For Heck

[Chicopee John]

I'd like to exchange ideas, views, etc. about Scott Brown's decisive win in MA and how it did or did not reflect sentiment on a National scope.

 

Also, what this means in the grand scheme and how it might or might not send strong signals RE: 2010 elections.

 

I'd like to do it here but, if you prefer, contact me at either of the following:

 

johnbassilakis@yahoo.com

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Seeing as how you and I are the only people here who are from Massachusetts and know the state, this would be a pretty long conversation.

 

I think first you've got to start with how bad a candidate Coakley was, and how awful a campaign she ran. It's going to go down as one of the worst in recent political history. Last time I checked Massachusetts was only 17% registered Republican, and it's probably lower now because of the Republicans recent troubles. To lose in that environment is a crime. Personally, I thought the candidate should have been Capuano, and I doubt he would have lost. Coakley is just your traditional boring Massachusetts Democrat who can't connect with people, and whose been part of the party machine for years. But even she still should have won.

 

Then you've got to think about how good a candidate Scott Brown is. Those are the two biggest factors, before you throw in the national mood, health care, and all the rest.

 

And let's not forget - as I'm sure you haven't - that Massachusetts really doesn't have a problem electing Republicans as long as they're of a certain type. It's not the stunning development that everyone around the country thinks it is. When I was growing up we always had Republican governors - Weld, Cellucci, Swift, Romney. Romney even gave Ted Kennedy a scare in 1994. Sure, it's a blue state. But they'll vote for Republicans, just not religious Republicans. Yankee Republicans work fine.

 

People are already throwing around Brown as a presidential candidate, but let's get real - he's pro-choice in a party that will not have that. I just think all these people are so excited they didn't even bother to see what he's voted for, like abortion rights and Massachusetts' health care reform package. So unless he pulls a Romney and suddenly pretends he's not pro-choice anymore I think you can forget the national ambitions.

 

As for 2010, it's clearly not a good sign for Democrats, but I don't think it's wise to project things this far out. Lots of stuff can happen between now and then, though I don't think anyone expects the economy to come whizzing back by November so you're probably looking at a fairly significant drubbing. It's probably unlikely that Republicans win back either chamber, but it's certainly not out of the question.

 

The Democrats have to get off their ass and pass some form of the health care bill that's close to what they've already spent a year coming up with. Then they have to learn how to defend the bill because there's plenty in there to defend and the Republican plans don't even pass the laugh test. They're simply unworkable in their present form. They don't really help anyone who isn't already helped. It's the Democrats choice - they can have something to run on in 2010, something that would offer affordable health insurance to 30 million Americans who have none and pay for it with new revenues (as opposed to how Bush and the Republicans did Medicare Part D, which was to issue a new entitlement and put it on the credit card) or they can run on taking over a year to not pass health care. It's their choice. And it's so obvious that I can't understand why it's even a question. But then again, these are the Democrats.

[Chicopee John]

Thanks, Heck.

 

You are correct about a number of things, including the fact that MA has had more Republican Governors than Democrat Governors in my life time.

 

Ed Brooke was not only the last Republican representing MA in the US Senate, he was also Black - when being black wasn't all that cool.

 

Even though Dems outnumber Republicans 3-1 in the State, the number of Independents outnumber the sum of Dems and Repubs. At least in the part of the State I lived in - Western MA - there are plenty of what I would call Regan - or even Clinton Democrats - those with a lot of blue in their barks. A guy named Silvio O. Conte - a Western MA Repub - represented the State for years and years, garnering votes across the political spectrum.

 

The State has always been a Kennedy State, controlled by old time - mostly Irish Mafia politicians - including the likes of Dapper O'Neill and Louise Day Hicks (maybe even Billy Bulger) in populated areas like Southie.

 

The Springfield area was controlled by old time Democrats - also generally Irish Mafia types - like Ed Boland, O'Brien the former Kennedy buddy and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

 

 

What the last presidential election and the recent race in MA showed that, in many ways, the old political models have become obsolete. By that I mean that it is imperative to engage and activate the huge number of unaffiliated voters. If you can get them aroused, some of the old rules are no longer valid.

