A year and a half after the CBS Evening News celebrated the then-upcoming Massachusetts mandate requiring everyone to buy health insurance and the state subsidizing it for those with lower incomes -- “Imagine this: Virtually everyone guaranteed health insurance coverage. It's happening in one state, and it could be a model for the rest” -- Friday's newscast found it has come up short. Anchor Katie Couric teased the upcoming story on how the law didn't go far enough in providing subsidies, “Universal health insurance: It is supposed to mean everyone is covered. But in the only state that has it, hundreds of thousands are not. That story next.” Introducing the subsequent story, Couric touted how former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney “signed a landmark law mandating universal health insurance, the only state so far to do so. So you would think everyone in Massachusetts is now covered. But it is not working out that way.”
Reporter Wyatt Andrews highlighted how state-subsidized coverage saved one man's life, trumpeting that as “the state's achievement. Out of 400,000 uninsured residents last year, around 170,000 now have insurance.” But, he continued, “the gap that remains is huge. It includes some 130,000 young adults, most of them middle income men who have to pay their own premiums. They either don't want insurance or can't afford it.” For expert advocacy, Andrews turned to the head of a liberal group, Health Care for All: “Health care advocate John McDonough praises the state for a good start but says that gap in affordability has to be filled.”
Back on April 5, 2006, as recounted in a NewsBusters posting, CBS Evening News anchor Russ Mitchell celebrated the government mandate, as he led the newscast:
“Good evening. I'm Russ Mitchell. Imagine this: Virtually everyone guaranteed health insurance coverage. It's happening in one state, and it could be a model for the rest. So we'll begin there tonight.”
Mitchell, with "Massachusetts" next to one side of his head and "Insuring Everyone" on the other side, led: "Health care costs are rising by the day, and more than 45 million people in this country have no insurance to cover it. Now, one state is doing what no other state or the federal government has been able to do: Provide near-universal health coverage. The Massachusetts legislature approved it with overwhelming bipartisan support. And it could become a model for the rest of the country. Here's Trish Regan."
Trish Regan: "President Clinton promised it but did not deliver, states have wrestled with it unsuccessfully for decades, and now Massachusetts has apparently done it. It's about to become the first in the nation to provide nearly universal health coverage. Under a bill approved by the legislature, the state will require every citizen to be insured. Governor Mitt Romney pushed for the program."...
The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video for the August 24 CBS Evening News story:
KATIE COURIC: In the presidential campaign, Republican Mitt Romney was in Florida today announcing his plan for getting more Americans covered by health insurance. An estimated 45 million Americans have no insurance. Romney would give them tax cuts to help them buy it. When he was Governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed a landmark law mandating universal health insurance, the only state so far to do so. So you would think everyone in Massachusetts is now covered. But it is not working out that way, as Wyatt Andrews reports in "Eye on Your Money."
WYATT ANDREWS: When the Massachusetts experiment with universal health care began this year, one thing it did was save Henry Murphy's life. Last year, after developing heart trouble, he lost his job and then his insurance.
HENRY MURPHY, Massachusetts Resident: They threw me to the wolves, and I thought that was wrong.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #1, in ad: We've got it.
VOICE OF MALE NARRATOR, in ad: Health insurance: Massachusetts residents are now required to have it.
ANDREWS: But now, under the new law, everyone must have health insurance. And Henry qualified for state subsidized coverage just in time. Do I have it right, Henry may have been on the street, essentially, uninsurable without the commonwealth plan?
Dr. SOMAVA STOUT, Cambridge Health Alliance: Absolutely. Absolutely. And not only that, he might not be here anymore.
ANDREWS: This is the state's achievement. Out of 400,000 uninsured residents last year, around 170,000 now have insurance. But the gap that remains is huge. It includes some 130,000 young adults, most of them middle income men who have to pay their own premiums. They either don't want insurance or can't afford it.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #2: You have health insurance?
