very blue legislators complain, they will vote for it - and it is only the very blue states that did this.

[Blaukraut]

2. I can't help but wonder

Why Obama is having such a difficult time with consistent leadership. He is reactive, not proactive, and even then he is all over the map trying to please everybody. John Kerry is once again showing us that we can rely on him.

[Mass]

3. Correct link, as I seem to have screwed up the wicked link.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10070/1041902-473.stm

[beachmom]

4. Mark Knoller of CBS Radio has been responding to Kennedy:

http://twitter.com/markknoller

I just think the media is not that great if you sit there and watch cable all day long or read the popular blogs. I mean it's been that way for years, and I just am not going to waste another ounce of energy getting mad about it anymore. Luckily, we now have the freedom to read about stories that interest us, and do so in depth. We no longer have to be "fed" by the media. So color me not that excited one way or the other by Kennedy's speech.

As to Mass., yes that is the situation and it isn't fair. But are there not people living in Mass. who may need to move to another state at some point or have family in another state? And won't national health care reform long term help Mass. as economies of scale are built for the new regulations? Just my two cents.

[Mass]

5. I just have to disagree on both points.

BTW, not only MA, but VT. Any state who cared enough to increase the limit of Medicaid on their own dime would be screwed if this is done. Or may be they need tor rescind the law tomorrow, drop thousand of people out of Medicaid, and then reenlist them when the law takes effect.

The point is that such getting rid of the provision which would have given MA and VT the same funding as other states is highly stupid, and should be fixed, and I certainly hope senator Kerry, Sanders, and Leahy prevail on this (this was actually the only provision senator Kerry was able to give as an example of why, as people in MA, we should support this law).

[beachmom]

6. I think you misunderstand. It would be best to keep the provision.

But if that is not possible, I still think it would be foolish to oppose the entire thing, since in the long run, with or without the provision, it will benefit Mass.

Yes, we disagree on the first issue. It really is just a decision one has to make: to think that it is worth worrying about the media or not. I'm done with getting worked up about it. Plus nobody watches cable news anyway:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/cable_news_in_perspective/

It's the echo chamber which gives it so much power. Patrick Kennedy just gave it more power, not less, with his outburst.

[Mass]

7. Capuano's letter announcing he may vote NO, then listing how MA may be affected by the bill

Not surprisingly, the issue of Medicaid comes first in his justification, even if 2 and 3 are also very valid issues (not sure for 4).

I am NOT suggesting he should not voting for the bill. However, let's just say that, should he decide to do so, screwing MA in the deal will make his decision easier (and the decision of others in MA who are currently worried about their seats and know people here dont like the bill).

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/capuano-suggests-hes-leaning-no-on-health-care.php

(1) Early Expansion States - The House bill recognized that some states took the lead on expanding coverage to more citizens by "grandfathering" in their programs so they would not be harmed by the new federal proposal. This helps Massachusetts, since we are one of the leaders on this issue. The Senate bill does not take the general grandfathering approach but it includes language that specifically protects Massachusetts. Although the Senate language is not as generous as the House language, the Commonwealth does have some protection.

I am concerned that in reaction to other state-specific Senate language such as the now infamous "Cornhusker Kickback," legitimate state-specific Senate provisions will be dropped, which would seriously damage Massachusetts. In fact, a March 10th article in Politico raises this very question and reports that the President wants the Massachusetts language out of the Senate bill. It is my understanding that without some type of grandfathering language; Massachusetts could lose in the range of $300 million per year. I am gathering more information about this aspect of the bill to determine if my concerns are valid.

(2) DSH cuts - Currently, Medicare and Medicaid provide extra payments to hospitals that serve higher-than-average shares of people without health insurance. These hospitals are called Disproportionate Share Hospitals, or DSH. In the 8th District for example, Boston Medical Center and Cambridge Health Alliance both depend on millions of dollars a year in DSH payments. The Senate bill would cut DSH payments by $42 Billion per year, as opposed to the $20 Billion cut proposed in the House. Such cuts, made before a new health care system is allowed to fully develop, would curtail the amount and quality of health care provided by DSH hospitals and their uninsured patients, thereby driving these sick and poor persons to other hospitals that will not be equipped or paid to handle the medical and social challenges they present. I am looking into this aspect of the Senate bill as well.

(3) Value Index - The Senate bill includes a proposal to adopt a so-called "value index"; the House bill does not include this proposal. It would adjust the way payments to physicians and other non-hospital providers are calculated. Supporters suggest it would encourage practices that are more frugal by rewarding "low cost areas". Massachusetts is considered a "high cost area" due to various factors, including the regional cost of living, the relative poverty of the people served, and our financial commitment to educating America's next generation of doctors. There are no limits on how much a physician's payments could be reduced by this so-called "value index" and the method has never been tested at the physician level. Due to the probability of much lower payment rates to Massachusetts doctors, this proposal seems as though it would influence (1) where doctors practice (discouraging practice in Massachusetts), (2) how they treat patients in so-called "high cost areas", and (3) how many doctors will be trained in America. Absent a thorough study of the impact of this so-called "value index", it seems to me that it could seriously harm the quality of care in Massachusetts.
...

[karynnj]

8. There may be an attempt to treat states like MA fairly

Obama, facing an electorate angry over side deals in the massive package, has told congressional leaders to remove them to make the proposal more salable to the public. One of those deals is a Senate provision to reimburse Massachusetts and Vermont for having already expanded Medicaid coverage to a broader base of low-income people.

But Senator John F. Kerry, a key Obama ally in the health care talks, said the White House has given him personal assurances that Massachusetts will not suffer in the final package.

“I’m confident we will resolve this issue in a way that is fair to all states, and Massachusetts will come out stronger than we are now,’’ Kerry said as he left a Democratic Senate caucus meeting on health care. One way, he said, would be to fix the Medicaid reimbursement formula so that all states are repaid up to a certain level, giving Massachusetts what it needs without appearing to single it out for special treatment.

“We will not be penalized for going above and beyond federal mandates, and believe me, we’ve sent the message loud and clear, and I’m confident it’s been received and understood at the highest levels,’’ Kerry said. “The White House and congressional leadership have assured us that Massachusetts will get the money we deserve.’’

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/03/12/bay_state_seeks_fair_shake_in_health_bill/
This solution makes sense. It was the original unfairness of starting where the states that the MA special deal fixed. It would make more sense to correct it for all the states. (This affects not just MA, but many blue states.)

Markey is also quoted in the article as saying the "do gooder" states were mentioned specifically in the hc meeting that was held.