Mass. Health Model, Not Obama's, Pleases Voters

[cali]

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 22, 2010

Filed at 5:42 p.m. ET

BOSTON (AP) -- When Mary Foote cast her ballot in this week's special Senate election, she was thinking about how the national health care bill strayed too far from the Massachusetts model and would force her to shoulder the financial burden of expanding health care in the other 49 states.

''I think we're paying enough for the health issue in Massachusetts without paying for the rest of the nation,'' said the 50-year-old cafeteria manager from Fitchburg, Mass.

In staging his upset win for the seat that ''liberal lion'' Edward M. Kennedy held for nearly 50 years, Republican Scott Brown tapped into those fears. He vowed to block President Barack Obama's health care overhaul even as he defended the 2006 state law, which he supports and which continues to have the backing of a majority of Massachusetts voters.

The state law requires everyone who can afford it to be insured or face annual tax penalties. It also requires all businesses with 11 or more workers offer insurance or face annual penalties, and provides subsidized insurance to those earning up to three times the federal poverty level.

Brown argued that allowing the federal government to expand on the state law would result in higher taxes and deep cuts to Medicaid.

''Right now people are disgusted at the health care bill and how it's going,'' Brown said in the closing days of the campaign. ''Everybody deserves health care coverage, but we can do it better; we have done it better here in Massachusetts.''

It was a message that resonated with voters like Ann Feeney. The Boston insurance agent said that health care, along with unemployment, were the main reasons she voted for Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley.

Feeney said that while she supports the Massachusetts law and thinks everyone should have health coverage, she didn't approve of the way the national legislation was being shaped.

''I think it needs to be tweaked,'' Feeney said. ''I agree that everyone needs health insurance, but I don't agree with the way they are doing it.''

Feeney wasn't alone. A poll conducted this week by The Washington Post of 880 Massachusetts residents who said they voted in the special election found that 68 percent support the Massachusetts plan. Even among Brown voters, slightly more than half backed the 2006 law.

But support plummeted when voters were asked about health care proposals from Obama and Democrats in Congress.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/22/us/AP-US-Massachusetts-Senate-Health-Care.html

[Xipe Totec]

1. Mass. Health Model is a crock of shit

It is all about shaking down every pocket with two dimes to rub together, and nothing about making sure the insurance companies pay out when you need the services.

What goood is that?

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Brown voted for it. It must be great.

:sarcasm:

[Xipe Totec]

8. Wound, meet salt. Salt, wound

:P

[Juche]

2. Whats the difference between the two plans?

I thought the federal plan was mostly a mirror of the MA state plan. Plus the tax hikes would go to either the wealthy or to higher end health plans, so most voters wouldn't be affected.

A better title to that story would be 'low information voters don't know their asses from elbows but vote anyway'

[chelsea0011]

3. Not much, as I see it. At the heart, both plans are mandated health

insurance plans with a penalty if it is shown that you can afford health insurance and don't buy in. This is why I think people in Mass (I do live here) were confused about a national plan. I don't think it was so much as,I have mine, you get none, as a how will it affect the Mass plan when decided on a national plan. With there being no final HCR bill, it was impossible to see how it would affect Mass. and people were apt to vote against health care reform on the national level.

What is funny about the Mass health plan is that the state was able to do this because of a fund accumulated of 600-700 million dollars that had been created to pay for uninsured who may show up for care at hospitals. These funds were accumulated over the years from fees to insurers and taxes on the public. Everything republicans hate were the reasons that the state was able to start a health care plan. Now Brown is in love with the Mass plan (he voted for it) but hates the national plan because taxes and fees will be needed. What a crock.

[Vinca]

4. The plans are nearly identical and the dimwit who thinks she'll pay more

is completely uninformed. In any case, both plans are horrible. The woman I know from Massachusetts whose husband sells health insurance and can't afford it, still has no coverage as of the last election day. I suspect the current bills in Congress would turn out the same way because millionaire politicians are so out of touch with average people.

[Robb]

6. The paradigm of paucity

THIS is what happens when you allow unemployment and underemployment to climb so high. "I got mine, I can't pay for my neighbor's, because I feel a little guilty about even having mine so I'm going to assume there's an insurmountable shortage."

[CreekDog]

7. Leave it to voters to think two bills that are almost the same are vastly different

The Senate Bill is the Massachusetts bill with subsidies, exchanges and lots of health care centers.

It's the same and then it's better.