As a former resident of Massachusetts, I can tell you firsthand that the election was not only a referendum on the health care plan but also on the massive spending that is being done by this administration. Claiming that Scott Brown “instilled fear” in the voters is an insult to their intelligence. Scott Brown ran a positive campaign focusing on the issues. He never said a negative word personally about Martha Coakley and made an effort to praise her throughout the campaign. He focused the campaign on the issues. He consistently said he would be the 41st vote against the current health care bill, which is more about government power than health care. Scott Brown’s message resonated with voters. These voters were well informed and made a clear choice.
As for the majority of residents being covered, according to the latest Census Bureau figures, 5.5 percent of the state’s population did not have coverage in 2008, up from the 2.6 percent who didn’t soon after reform took effect.
The program in Massachusetts is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high even for minimal coverage.
An individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable co-payments for office visits and medications.
The costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth care subsidized program has doubled, from $603 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.
The Democrats in the Massachusetts House and Senate have decided that now is a great time to increase the sales tax by 25 percent. Massachusetts has no dedicated funding source for the subsidies that it pays people to buy insurance, and the cost of those subsidies goes up because medical costs keep going up.
As for the United States cost per capita, it is a fact that, as economies grow richer, they tend to spend more on certain services, such as medical services. For example, in France, medical expenditures account for only around 11 percent of total spending. However, per capita income in France is also 31 percent below that of the United States.
Making changes to a vital sector of our economy that accounts for more than $2 trillion is a very serious pursuit and should only be undertaken after people are fully aware of all the facts.
Sandy Holstead
