The Boston Globe editors defend the Massachusetts health insurance reform with a combination of regional metaphors and misinformation:
The "Big Dig"? Relying on the notion that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public, I predict that the "Big Dig" metaphor will provoke the Big Headscratch outside of New England. When defending Massachusetts to the nation, write to the nation - talk about Reversing the Curse, or some such.
Let's press on to the phony numbers in the second paragraph:
Wow, the reforms only cost $88 million a year? We're talking chump change.
But wait! That number was carefully spun and packaged by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation for their report. What they really reported was that projected state spending would increase by $350 million by the fourth fiscal year of the reforms. On average, spending would rise by $88 million above the baseline in the first year, $176 million in the second, $264 million in the third year, and $350 million in the fourth. In fact, projected spending is much higher in year 3, at $408 million, and is projected to drop in year 4 to $353 million (don't snicker) as transitional payments to hospitals providing services to the poor are eliminated (Which might happen!).
So, what the Globe is cheerfuly describing as a cost of a mere $88 million per year is really a cost *increase* averaging $88 million per year. But I like their thinking - if they don't raise the newsstand price of their paper they can report that it costs me nothing to buy it. Quite a promotion.
The MTF report also includes the news that the state has transferred the larger part of the burden to employers:
Massachusetts fined employers who didn't offer health insurance and fined individuals who didn't obtain it. That is a major cost shifting off of the books of the State of Massachusetts, but not off of the books of the good people of the great state of MA.
There's an awful lot of disingenuity goin' on out there.
Posted by: Extraneus | August 05, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Yeah but what is not mentioned is individual costs. The cost of my premium has tripled since we implemented this plan to nearly $700 a month (for a healthy person). I have to book my doctor's appointments a year in advance (and then it takes 14 months). It's a disaster.
Posted by: Jane | August 05, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Via HotAir:
Quinnipiac poll has disapproval of O's handling of healthcare at 52-39.
More tasty disapproval breakdown:
Independents: 60-34
Women: 49-41
Under 18: 48-44
Low income: 47-43
Now that the majority has spoken, it becomes for the WH merely a question of "how are we going to ram it down their throats anyway?"
Posted by: Porchlight | August 05, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Here's what Massachusett's is getting in health care aid from the feds through the stimulus bill.
http://www.massbudget.org/documentsearch/findDocument?doc_id=657&dse_id=726
I think they'll find it a little harder to close the gap once that's gone.
Posted by: Dan Collins | August 05, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Now that the majority has spoken, it becomes for the WH merely a question of "how are we going to ram it down their throats anyway?"
If that, in fact, happens, that is what the 2nd ammendment is for. After TARP. After Porkulous. After all this. If they pass cap and trade and death care over the objections of the citizens, then it's time to do something to shut these jokers down.
Posted by: Pofarmer | August 05, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Po- oh, my. Someone's gotta have notified [email protected] by now.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | August 05, 2009 at 04:05 PM
Dave,
Did you see this:
More Skeptical Constituents . . . at University of Massachusetts Medical School?
Years and years ago, I covered Washington for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette as part of a small Washington wire service. This meant chatting regularly with Rep. Jim McGovern, probably once of the nicest guys you'll ever meet, as well as one of the House's most liberal members, from a heavily Democratic district.
I cringe when I hear he was compared to Josef Mengele at a recent constituent meeting, but it appears he and Rep. Richard Neal got an earful:
U.S. Reps. James P. McGovern and Richard E. Neal were heckled and booed after trying to rally support today for President Barack Obama's plan for a comprehensive national health insurance program.
The two Worcester-area Democratic lawmakers were shouted down several times by people attending a packed “town hall” meeting at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.
When there's skepticism and criticism in McGovern's district, it's well beyond a right-wing Republican phenomenon. The UMass Med School doesn't strike me as hotbed of small-government libertarianism. It sounds like McGovern came through without any hard feelings: “This is still the United States of America and people have the right to be heard . . . The meeting wasn't perfect and it wasn't always polite but I got the opportunity to express my view on the subject.”
From Jim Geraghty
Posted by: Jane | August 05, 2009 at 04:29 PM
Jane, thanks. Here's audio from the Felon and Feinburg show on how these Øvangelists for the regime are meeting up with a lot of resistance!
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | August 05, 2009 at 04:55 PM
That's great Dave. MA may be waking up.
Posted by: Jane | August 05, 2009 at 07:49 PM
They are cancelling state coverage for the thousands of legal aliens residing in the state.
How would this affect the cost of obtaining private insurance?
Posted by: DAVOD | August 06, 2009 at 04:14 PM
The liberal rhetoric is just the start. I have been reading that the Democrats, Progressives and and their union and cohorts are getting ready to strike back.
Do not underestimate the power of these groups to put a hundred times as many protestors on the streets. With the power of the media behind them, it will be quite easy to sway public opinion back to the Progressive approach.
Posted by: DAVOD | August 06, 2009 at 04:27 PM
PS:
There was a reason I mentioned the possibility that the Progressives could have masses of protestors on the streets.
Conservatives are emphasizing the large groups of protestors at the town hall meetings. If far more pro-reform protestors hit the streets, the reformists win.
The Administration and media spin would be hard to overcome.
Posted by: DAVOD | August 06, 2009 at 04:38 PM