 

It was very surprising that the State 'turned its back on Kennedy' so quickly but, I do agree that Coakley ran a horrible campaign. People do not like being taken for granted - especially today where the perception - rightly or wrongly - is that working people are being asked to carry more and more of a burden in order to support Wall Street and the Welfare State.

 

Coakley ignored voters and Brown, seemingly, came from nowhere. However, he hit an increasing niche of activated voters who rejected the old way of doing things AND the National Health Care initiative.

 

It was not so much, IMHO, that MA already has 'national health care, as much as it is that the people do not like the health care program they have. Joe Scarborough held Governor Patrick's feet to the fire somewhat when he asked him what polls the Governor was citing because all the polls that Scarborough et al saw said that people reject the health care program.

 

My mother - a strong Kennedy and Clinton Democrat - voted for Brown because she feared that her Medicare benefits would be cut. It didn't help that there was no COLI in SS this year.

 

Brown hit a nerve and used it to pass Coakley by in an incredibly short time.

 

A guy who knows MA politics as well as anybody - Howie Carr - had folks monitoring the polls all day and had a pretty good handle on the results very early. In fact, it was Howie who called the race on Hannity's show.

 

I'll post more as I continue to think this over but I would be interested in hearing why you believe Brown was such a 'good candidate'. What aspects or attributes were important, in your opinion. I know he is a mainstream candidate so I don't believe this hindered his cause.

 

He has two hot daughters but that is another story for another time.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Hot daughters never hurt.

[Kosar_For_President]

Hot daughters never hurt.

 

I just saw that one of his daughters was on American Idol? And yes she IS hot.

[ballpeen]

Some good discussion.

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Yeah, great reading. Good think John didn't disagree with him on anything,

 

or all hell would break loose, as usual. GGG

[Chicopee John]

For those who might be interested in real MA politics (i.e. Boston), I highly recommend reading Michael MacDonald's, "All Souls Day". A heartfelt look at how Busing was used as a social experiment conducted on two lowly classes - Blacks and Working Class Bostonians.

 

It was particularly interesting to me as the setting was during my years at BU and it brought back memories of people and places in those turbulent times.

 

One might also pick up a copy of, "Brothers Bulger" by Howie Carr. However, I cannot provide insight as I have not read it. I might or might not in the future but, as of now, I don't have any immediate plans. While Whitey Bulger is the character that most would be interested, looking at his brother Billy - President of the MA Senate and former Chancelor of UMASS - likely provides an eagle nest's view of politics as a way of life (and sometimes death).

[osusev]

I am curious since you both live(d) there on your take of a opinion I hold.

 

Massachusetts already has near universal coverage so this health care "reform"/expansion does not really affect them in any dramatic way...... Basically they are focused on other topics and jobs/defecit or anything that may add too it or medicare reductions etc are the more important issues.

 

I dont think this is a rebuke of dems more of a selfish personal thing, I already have healthcare coverage, I dont want reductions in my medicare, I dont want taxed on my cadillac union health care plan, etc....

My father used to call them NIMBY (not in my backyard) self centered politics.

 

I still believe there is a siginifcant racist portion of white blue/low educated crowd(my inlaws) that hates the fact the president is black and couple that with economic/bad right wing pr etc its a toxic cocktail.

 

Now for others who are reading this dont take this as my absolute position I just think these are definate factors that cant tilt close elections.

[Chicopee John]

I am curious since you both live(d) there on your take of a opinion I hold. Massachusetts already has near universal coverage so this health care "reform"/expansion does not really affect them in any dramatic way......

 

Heck might disagree but everything I've seen (and Joe Scarborough, for that matter) shows that people of MA strongly dislike their version of "National Healthcare" and rejected the notion that National Healthcare is a good idea.

 

Plus the Dem candidate ran a race as bad - or worse - than Al Gore ran in 2000. And the voters rejected Congress, et al. It might have been the same rejection if a sitting Repub was unseated.

 

However, given the circumstances and the long history of that seat, it was striking of how much voters rejected Coakley (and probably the direction Congress has taken)

 

IMHO, it was not a matter of indifference, it was a matter of unhappiness and disgust.

