I'm no insider, but I expect that all of these offers are made privately so that they can be declined without embarrassment for either party. IOW, if an offer is made and declined, we'll likely never know.
Politicians always say they aren't interested in appointments in advance. It would be foolish for Healey to announce she's interested in the job as everyone would assume she's a lame duck. Plus it would be embarrassing if she wasn't offered the position should Harris win.
At least wait until after the election to speculate who'd be in her cabinet.
Would President Harris have someone in her administration who signed the infamous, abhorrent Sackler settlement as AG and who appointed their once longtime co-habitating romantic partner to a lifetime appointment to the high court? Well…. maybe, moral literacy is in short supply these days. I voted for Obama twice before learning corporate earnings jumped 50% under Obama-Biden. We are blind to who the corporate shills are. Under the cover of hyper-partisanship the deeds are done.
Healey has been governor for a year and a half. Just how much of the Steward Health Care debacle happened on her watch? Do you think this is something she should have handled as AG, and if so, how?
Letting two hospitals close within 30 days without the state stepping in is on her watch: she didn't even make them stay open the 90 days the law calls for. Based on this article, not providing those left in the lurch with any information or options is on her watch. Extraordinary times calls for extraordinary measures, not the whatever she's been doing.
Lets not even discuss the legislature doing absolutely zero in this session to keep future private equity health care debacles from happening... perhaps she could've used her bully pulpit there? But I mostly blame the hacks Mariano and Spilka for that.
letting two hospitals close within 30 days without the state stepping in
You understand that this decision was made by a bankruptcy court in Texas, not Massachusetts. I'd like to think as Maura's former job being AG, she would know what she could do and what she could not do legally. I don't think there was much for her to do except pony up state funds to just buy the hospital itself. But then again, because the buildings and land are owned by a, now, debitor, it creates yet another layer of complexity. Because as a debitor, that company has 'rights' to claim its debt in bankruptcy court, and the state stepping in would be the gov't overstepping its boundaries. (I do not agree with this btw, just stating the facts)
So if the state bought both the hospital function AND wanted the buildings, the state would then inherit the debt owed to buildings owners. So the state would pay out even more.
And that is if the 'private parasite erm equity firm' would allow the sale. Again, the state can only do so much, especially with the proceedings being in Texas. And we've seen this with the owners putting up a stink about St Elizabeths (because they know the land is worth a whole lot more than anything).
I don't think this is really a Maura Healey failure, it just happened during her term. This has been in the works longer than she has been Governor.
But I will give you this, she's been a bit of a disappointment in general to this democrat. Maybe not this issue, but others.
Comments
Isn't that what they all say
until they get the actual call?
Would we know?
I'm no insider, but I expect that all of these offers are made privately so that they can be declined without embarrassment for either party. IOW, if an offer is made and declined, we'll likely never know.
Yes.
That is what they all say.
What a pointless question
Politicians always say they aren't interested in appointments in advance. It would be foolish for Healey to announce she's interested in the job as everyone would assume she's a lame duck. Plus it would be embarrassing if she wasn't offered the position should Harris win.
At least wait until after the election to speculate who'd be in her cabinet.
Would President Harris have
Would President Harris have someone in her administration who signed the infamous, abhorrent Sackler settlement as AG and who appointed their once longtime co-habitating romantic partner to a lifetime appointment to the high court? Well…. maybe, moral literacy is in short supply these days. I voted for Obama twice before learning corporate earnings jumped 50% under Obama-Biden. We are blind to who the corporate shills are. Under the cover of hyper-partisanship the deeds are done.
I suspect she expects Trump to win.
The media are for Trump, because he's good for their bottom line.
Hell, the media *created* Trump.
That's why
he won in 2020, huh?
Two things can be true
Trump lost in 2020, and the media is most definitely shilling for him.
We've heard this before
Looking at you Liz!
https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/15/politics/warren-denies-president/index.html
Key Difference
Warren was running for president. As in, campaigning.
Healey is talking about being appointed to a cabinet or other administration position, not a voter-ratified promotion.
Based on current events...
Especially considering her lack of leadership on Steward Health Care, I'd say many of us would be happy if she moved on up to DC.
On her watch?
Healey has been governor for a year and a half. Just how much of the Steward Health Care debacle happened on her watch? Do you think this is something she should have handled as AG, and if so, how?
I'm no expert but...
Letting two hospitals close within 30 days without the state stepping in is on her watch: she didn't even make them stay open the 90 days the law calls for. Based on this article, not providing those left in the lurch with any information or options is on her watch. Extraordinary times calls for extraordinary measures, not the whatever she's been doing.
Lets not even discuss the legislature doing absolutely zero in this session to keep future private equity health care debacles from happening... perhaps she could've used her bully pulpit there? But I mostly blame the hacks Mariano and Spilka for that.
Yeah
You understand that this decision was made by a bankruptcy court in Texas, not Massachusetts. I'd like to think as Maura's former job being AG, she would know what she could do and what she could not do legally. I don't think there was much for her to do except pony up state funds to just buy the hospital itself. But then again, because the buildings and land are owned by a, now, debitor, it creates yet another layer of complexity. Because as a debitor, that company has 'rights' to claim its debt in bankruptcy court, and the state stepping in would be the gov't overstepping its boundaries. (I do not agree with this btw, just stating the facts)
So if the state bought both the hospital function AND wanted the buildings, the state would then inherit the debt owed to buildings owners. So the state would pay out even more.
And that is if the 'private parasite erm equity firm' would allow the sale. Again, the state can only do so much, especially with the proceedings being in Texas. And we've seen this with the owners putting up a stink about St Elizabeths (because they know the land is worth a whole lot more than anything).
I don't think this is really a Maura Healey failure, it just happened during her term. This has been in the works longer than she has been Governor.
But I will give you this, she's been a bit of a disappointment in general to this democrat. Maybe not this issue, but others.