The New York Times also seemed conflicted by what to make of the health care messages. The paper said it was “difficult to gauge” success or failure of the health care bill as a potent issue for voters. Said the Times:
Massachusetts already has near-universal health coverage, thanks to a law passed when Mitt Romney, a Republican, was governor.
It concluded that the national bill would have little effect on how many of its residents got coverage, “making it an unlikely place for a referendum on the health care bill.” As for the point Richard Parker was making, well, the Times missed it.
The PBS NewsHour didn’t stray far off the reservation either. It assembled a panel of its usual experts, The Washington Post’s Ceci Connolly and National Journal’s Amy Walter, and added Jennifer Nassour, chair of the Massachusetts Republican Party. Much of what they explored was predictable—are people angry; is Massachusetts as blue as everyone thought; what about those independents?
Massour did give some reasons for voter frustration, but no one connected any dots. She said that “Democrats in the [Massachusetts] House and the Senate decided that right now is a great time to increase our sales tax by 25 percent during a recession.” It’s reasonable to assume that people are unhappy about the tax, but the NewsHour show did not mention the reason for the hike: the state needed the money to pay for health reform. Massachusetts has no dedicated funding source for the subsidies it pays people to buy insurance, and the cost of those subsidies goes up because medical costs keep going up. It’s a shame the NewsHour didn’t link the tax increase to the lack of cost control in the Massachusetts law and the federal bill. How far that would have gone toward public understanding.
Gail Collins got it right yesterday in her New York Times column:
My positive thought is that we should appreciate what a good outlet democracy can be for public dissatisfaction.
Great post, Trudy. My vote for Brown was indeed a vote against national health care, as were those of many of my friends. Any thinking person can see that expanding coverage will increase costs.
People are disgusted with the way Obama and the Democratic Congress have acted - cutting deals behind closed doors, paying off recalcitrant Senators, and refusing to even consider conservative concerns such as tort reform. If this is such a great deal, why the midnight votes on Saturdays? Why not put the process on C Span, as promised? Why not post drafts of the legislation for comment? The more you think about it, the more insulting their actions have been.
Hey, if even Bob Herbert is fed up, you KNOW Obama' in trouble!
#1 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sat 23 Jan 2010 at 10:44 PM
Most people I know are love the ability to see doctors when they are sick I can not imagine not being for health care for all. It is really cold hearted not to support the ability for people to get health care when they are sick.
#2 Posted by Suzen, CJR on Sun 31 Jan 2010 at 08:26 PM
Everybody has the ability to see a doctor. The procedure is uncomplicated:
1. Schedule an appontment.
2. See the doctor
3. Pay the bill (Or pay the insurance premium).
If you can't pay your bill, then Medicaid covers you. If you can't get Medicaid, then you can afford to pay the bill.
If you are suffering a medical emergency, go the emergency room. Hospitals are required to treat you regardless of your ability to pay.
What's the problem?
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 31 Jan 2010 at 08:49 PM
padikiller is seriously misinformed about present access to medical care--at least in Massachusetts. 1. Schedule an appointment. Most doctors aren't taking new patients, with or without insurance. 2. See the doctor. Many doctors have a waiting period of months or weeks. The solution? Go to an emergency room if you need care right away. 3A. Pay the bill, Heard of medical bankruptcies? It's all the rage. 3B.(or pay the insurance premium.) Insurance companies are becoming very selective in whom they will cover. When I was terminated from our plan by Blue Cross for turning 65, so was my dependent son. 4.If you can't afford to pay your bill, then Medicaid covers you. False. Employees who can't afford their group coverage are expressly denied.
#4 Posted by Eileen Wheeler Sheehan, CJR on Mon 8 Feb 2010 at 02:19 PM
Same day, affordable, walk-in medical care right in the heart of the People's Republic of Massachusetts - no appointment necessary:
http://www.readymed.org/
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 8 Feb 2010 at 06:35 PM
Great piece, Trudy! My wife and I can no longer afford the measly BCBS policy we had as it went up to almost $800 in 2 yrs! It had a $2,000 for each of us and BCBS made it so many procedures, tests, don't count toward the deductible, so it wasn't real insurance anyway. My wife and I are only 50 and 51 respectively and will lose everything we have if we become ill. We don't qualify for subsidy (we are self employed) but cannot afford $10,000/yr for a policy we can't even use. But we're "lucky" we don't have to pay the $178 monthly fine because we don't make enough. Wait 'til the rest of the country wakes up . . . . oh, and I wonder for whom is "padikiller" working?
#6 Posted by Herb, CJR on Wed 23 Jun 2010 at 06:57 PM
"Wait 'til the rest of the country wakes up . . . . oh, and I wonder for whom is "padikiller" working?"
I work for reality... This is why you can't address the undeniable truth of my posts.
Pay your bills. Buy your own insurance. Don't expect the government to provide for you.
What a radical concept!
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 23 Jun 2010 at 07:57 PM
Padkiller doesn't work for anyone, he's a self made troll.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 24 Jun 2010 at 01:37 AM