 

[osusev]

Heck might disagree but everything I've seen (and Joe Scarborough, for that matter) shows that people of MA strongly dislike their version of "National Healthcare" and rejected the notion that National Healthcare is a good idea.

 

Plus the Dem candidate ran a race as bad - or worse - than Al Gore ran in 2000. And the voters rejected Congress, et al. It might have been the same rejection if a sitting Repub was unseated.

 

However, given the circumstances and the long history of that seat, it was striking of how much voters rejected Coakley (and probably the direction Congress has taken)

 

IMHO, it was not a matter of indifference, it was a matter of unhappiness and disgust.

 

They may dislike it but they have it, which is something all of the other states dont offer. Its easy to criticize and be disgusted over something that you have versus people who have nothing to be disgusted about.

 

Yes the candidate ran a bad race but again not liking a product you already have that does not help your state anyways is pretty easy to vote against.

[Chicopee John]

They may dislike it but they have it, which is something all of the other states dont offer. Its easy to criticize and be disgusted over something that you have versus people who have nothing to be disgusted about.

 

Yes the candidate ran a bad race but again not liking a product you already have that does not help your state anyways is pretty easy to vote against.

 

Well, you mind - apparently - is already made up. Why ask Heck's and my opinion???

 

[osusev]

Well, you mind - apparently - is already made up. Why ask Heck's and my opinion???

 

I am interested in your position which I was just responding to. You are right if you read my post it was about an opinion I already hold.

 

I find it oversimplified that this is about a rebuke to the Democratic party in Massachusetts, it is a rebuke when it comes to the fact that healthcare IS NOT on the top of a priority list in that state because of the near universal system they already have. Economics is more important and anything that is seen to weaken (like debt) any resolve to what Massachusetts wants is a rebuke in terms of what is more important to them.

 

Nationally health care AND economics are important... combine that with blatant lobbyist paid for right wing obstructionism and you have a lethal cocktail.... Yes the dems ran a weak candidate and a weak campaign...

 

However when Tea baggers ahem I mean tea party types start funding millions of dollars to cut into a double digit lead within 4 weeks of the election...... and the scare campaigns of cutting medicare benefits to the strongest voting block...... like I said its not rocket science. I mean come on that state elected Romney who is a Mormon and a right wing guy.... its not that big of a stretch.

 

Truly I applaud the tea party and the other right wing side for swinging the older and independents along with the white 25-45 low educated crowd in voting for them. The dems if they did not account for special interest money (which thanks to Bush appointees to the supreme court) is only going to get worse. The politicians now are going to be worried about going against anything meaningful with tea party/swiftboat and add corporate money attack adds into the mix its all pretty much downhill.

 

The funniest thing is that on the opposite side their does not exist any plan or submission, now any sort of movement because we basically have a parliamentary system at this point is gong to be virtually impossible..... 60 seats and a majority in the house plus the white house is not easy for either party to attain.

 

The delaying and obstructionist plus scare tactics funded by industry lobbyist won the day.... kudos on helping to kill more people because the bill was not perfect. Lets not forget about the thousands who die every year because they lack health insurance........... Lots to be proud of...... more bankruptcies and people fearing getting sick in an advanced country....... oooo cant wait for more health savings plans and other bs systems so they can play with money on wall street....... Antitrust exemption keeps up so they can control costs and escalate premiums if the wind blows....

 

Way to go opposition..... you successfully torpedoed and contributed to killing thousands every year! medicare cuts.... sure even though the entitlement expansion was never paid for and pushed by the "conservatives"...... yes we needed more management companies acting as middle men.

 

I am a little peeved at CLEAR state self interest hurting the rest of the nation.

[Mr. T]

I think its funny but it is also an insult on all of america when lefties use phrases like tea baggers, uneducated, and scare tactics.

 

 

 

sounds like a bunch of spoiled babies crying at their own birthday party because they did not get the present they wanted.

 

 

FYI: Medicare already has a 21% cut starting in 2010, read here

 

Many doctors are allready starting to refuse patients who cannot pay because of these medicare cuts.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't see the same polls that John is talking about, and I think Scott Brown's position on Massachusetts' health care reform should tell him something.

 

Everything I can remember is the reverse, showing the program to be very popular:

 

"Public support for Massachusetts’ closely watched health insurance overhaul has slipped over the past year, a new poll indicates, but residents still support the path-breaking 2006 law by a 2-to-1 ratio."

 

"A new poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe finds 59% of Massachusetts residents who are aware of the state's health reform legislation, which was enacted in 2006, support it. A little more than one in four oppose it (28%), and 13% are not sure. The level of public support for the law has declined somewhat in the last year, from 69% saying they support the law in 2008 to 59% in the current poll. The current number is similar to the 61% found in 2006.

 

I can also remember a poll that doctors supported it by a margin of 70%, with only 7% favoring repeal.

 

And when Scott Brown talks about it, he says Washington is doing it wrong, whereas Massachusetts is doing a better job.

 

If Mass health care reforms were so unpopular, why would he take this position? It's the other way around - they are popular, so he touts them while saying the Democrats plan for national coverage is wrong, even though they're not all that different.

 

Yes, the Massachusetts system has its flaws, but it's mostly suffering from funding issues do to the recession/loss of tax revenue.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Just saw this:

 

"51% of Brown voters support MassCare. Perhaps most amusing, 52% of Brown voters approved of Ted Kennedy’s job performance."

 

So add in Coakley voters, who overwhelmingly supported both MassCare and Obama's (I should say Democrats') plans, and I think it's pretty clear that it's got widespread support in Massachusetts.

 

You sure Scarborough wasn't talking about polls showing only 35% of Mass residents approving on the national plan?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's one of the post-polls out of Massachusetts, released today:

 

"68 percent of voters, including 51 percent of Brown voters, approve of Massachusetts’ health care reform."

[Chicopee John]

Press Releases

2008 Releases

Poll Shows Strong Support for MA Health Reform Law

 

More than two-thirds of Massachusetts residents support two-year-old reform effort

 

For immediate release: July 15, 2008

 

BOSTON, MA - Two years after the implementation of a health care reform law aimed at providing health coverage for nearly all Massachusetts residents, public support for the law remains high. According to a new poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, over two-thirds (69%) of Massachusetts residents support the law. Just over one in five (22%) oppose the law and approximately one in ten (9%) say they do not know enough about it to give an opinion. Since the law's passage in 2006, public support has increased slightly (69% in 2008 compared to 67% in 2007 and 61% in 2006). The poll was conducted June 10-23, 2008.

 

Other signs of public support for the law include the following:

 

* 77% support providing subsidized coverage

* 58% support requiring individuals to have insurance

* 71% say the law has been successful at reducing the number of uninsured in Massachusetts

 

See the full poll results.

 

"The poll was taken during a time of much public discussion by legislators and policymakers about the high costs of the plan due to greater-than-expected enrollment numbers," said Jarrett T. Barrios, president of the Blue Cross Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation. "We think this shows the public's strong support for the law."

 

In the two years since the law's passage, approximately 350,000 Massachusetts residents have gained health insurance coverage.

 

A key component of the law is a mandate requiring all Massachusetts residents to have health insurance or pay a fine. A majority of the public support this individual mandate (58%) while slightly over one-third oppose it (35%). Support for the mandate has also increased slightly since the law was passed (58% in 2008 compared to 57% in 2007 and 52% in 2006).

 

The law requires businesses that employ more than 10 people to provide health insurance for their employees or pay a fine of up to $295 per employee per year. The public is highly supportive of this provision with three out of four expressing support (75%) and one in five opposition (21%). Support for this business requirement has also risen slightly since 2006 (75% support in 2008 compared to 70% in 2006).

 

Another key component of the law is providing free or subsidized coverage for Massachusetts residents whose incomes fall below 300% of the Federal Poverty Level ($63,600 for a family of four or $31,200 for an individual). Over three-quarters (77%) of the public support this subsidized insurance program while 18% oppose it.

