Yes, we know it will be described by the Coakley campaign and others as simply a political move by the Berwick campaign against the Coakley campaign.
But, gee, it's the first time members of the public are offering their view about the inappropriateness of the deal signed between the Attorney General and Partners Healthcare System. Look at these examples:
And that view--regardless of legal niceties or political framing--is correct. It's important for members of the public to stand up and be counted.
Won't you please join in?
What's the alternative???????
ReplyDeletePartners is likely not to agree to anything more severe so then it's litigation which will probably take years and has no guarantee.
There is actually nothing stopping Partners from folding in SSH tomorrow, it can be undone in the future with potentially bigger consequences.
In other jurisdictions, the state and the FTC/DOJ have worked together to hold up mergers, even in places where the consequences were less severe. In some, the cases never even went to trial once the proponent understood what they were up against.
ReplyDeleteHere, there was clearly some inside agreement by the DOJ to stand by. We can only guess why. I personally think it is because the Obama Administration views Coakley as having the best chance of winning against Republican Charlie Baker in the gubernatorial general election.
But the feds reportedly now are upset with the laxity of measures included in the deal. Notice that there has been no statement directly from DOJ that they support the deal, and no public appearance by any DOJ official, only an indirect wishy-washy comment that the AG was authorized to make on their behalf.
So, the AG's argument that this is a more effective alternative to protracted and possibly unsuccessful litigation is, in great measure, a canard.
Republicans will win across the board because of people like Martha, deals like this and Obama and his
ReplyDelete"care'.