Romney's rush to reform healthcare

MITT ROMNEY is a desperate man.

The Republican governor of Massachusetts desperately wants to sign something he can call ''healthcare reform" into law and take it on the national campaign trail.

Massachusetts Democrats, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy, are working with him to see if the Bay State can afford to become the first to insure everybody. The cooperation is commendable, if surprising, since Romney routinely denigrates Massachusetts and its politics, even as he hopes to broker a healthcare package. On his most recent trip to Washington, Romney leveled a highly personal attack at the Supreme Judicial Court for legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Romney also laughed when he was introduced as someone who fights against the ''modern-day KKK . . . the Kennedy-Kerry Klan," although he later distanced himself from the remark.

A curious mix of political will and calculation, fueled by powerful business interests, is helping Romney -- so far.

First, there is genuine bipartisan desire to extend coverage to the uninsured and help the hospitals, insurance companies, and HMOs that are an essential engine of the Massachusetts economy. Senate President Robert Travaglini embraced healthcare reform, Romney picked up on it, and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi advanced the cause.

Now to the politics: A one-term governor with a thin political resume, Romney needs a major accomplishment. After settling on healthcare as the goal, he is allowing Democrats to control the public debate.

Kennedy, who is working behind the scenes to move things along, wants Massachusetts to lead the nation on healthcare reform.

Travaglini and DiMasi both want Romney out of the way. Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey and her campaign to succeed Romney will be even more entertaining than Jane Swift during her tenure as acting governor.

The healthcare community tapped into Romney's urgent political agenda as a way to make its quest to increase Medicaid reimbursement a priority.

What do all these political and business interests mean for the average citizen?

Romney, the House, and the Senate advocate three very different proposals. Each promises to extend government-funded Medicaid coverage to the uninsured. How much of an expansion and who pays varies from plan to plan.

In an interview, state Attorney General Thomas Reilly said he supports the goal of achieving universal healthcare. But he expressed concern over the rush to rewrite healthcare law by Jan. 15. That date is routinely referred to by legislative reform proponents as the deadline for the state to submit a plan to reduce the number of uninsured residents or lose $385 million in Medicaid funding.

Speaking generally about the three proposals, Reilly said, ''This is a major restructuring of our healthcare insurance system that will impact people in ways they haven't begun to appreciate or understand. . . . Shouldn't we know all the implications before it becomes law?" He went on to warn that ''January 15 is an artificial deadline for the type of overhaul that is being proposed right now. . . . Any larger restructuring needs time." In a separate interview, DiMasi conceded that Massachusetts has until July 1 to implement a plan to reduce the number of uninsured residents.

Reilly, who hopes to be the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in 2006, may have his own political reasons for slowing down the healthcare reform train. His opponent, Deval Patrick, embraced the most ambitious healthcare package, proposed by the House. But the AG's questions have merit. What benefits will be covered? What is the actual cost of buying insurance? What are the deductibles? What are the co-payments?

Calling something ''reform" does not guarantee reform. Creating crisis via artificial deadline may motivate politicians, but it does not necessarily create good policy.

The fact that 750,000 Massachusetts residents have no health insurance should outrage the community at large. The most basic political question should be: What does it take to change that?

It is commendable that Massachusetts is leading this debate. But true healthcare reform does more than increase a stream of money to healthcare providers. It demands accountability in return. It should also lower cost to the consumer.

And Romney's political agenda is the last reason for rushing debate over healthcare reform. Long after he is gone, the people of Massachusetts will have to live with the outcome of his desire to polish his resume.

Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.