Why Coakley Really Lost: Massachusetts' Health Care 'Reform'
Bonnie Erbé
Martha Coakley's devastating loss in Tuesday's senatorial race should be a lesson to members of her party on several important points. She was trying to fill the vacancy left by the death of perhaps the most powerful and certainly most well-known Democrat in the U.S. Senate and she should have coasted to victory. But several key warning signs to Democrats nationwide were ignored.An Arkansas friend of mine sent around a blast e-mail posing the question, "Can you imagine a Republican winning in that bluest of states?" I answered, "Of course, Mitt Romney won statewide election there not too long ago." Massachusetts is no longer the reliably blue state it was during the height of Camelot.
Yes, there are plenty of liberals in the state, but they are outnumbered by blue-collar voters and conservative Catholics. According to the Massachusetts secretary of state, voter registration breaks down as follows: There are 1.6 million registered Democrats, 490,000 registered Republicans and 2.1 million Independents or registered voters who don't affiliate with either party.
The fact that independents now outnumber Democrats and Republicans combined should serve as a starburst of information to partisan operatives that Massachusetts is no longer reliably Democratic in any way, shape or form. It is most reliably independent. And while President Obama won the state in '08, his support among independents is the voting bloc that is deserting him more quickly than any other. That's for two reasons: independents tell pollsters they don't like his massive spending and they don't support the Democratic approach to health care reform.
Massachusetts has had its own version of health care reform in place for four years. Residents have a much greater sense of what is to come if the Democratic-controlled Congress enacts a similar plan for the nation. While the reaction among Massachusetts residents to health care reform is mixed, there are enough citizens unhappy with Massachusetts' version to influence a sizable proportion of independents to shy away from voting for a Democrat who supports nationwide reform.
Even though Massachusetts law requires everyone to buy health insurance and makes sure there are so-called affordable plans for all, some small percentage of state residents remain uninsured. Many more are unhappy with the requirement to buy insurance. Another starburst to Democrats: If they push through national health care reform similar to the plan in Massachusetts, they stand to lose the independent support that is key to national victory.
Also, there are several predictable problems with Massachusetts health care reform that are sure to be repeated on a national scale if the Democratic Congress and President Obama succeed in pushing through their version. The Massachusetts plan has become unaffordable for the state and is just about bankrupt. The state has had to trim hospital reimbursements to remain in business. It has also eliminated coverage for the 30,000 legal immigrants in the state (that's LEGAL, not illegal.)
One cannot expand coverage for so many more people, most of them indigent, without raising taxes on everybody else. It's impossible, though congressional Democrats and the president tell us it is not. Their claim is simply untrue.
Hospitals are fighting Massachusetts' cuts in reimbursement rates. Boston Medical sued the state back in July, as recounted by The New York Times:
"According to the suit, Massachusetts is now reimbursing Boston Medical only 64 cents for every dollar it spends treating the poor. About 10 percent of the hospital's patients are uninsured -- down from about 20 percent before the law's passage in 2006. But many more are on Medicaid or Commonwealth Care, the state-subsidized insurance program for low-income residents."
There are other, more commonly noted reasons why Martha Coakley lost: She is not as charismatic as her GOP rival. She or her advisers made the inept strategic decision not to campaign heavily over the holidays. Her opponent did and gained a lot of ground as a result. Once she started campaigning heavily, she had to go on the attack, which made her look angry and nasty instead of helpful and compassionate.
But if Democrats ignore the message Massachusetts voters have sent them on health care reform and push it through anyway, they do so at their own peril. That the Kennedy Senate seat is in Republican hands should signal a new era to Democrats in Washington. The message of Tuesday's election is this: Camelot is over, and Sen. Kennedy was behind the times in making universal health care his signature issue.