 

Perceptions of Success of the Law

 

The poll finds that the public is aware of the law's success at reducing the number of uninsured in the state with 14% saying the law has been very successful and 57% somewhat successful. Fifteen percent say the law has been not very successful at reducing the number of uninsured while 4% say it has been not successful at all. Nine percent say they did not know enough to give an answer.

 

"These findings have implications for the national debate on guaranteeing health insurance for all Americans," said Robert Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health. "The poll shows that it is possible to cover most citizens and maintain public support. In most past cases of health reform, the public has become less supportive as it gained understanding of the trade offs involved. Massachusetts shows that this may no longer be true."

 

Perceptions of Who the Law is Helping and Hurting

 

The public is divided on whether the law is helping the uninsured. A little less than half feel the law is helping the uninsured (45%) while one-third (33%) feel the law is hurting them. Fourteen percent say the law is not having much impact on the uninsured. The poll finds a similar split between those who feel that poor people are being helped by the law (44%) versus those who believe the poor are being hurt (31%) or not being affected (14%).

 

The poll also asked about the impact of the law on other groups such as the middle class, young adults and large corporations. A majority of the public feel that these groups are not being affected by the law or are being helped. Small businesses are the only group that a majority of Massachusetts residents feel are being hurt (56%). This compares to 13% who feel small businesses are being helped or not impacted (19%).

 

Many Massachusetts residents report that the law has had a limited impact on them personally. Just over two-thirds (67%) say the law is not having much impact on them personally compared to 14% who feel they are being helped and 18% being hurt. In addition, most people do not believe that the law has caused their health care costs to increase. Just over a majority (54%) say that the law has not had an impact on what they pay for health care while 6% say their costs have gone down. One in three (33%) say their costs have gone up as a result of the law.

 

Perceptions of the Law Among Those Affected

 

The law is most likely to have directly affected people who lacked health insurance at some point during the past 12 months and those who have gotten insurance or changed their insurance due to the law. Among this group, the law in general and the mandate in particular receive less support (52% law, 37% mandate) compared to the total population (69% law, 58% mandate). Respondents directly affected by the law are also more likely to say the uninsured and themselves personally are being hurt by the law (50% uninsured, 44% you personally) compared to the total population (33% uninsured, 18% you personally).

 

Challenges for the Future

 

The success of the law at reducing the number of uninsured in Massachusetts has created financial challenges. More people than projected signed up for subsidized coverage through the state causing the program to be over budget. When asked about a number of ways to cover this budget shortfall, several funding options receive support from a majority of Massachusetts residents. Nearly three of four (74%) favor charging businesses that have numerous part-time employees receiving subsidized coverage. Seventy percent favor increasing the cigarette tax, while 61% favor requiring insurers to contribute to a fund for subsidized coverage. Just over a majority (53%) favor increasing the $295 penalty for businesses with more than 10 employees that do not provide insurance.

 

Several policy options for covering the budget shortfall would face strong public opposition including increasing the state sales tax (75% oppose). Two out of three Massachusetts residents (66%) are opposed to limiting the number of people who qualify for subsidized insurance and creating a waiting list. Just over a majority (56%) are opposed to cutting other government programs as well. A majority of the public (55%, with 33% strongly opposing and 22% somewhat opposing) oppose increasing premiums, co-pays, and deductibles for subsidized care. Forty percent (16% strongly favor and 24% somewhat favor) support such increases on consumers.

 

Despite these financing challenges, the poll finds that Massachusetts residents want the law to continue. When asked if they would like the law to be repealed, continued as it currently stands or continued but with changes made, almost three-quarters want the law to continue though most want changes made (70% continued with changes, 14% continued as is). The poll did not ask about how the public would like to see the law changed. Only 12% want the law repealed. This is true even among the 22% of Massachusetts residents who say they do not support the law (56% continued with changes, 39% repealed, and 4% continued as is).

 

Methodology

 

The Massachusetts Health Reform Survey was conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation. The survey was designed and analyzed by a team of researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health with input and review from the Foundation. This is the third survey in a series of surveys designed to measure the attitudes of Massachusetts residents towards the health reform law passed in 2006. The second survey also included the Kaiser Family Foundation as a research partner.

