From the comments: Dan Winslow explains his vote for cost control legislation

Dan Winslow has taken the time to explain his vote for giving the government control over healthcare costs.  He says he reserves the right to not vote for the conference bill.  Here is his response:

The Vagaries of the Legislative Process (5.00 / 1)

As a freshman legislator, I’ve learned that votes often are not neatly packaged in decisions that can be voted up or down without some consideration of a variety of factors. This was a close vote for me, and I’m sure for a lot of my colleagues who voted yes, but I’m happy to explain the basis for my vote and to assure that my support of a conference report bill is still subject to debate.

1.  Mandate-lite amendment. It was understood by all members of the House that this bill will not reduce the cost of health insurance.  How do I know that?  Because I argued it in the most spirited aspect of the entire debate in support of my amendment to create a less expensive, mandate-lite basic health plan option for consumers.  I likened our health insurance options to a plain cheese pizza, per this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…  The amendment was voted down on a Party-line vote, with only Rep. Holmes of Boston crossing the aisle.  Yes, EVERY incumbent State Rep with a GOP challenger just voted AGAINST creating an option for consumers in health insurance that would be at least 25% less expensive (Take note, GOP challengers).

2.  Telemedicine.  The House did approve my amendment that could revolutionize access to primary care in Massachusetts, significantly reduce costs and increase job opportunities in health-related high tech in Massachusetts:  telemedicine.  For the first time ever, the House endorsed a proposal to allow all licensed doctors in the US to consult, diagnosis and treat Massachusetts residents via internet.  The MSM hasn’t discovered this yet, but it is huge and was a result of a GOP initiative.  Had the telemedicine amendment not been approved, I probably would have voted against approval of the House plan.  

3.  Better Idea?  I am a fan of the Pioneer Institute, so I asked for alternative legislation that would solve the spiraling increases in health insurance.  I believe that people who criticize any proposal have an obligation to state their better idea.  To date, I have seen no better ideas than the various plans that are pending in the legislative process.  I know that the status quo is unacceptable and I’m willing to try new ideas to get future cost increases reduced or at least under control.  Given the dysfunction in the Dems’ legislative process (the House and Senate can’t even agree to release chapter 90 funding to fix roads and potholes!), I am dubious that the House and Senate will reach agreement on a healthplan fix before the summer recess.  I reserve judgment regarding whether I will vote for the final product, but I wanted to move the process along to allow such discussion and refinement.

To vote against this proposal would be to endorse the status quo, absent a better plan to fix the problem.  Anyone got one?

by: Dan Winslow @ Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 14:13:24 PM EDT

About Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno