The Right gets considerable mileage out of criticizing Massachusetts’ state-run health plan that covers over 97% of its citizens. Case in point, listen to Glenn Beck lose his shit (aneurysm around 3:40 mark):
The Boston Globe had a different take today:
The facts – according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation – are quite different. Its report this spring put the cost to the state taxpayer at about $88 million a year, less than four-tenths of 1 percent of the state budget of $27 billion. Yes, the state recently had to cut benefits for legal immigrants, and safety-net hospital Boston Medical Center has sued for higher state aid. But that is because the recession has cut state revenues, not because universal healthcare is a boondoggle. The main reason costs to the state have been well within expectations? More than half of all the previously uninsured got coverage by buying into their employers’ plans, not by opting for one of the state-subsidized plans…
…Trying to scare off the nation from helping the uninsured get coverage, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly said recently, “You don’t have to look any further than the universal healthcare mess in Massachusetts to see disaster ahead.’’ New York Times columnist Ross Douthat on Monday accused President Obama of “pushing a health plan that looks a lot like the system currently hemorrhaging money in Massachusetts.’’
…
In Massachusetts, cost estimates for the reform plan before its passage in 2006 were so low that Romney and the reform law’s Democratic supporters in the Legislature were able to get away without creating a new tax to fund it. After the costly Wall Street bailout and the $787 billion stimulus package, that option is not open to President Obama and Congress. But Congress should not allow itself to be buffaloed by false claims about Massachusetts into fearing a tsunami of red ink.
There is one other statistic about the Massachusetts plan that politicians, in particular, should appreciate. According to Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health and the Kennedy School of Government, the law’s approval rating in June 2008 was 69 percent. That is a figure officeholders can only dream about.
I am neither equating Democrats’ national plan to Massachusetts’ plan, nor endorsing its adoption. I refrain from writing about the intricacies of health care policy because I’m no expert. As one of the “underinsured,” I do know the following:
- My health care sucks. I’ve been denied coverage twice for medical procedures because of “pre-existing conditions.” One of these occassions is the only time a doctor recommend I go “under the knife.”
- I had to change primary care doctors because mine was “out-of-network.” (I am covered through one of the nation’s largest insurance companies.)
- I’ve dealt with the IRS through work. Receiving money from them is a cakewalk compared to getting reimbursements from my insurance co.
- My Dad has more health issues than Dick Cheney. He’s no liberal, but he thanks the heavens for the insurance he gets through the Veterans’ Administration. Like Medicare, that’s a government-run program with high customer-satisfaction rates.
I highlight the above editorial because it’s a rare mainstream media counter-point to the anti-reform movement that has done an amazing job getting out their message. This is not surprising considering the mainstream media’s long-running need to regurgitate right wing talking points.
The Right can literally make shit up about Obama wanting to kill grandma and the talking heads will give it credence. Soon, Boehner will be telling you that no American will have coverage until he/she bends over while Barney Frank puts on a latex glove. Get on that hot story, Stephanopoulos.
