[Please sign the petition, above, and ask Boston to stop allowing the federal government to turn our local police into border patrol agents.]

Boston has made one mistake too many in trying to enforce federal immigration law.

The city is currently enrolled in the federal program with the Orwellian name Secure Communities (S-Comm), which forces local police to check the immigration status of anyone they arrest. The Obama administration wants to force every local police force in the U.S. to enroll in this program by 2013, but states and localities across the nation are resisting. If migrant communities are afraid to go to their local police officers to report crimes, then all residents are less safe. Following the governors of Illinois and New York, the governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, recently declined to participate in the program.

While the program is under review in Boston, the latest Boston Globe article from Maria Sacchetti makes clear that the time for Boston to terminate its S-Comm program is now. With DREAMer Lizandra DeMoura now in deportation proceedings, this program has manifestly done enough damage to our communities.

In 2006, one of the first official acts of Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis was to refuse then Gov. Mitt Romney's request to use local police forces to enforce federal immigration law. What wouldn't be made public until four years later is that while Davis was publicly decrying the involvement of local police in enforcing federal immigration law, privately, the Boston Police Department was the pilot for a program that would check the immigration status of everyone they arrested, a program which would later come to be known as S-Comm.

It's easy to understand why the federal government approached Boston about doing this. As one of the most pro-migrant major cities in the U.S., involving Boston early would blunt criticism against S-Comm later. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also promised all participants in S-Comm that the purpose of the program would be to target the worst of the worst for deportation.

Continue reading »

According to Village protocol, the only permissible "debate" on the deficit is over how much do we cut, and how? Should we cut into the veins, arteries or capillaries? Should we use a hatchet, a knife or a scalpel, or all of the above?

On This Week with Christiane Amanpour, the closest thing they had to a liberal voice was Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who tried to have it both ways. He kinda-sorta sidestepped the idea of tax increases, proclaimed his support of "fiscal responsibility" but defended Obama's call for certain kinds of spending:

President Obama's deficit-reduction speech wasn't just about numbers but what kind of country America will become, Governor Deval Patrick said this morning during an appearance on ABC's "This Week" news program.

While Republicans have criticized the partisan nature of last week's address, in which Obama proposed cutting $4 trillion over 12 years, Patrick said the critics glossed over its overarching theme.

“It’s a fiscally responsible but also mutually responsible kind of community, and I support that," the governor told host Christiane Amanpour.

Patrick also said: “It thought the speech … was a real leadership moment. I think that the president took us to the place where we really ought to be debating — it’s been the subtext for a long time — and that's, what kind of country do we want to be? That’s the underlying question in terms of the budget and the deficit and health care, as well, for that matter, and that’s what we should be debating.”

George Will, of course, is worse than useless. He talked about the grand days under Jack Kennedy, when people paid a much bigger proportion of their medical expenses -- with nary a hint of understanding that medical expenses have gone through the roof since then, and that U.S. wages have actually declined in the last 30 years. But that isn't as much fun to harrumph about.

The next time a wealthy talking head talks about our need to have some "skin in the game," why don't we peel ours off and leave it on his doorstep?

This isn't a new idea, and it's not limited to Massachusetts. (When I first read about it, it was called "tiered" coverage.) I expect we're going to see it spread, though, because the just-passed federal legislation doesn't actually reform the health care system, and much of the much-vaunted "access" is in name only.

Which means the fight isn't over. Because if you have a serious health problem and your coverage will send you to the facility that doesn't have such a great track record, you're out of luck:

Health insurers are starting to sell policies that largely bar consumers from receiving medical care at popular but expensive hospitals such as Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s — a once radical idea that is gaining traction as a way to control soaring health care costs.

Governor Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray have included such restricted provider networks in their recent legislative proposals to control rising insurance rates. And the state this month began offering limited-network plans to 300,000 state employees, retirees, and their families, promising 20 percent discounts on premiums if they are willing to give up access to some of the Boston area’s most renowned hospitals.

Dolores Mitchell, executive director of the agency that oversees health insurance for state employees, said she wants “to send a message to the more expensive [provider] organizations that, ‘Hey, we’re not going to just sit still and do nothing’" as medical costs climb year after year.

But even as state officials promote the idea, there are obstacles to its wide adoption. Some of the state’s largest insurers have contracts with powerful teaching hospitals and doctors’ groups that could make it difficult to exclude them. And Massachusetts consumers and employers have long cherished choosing from a broad range of providers.

In a yearlong investigation into rising health care costs completed last month, Attorney General Martha Coakley cited "distorted" contracting practices as one factor. She found that providers with market clout have negotiated clauses in their contracts that prohibit or inhibit insurers from creating plans intended to steer patients away from them. She did not name the companies involved, but said regulators and lawmakers should move to discourage or forbid these practices.

Certain providers “are strong enough to dictate which products get into the market," agreed Rick Weisblatt, senior vice president for health services at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, the state’s second largest insurer.

This is probably the most important new today for the future of healthcare reform, and I'm glad to say it looks like Gov. Patrick will be making a quick appointment.

And hell no, I don't care that the Massachusetts Democrats are being "hypocrites." Puh-LEEZE. This is coming from the same Republican party that dragged us down to our current state of woe? Play me a song on that tiny violin, wontcha, fellas?

BOSTON — The push for swiftly naming an interim successor to Senator Edward M. Kennedy intensified Wednesday in the wake of his death, with Gov. Deval Patrick coming out strongly in favor of the idea and other top state lawmakers indicating they were reluctant to leave the seat vacant for months.

Mr. Kennedy, concerned about the loss of a Democratic vote during the fevered effort to pass a national health care overhaul — his most cherished legislative goal — had asked state leaders in a letter last week to make such a change possible.

Wednesday, Democrats in Washington stepped up pressure on the governor to see Mr. Kennedy’s wish fulfilled, and state legislative leaders said they would immerse themselves in the issue after a mourning period for Mr. Kennedy.

Under current law, a special election could not take place until at least 145 days after a Senate seat opens, in this case, mid-January. Mr. Kennedy’s proposal would let Mr. Patrick, a Democrat, appoint a temporary replacement sooner.

The governor said he would sign a change in the law if the legislature approved it. He said it was important for Massachusetts to have two voices in the Senate as Congress prepares to vote on overhauling the health care system — contentious legislation whose passage may well require every Democratic vote.

“It’s a particularly timely request at a time when there are such profoundly important issues pending in the Congress,” Mr. Patrick told reporters outside the State House, adding that he had spoken with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, earlier in the day about the importance of filling Mr. Kennedy’s seat. “I’m looking at the issues that are in front of the country right now and how important they are to all of us.”

Republicans have attacked Mr. Kennedy’s proposal as flagrantly partisan, and indeed, the state’s Democrats are in the awkward position of being asked to reverse their own 2004 vote to keep vacant Senate seats empty until a special election.