 

The instrument was approximately 15 minutes in length. Interviews were conducted with 1,015 randomly selected Massachusetts state residents, age 18 and older, via telephone by International Communications Research of Media, Pennsylvania. The interviewing period was June 10 to 23, 2008. The data were weighted to accurately reflect the demographics of the state's adult population as described by the U.S. Census.

 

When interpreting these findings, one should recognize that all surveys are subject to sampling error. Results may differ from what would be obtained if the whole Massachusetts adult population had been interviewed. The size of this error varies with the number of persons surveyed and the magnitude of difference in responses to each question. The sampling error is ±3.93 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts: 26% Consider State’s Health Care Reform a Success

Monday, June 29, 2009

 

 

Twenty-six percent (26%) of Massachusetts voters say their state’s health care reform effort has been a success. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds that 37% say the reform effort has been a failure, while another 37% are not sure.

 

Only 10% of Bay State voters say the quality of health care has gotten better as a result of the reform plan while 29% say it has gotten worse. Most (53%) say the quality of care has not changed.

 

As for cost, 21% say the reform has made health care more affordable in Massachusetts. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say health care is now less affordable while 44% see no change.

 

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter.

 

The Massachusetts Health Care Reform was enacted in 2006 by Republican Governor Mitt Romney and a Democratic state legislature. Some consider it a bipartisan model for national health care reform.

 

By a 37% to 17% margin, Massachusetts liberals consider the program a success. By a 55% to 18% margin, conservatives in the state say it’s been a failure.

 

From a partisan perspective, Democrats are fairly evenly divided with 49% not sure if the reform effort has been a success or a failure. Sixty-six percent (66%) of Republicans say it’s been a failure. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 27% consider the reform plan a success while 41% say it’s been a failure.

 

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

 

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.

ShareThis

 

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

 

The Rasmussen Reports Election Edge™ Premium Service offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage available anywhere.

 

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

 

 

Exit poll: Health care mattered

 

 

By DAVID CATANESE | 1/20/10 5:42 AM EST

 

 

 

 

Scott Brown's opposition to congressional health care legislation was the most important issue that fueled his U.S. Senate victory in Massachusetts, according to exit poll data collected following the Tuesday special election.

 

Fifty-two percent of Bay State voters who were surveyed as the polls closed said they opposed the federal health care reform measure and 42 percent said they cast their ballot to help stop President Obama from passing his chief domestic initiative.

 

"I'm not surprised it was the top issue, but I was surprised by how overwhelming an issue it was. It became a focal point for the frustration that has been brewing with voters, and it's a very personal issue that affects everyone," said Tony Fabrizio of Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican firm that conducted the exit poll of 800 voters.

 

"A plurality of voters said their vote was to stop the president's health care plan — more than those saying it was a vote against his policies in general," Fabrizio wrote in a memo that accompanied his exit polling.

 

With all the precincts counted, Brown defeated Martha Coakley Tuesday by a five point spread, 52 to 47 percent. No news organizations conducted exit polls of the race.

 

According to Fabrizio's findings, 48 percent of Massachusetts voters said that health care was the single issue driving their vote and 39 percent said they voted for Brown specifically because of his vocal opposition to the measure.

 

Massachusetts has had a law in place for the past four years that requires every resident to purchase health insurance, and reaction among residents to the mandate has been mixed.

 

But Fabrizio said that program remains controversial with voters who have not seen their medical costs drop significantly. "It is grossly over budget and causing the state severe fiscal problems. In short, Massachusetts voters know the shortcomings of government health care," he said.

 

 

State’s health system popular

But backing dips in course of a year; Poll suggests costs worry the public

 

 

 

Public support for Massachusetts’ closely watched health insurance overhaul has slipped over the past year, a new poll indicates, but residents still support the path-breaking 2006 law by a 2-to-1 ratio.

 

Amid a severe recession that has led to cuts in state programs and unrelenting job losses, 59 percent of those surveyed said they favored the state’s multimillion-dollar insurance initiative, down from 69 percent a year ago. The poll, by the Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe, found that opposition to the law stands at 28 percent, up slightly from 22 percent in a June 2008 survey.