ANDREWS: That's why before every Red Sox game, beside the hot dogs and hamburgers, the state is pitching health care. They're aiming the pitch in person and up on the Fenway big screen at young men. It's a tough sell because the cheapest family plan available with drug coverage is $662 a month. When we talked to contractor Roger Thompson, there was no way.
ROGER THOMPSON, Massachusetts Resident: I have no choice. It would be like another mortgage payment for my family, and I can't afford that.
JOHN MCDONOUGH, HEALTH CARE FOR ALL: It's a tough sell because it's a group of people who've never purchased insurance on their own.
ANDREWS: Health care advocate John McDonough praises the state for a good start but says that gap in affordability has to be filled.
MCDONOUGH: And it's going to be a challenge for us to make sure that policy evolves to provide an affordable option for those folks.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #3: There's a new health insurance law and-
ANDREWS: What's truly new about this bold experiment is that it's not voluntary. Everyone has to buy health insurance or face a penalty on their taxes.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #4: Your boss is going to help you get coverage?
ANDREWS: And what they already know is that universal health in Massachusetts won't quite be universal for now. It's as if the game has started, but most of the fans haven't arrived. Wyatt Andrews, CBS News, Boston.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center



“Good evening. I'm Russ Mitchell. Imagine this: Virtually everyone guaranteed health insurance coverage. It's happening in one state, and it could be a model for the rest. So we'll begin there tonight.”
WYATT ANDREWS: When the Massachusetts experiment with universal health care began this year, one thing it did was save Henry Murphy's life. Last year, after developing heart trouble, he lost his job and then his insurance.
ANDREWS: This is the state's achievement. Out of 400,000 uninsured residents last year, around 170,000 now have insurance. But the gap that remains is huge. It includes some 130,000 young adults, most of them middle income men who have to pay their own premiums. They either don't want insurance or can't afford it.
ROGER THOMPSON, Massachusetts Resident: I have no choice. It would be like another mortgage payment for my family, and I can't afford that.












Editor at Large
Comments Policy
How to solve the cost of Health Care
August 27, 2007 - 02:42 ET by Lame CherryI would really like Noel Sheppard to discuss this along with what I posted here about getting the economy healthy again........so I hope he reads this and can build upon it in his work to light a fire under Fred Thompson as the answers will rock the electorate into a landslide.
What strikes me is liberals keep finding ways to elevate costs, get more government control and destroy people's wages by over taxing them for health care. The answer for healthcare is simple in 2 solutions:
First, People should only have to pay no more than the wages or income they earn in poverty as American citizens. That will drive the money hustlers like insurance companies and Rockefeller boards from pharms to corporate hospitals out of the market.
It would free doctors then to graduate billings to what they know patients can pay and this exactly how the system worked up until 1950.
Second, this nation was built upon apprentice workers and I see no reason that interns (doctors still under probation) can not serve America for a set wage which they wouldn't have to pay income tax on. We pay those creatures in Congress over a hundred grand a year.....pay apprentice doctors the same and have them treat everyone who comes in for "free". It certainly is a whole lot cheaper paying a kid a hundred thousand for his school loan repayment than the gross charges of 16 patients a day at 50 bucks a pop for a 20 day work month at 12 months a year.......math states that is 192,000 dollars. Set wage saves almost a hundred thousand a year and by the kid not paying income tax he actually gets a third more wage not grabbed in taxes.
The solutions are simple and in this everyone gets health care they can afford without a trillion dollar money grab.
It is beyond time that the GOP or someone with some sense starts a Benjamin Franklin debate to solve these problems. How simple is it to require interns to treat people on a set salary with no income tax.....toss in RN's to lance boils and other things and doctors are freed up to treat harder cases.
All of this can be done, wipe out medicare, wipe out most of the insurance industry and wipe out the entire Rockefeller money grab fest.
That though is why none of this is being tried as the cartels control it for profit, but it is time America go back to the system we had.....it worked and it was more than affordable.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Price control or wage
August 27, 2007 - 04:05 ET by Conservative VoicePrice control or wage control is never the answer. Insurance is used because doctors can charge more, insurance is high because of medicare will pay for it and because of law suits.
