The front page of the Sunday Union Leader reminds us of Governor Lynch's fence-sitting credentials. He is unhappy with the deal Nebraska (and other states) got, probably because New Hampshire didn't get one too. My take is that Mr. Lynch is not against a loss of states rights, or an increase in federal dollars required to fund whatever the feds decide, but he is leary of being the governor if the state has to pay for it on his watch.
So he's really not sitting on a fence is he.
Further along in the article the congressional delegation chimes in.
Mr. Hodes takes the Lynch approach. He claims to oppose special treatment, but wants to see what the final bill looks like. What makes this statement more remarkable is that Mr. Hodes is not known for looking at bills, nor has the leadership been inclined to let him. This has never affected his voting in the past so we have no reason to suspect it will on this.
Carol Shea-Porters office is sticking to the party line, "to make health care more affordable and accessible to New Hampshire families." Carol is waiting to see the results of reconciliation. Clue less Carol strikes again. First, the cost to New Hampshire families, no matter what the outcome, will greatly exceed any change in access, which for many on Medicare will decline. We also know the Senate bill will make health care more expensive, by admission, so just assume it will cost exponentially more than the admission allows. Finally, reconciliation is a bi-partisan open process the democrats frown upon. They have committed to a hidden ping-pong process to which even Carol is probably not privy. So nothing in Rep Shea-Porters statement nears reality as we know it. What she is waiting for is Nancy Pelosi to tell her to vote for it.
Senator Shaheen's office suggests that there is a an effort underway to help all states equally. She refers to the 100% coverage for the first three years as if this is a new idea which it is not, and ignores the increased taxes deployed in that same time frame to pay those costs; all part of the trillion dollar disguise designed to make the costs look less than an arbitrary number. She would like us to toe the liberal line that the result while imperfect can be fixed later. But whatever the new deception, it will still require more and higher taxes, pick winners and losers, and punish business, jobs and growth. It will also remove power from the state and give it to the federal government, which is a significant abrogation of her duty to her constituents. Jeanne always chooses party over people and this is no exception.
Finally, Senator Gregg opposes the whole business, but adds that policy at the federal level should always be designed to cover everyone equally. I'd rather he were more inclined to discuss how dialing back government equally would actually be a better solution, (to most problems) but in his defense that was not the point of the question. He's against this. As long as he stays away from trying to fix this bill--which is impossible--he's on safe ground.