 

Percolating throughout the poll findings is a gnawing concern over rising health care costs, suggesting that support could erode further if the state fails to slow the growth of medical spending.

 

With key features of the state law at the heart of the blistering national health care debate in Congress, architects and observers of the Massachusetts plan say the poll findings indicate that a national overhaul is not only possible, but politically viable.

 

“Three years in operation, and with 97 percent of people covered, you have a majority of support, and that is a lesson for Washington,’’ said Robert J. Blendon, a health policy professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and the poll’s co-director.

 

The poll found that 79 percent of those surveyed wanted the law to continue, though a majority said there should be some changes, with cost reductions cited as the single most important change that needs to be made.

 

Only 11 percent of state residents favored repealing the law, similar to last year’s finding.

 

In another question, residents were nearly evenly split over whether Massachusetts could afford to continue with the law as it stands: 43 percent said the state could not, and 40 percent said it could.

 

Double-digit increases in premiums have become almost routine in Massachusetts, with the state’s major insurers saying they will raise rates about 10 percent next year. This trend began well before the overhaul passed, however, and when asked whether the law was having an impact on the cost of their own care, only about one-quarter of those surveyed said the law was “hurting’’ their own costs.

 

The Massachusetts law requires nearly everyone to have health insurance or pay a penalty. All but the smallest companies must offer coverage to employees or pay a fine.

 

The law also created a new taxpayer-subsidized health insurance program for people who are not covered through an employer and earn too much to qualify for Medicaid.

 

To help balance the state budget earlier this year, lawmakers cut 70 percent of the funding for subsidized health insurance for about 30,000 legal immigrants, a move that sparked widespread debate.Continued...

 

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/...l#ixzz0dilFuPtZ

 

 

 

 

[Westside Steve]

So for clarification:

How similar is the Senate bill to the Massachusetts law?

And:

If you had the final call, Heck, is the Senate bill what you would choose for the country?

 

That is you prefer it to any other system available such as single payer.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, the Senate bill is not what I'd choose for the country, but we don't get to choose what we want. We get to choose what the process produces, and that's what's on the table. It can be amended later on, and some of those amendments can later be struck. For instance, Ben Nelson has already agreed to remove his Nebraska pay-off in the reconciliation phase, perhaps understanding how unseemly that sounds to normal people.

 

However, there are lots of good things in that Senate bill, and many things that will do lots of good, and many things that Americans support and will benefit greatly from. You're providing affordable insurance to 30 million people who don't have it. It's a huge step in the right direction, and you can build more on that later. And the fact that most Americans don't know that there are lots of good things in the bill has less to do with the fact that there are lots of good things in the bill than it does with the fact that Democrats can't stand up for themselves and always allow the Republican demagoguery (death panels! socialism! government takeover!) to rule the day. They're as infuriating as the Republicans are hopeless and bankrupt.

 

So I hope they pass the Senate bill and amend it later on in reconciliation. It makes substantive sense. It makes political sense. Which is why I'm worried the Democrats won't do it, choosing instead to go mining for a couple Republican votes on areas of agreement, apparently not understanding that the whole game is to not vote for a single major piece of legislation Obama wants in order to ruin his presidency and regain power in the House and Senate, and later the White House.

 

If they don't understand this by now they deserve to lose.

[calfoxwc]

And the fact that most Americans don't know that there are lots of good things in the bill has less to do with the fact that there are lots of good things in the bill than it does with the fact that Democrats can't stand up for themselves and always allow the Republican demagoguery (death panels! socialism! government takeover!) to rule the day. They're as infuriating as the Republicans are hopeless and bankrupt. Heck

*******************************************************************

Well, so much for

 

"thoughtful and honest evaluations"

 

just more liberal spin that is completely undocumented political bigotry. It was a fine discussion while it lasted...

[Westside Steve]

Just for the record; sure there will be "death panels" no matter what name you give them.

Of course there are death panels now.

 

It'll just be Henry Waxman instead of Mark Bertolini.

 

WSS