The way to solve this is with the market is bring in more market forces and pass tort reform. The way you bring in the market is you remove the safety net of government. But that would never happen because old people vote, the younger generation paying for it don't.
CV, I agree with most of
August 27, 2007 - 06:33 ET by motherbeltCV, I agree with most of what you said, but disagree with your statement that Insurance is used because doctors can charge more,
I believe it's the reverse: doctors charge more because of insurance. For the same reason, people go to the doctor for every sniffle and ache, because they "don't have to pay for it" or only have to pay their co-pay of a few dollars. Everyone is more liberal when spending "someone else's money."
That's why a socialist medical care system invariably leads to rationing. Someone once said (can't remember where I read it) that NO country can provide all the medical care that will be demanded by its citizens once it's considered "free."
I said it the way I did
August 27, 2007 - 13:18 ET by Conservative VoiceI said it the way I did because doctors don't have to accept insurance, but truth be told they like it because their customers think they are getting free service when in reality they are paying out the nose for it, and the doctors can charge their insurance top dollar for sub-standard service.
Lame offers a lame
August 27, 2007 - 07:08 ET by ncstevemLame offers a lame 'solution'. CV is correct below. Mandated wages or prices solves nothing.
Several things would solve this created problem.
Allow insurance companies to offer their sevices in an open market. Currently you can't buy medical insurence across state lines. Also, remove the deduction employers get for providing health insurance to their employees or allow individuals and the self employed to deduct their insurance from their income tax.
Those policies coupled with more and more employers moving to MSA'a or HSA's and away from traditional HMO's & PPO's would solve this 'crisis'.
Romney Care
August 27, 2007 - 11:43 ET by River CityNC Steve:
I agree with most of what you said but I will add a couple things.
Mandates: One-size-fits-all health insurance doesn't work. Mandates that reflect politicians' pet cause and an industry's political influence add a tremendous cost to each covered person. If I'm done having kids why do I have to pay for maternity coverage or in vitro fertilization coverage? If I'm a single man why do I need maternity coverage? With mandates all of us pay for these and other coverages we don't need.
Government interference in the market: The feds tell a doc how much they will pay for an office visit. If you are a Medicare provider you take it even if it is less than your cost to provide the office visit. You are left with charging other people more to cover the cost of the Medicare patient. You and I subsidize those people.
If health insurance was owned by the individual and totally portable (and affordable), like a 401(k), think of how it would change the health insurance market and the job market. People wouldn't feel restricted to a particular job based on the type of health insurance provided. Those decisions would be made seperately without influence from your employer.
Get the government out of health insurance. Then we will see affordable products that are competitive. The health insurance companies are pusing this mandatory insurance stuff. Captive customers. Wouldn't a lot of businesses like it if the government required you to buy their product no matter how crappy and expensive it is.
“Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.” Ronald Reagan
its the reason why auto
August 27, 2007 - 13:24 ET by Conservative Voiceits the reason why auto insurance is somewhat affordable. Allow for different types of health insurance, and then people are willing to pay for it. Another reason why health insurance is high is because the payer for insurance is often the employer ( and most people don't understand that from a business perspective it all adds up to how much it costs to emply the employee, so really the employee pays for it ) and hence there is little driving force to keep prices down.
The lies and scare tactics
August 27, 2007 - 12:36 ET by Conservative_in_mass.The lies and scare tactics of the left are infuriating. For Wyatt Andrews to claim that universal health care saved "Henry Murphy's life" is a slap in the face to every health care professional. Medical staff treat all patients regardless of ability to pay, period. If Mr. Andrews wants to talk about the financial impact and aftermath, so be it. We can discuss that seperately. To imply that this man would have been refused treatment and left for dead because he was not covered is nothing more than fear mongering.
If this were the case, then Mr. Andrews would have a tough time explaining why hospitals have to write off millions annualy in "unrecoverable" expenses.