What Massachusetts Means

By Evan Falchuk

I’ve lived in Massachusetts almost my entire life.  So, like everyone else, I was surprised by last night’s stunning election results.  To think, in Massachusetts we elected a Republican to serve out the rest of Ted Kennedy’s term.  It’s one of the few times where I would say it’s possible that a dead man is actually rolling in his grave.

The explanations – coming mostly from out-of-staters – are already coming in.  Coakley was a bad candidate.  Brown worked hard and showed he wanted it more.  It’s the economy.  These are all reasonable, and probably true, but I think they miss what the election was really all about.

Here are the three things the Massachusetts election was really all about.

1.  It’s health care, stupid

I’ve been blogging about this for months and months and months and months.  You don’t mess with people health benefits.  Benefits professionals know that if you try to make even minor changes to health benefits, you can generate a whole lot of resistance. You would think people in politics would know this.  But they have made it very clear: they don’t.

Here’s what I mean.  The President keeps saying that if you like your current coverage you can keep it, but he’s also keeps saying we need to transform American health care and finally achieve what presidents since Truman and Teddy Roosevelt tried to do.   Which one is it?  If you see all the backroom dealings and trillion dollar price tags, smart people begin to think something big and important is happening that is going to affect them whether they like it or not.  And they suspect they’re not being told the whole truth.  It makes people very anxious, and anxious people don’t vote for incumbents.

Worse, you would be hard pressed to find anyone other than policy wonks who could coherently explain what the health care reform is.  And yet, Coakley, the Democratic Party, and the President tried to make this election all about this poorly understood and badly explained health care reform.  To the extent they had generated already a huge amount of anxiety around health care, and then told voters it was up to them to seal the deal and make it a reality, well, no one should be surprised this didn’t go well.

As James Carville might put it, it’s health care, stupid.

2.  Massachusetts isn’t an emerging conservative state

Massachusetts remains one of the most progressive states in the country.  There is little or no organized Republican party here, and the constellation of social issues that seem to motivate out-of-state conservatives are extremely unpopular here.  Brown said some dumb things about these social issues over the years (well, to be fair, he’s said dumb things about a lot of issues) but he did not run as anything like a social conservative.  In other states, he would have had to run as a Democrat or Independent.

People who misread this election as suggesting that Massachusetts is turning to the right on social issues are badly mistaken.  I already see Republicans doing this, and they are as out of touch with Massachusetts voters on this point as Coakley was with them on health care.

3.  The Kennedys are gone

There was a time in this state where the Kennedys were almost royalty.  If they wanted something done, it would get done.  But the generation of people who saw the Kennedys in this light is fading from view, and the younger generation doesn’t get what all the fuss is about.

And yet, Coakley ran as Kennedy 2.0.  She had the overt blessing of the Kennedy family, including having Ted’s widow run TV ads for her.  National Democrats, including the President, said her election was about realizing Ted Kennedy’s life’s work.  Coakley even looks, vaguely, like a Kennedy.  She talks with the strange accent no one from Massachusetts not named Kennedy actually has.

But it didn’t mean much to voters.  In fact, it probably had the opposite effect.  One of Coakley’s problems in the campaign is that she seemed to be acting as if she were entitled to be elected.  Wrapping herself in the Kennedy mantle was, if anything, confirmation of that suspicion.  The age of the Kennedys in Massachusetts is over.

And so, the bottom line is this.  Massachusetts remains a one-party state that just had a one-issue election, health care.  Read more into it at your peril.

  • Pingback: Truth About Mike » Oh second thought….

  • truthaboutmike

    Nice work, Evan. This sums up yesterday's debacle best for me.

  • http://twitter.com/msgiro MSGiro

    As an actual independent it's incredibly frustrating to be engaged in politics, because it's the least lazy of positions due to my dislike of our current two party system and therefore I have to dig into issues individually rather than vote a party line. The party line is what is really mucking things up here. Evan, you mentioned backroom dealings (a lifelong component of politics) and Brown made it a key selling point to his candidacy. However, what a lot of people have forgotten is that President Obama was immediate and up front with his desire to work with all parties. The Republican party made it their mission to not put any effort into working with the “other side” at all, with the exception of an Olympia Snowe moment, and therefore forced the hands of the Democrats to throw up their hands and say “fine we'll do it ourselves”, which is exactly what the Republicans essentially did during their run of control. However, the Dems are just terrible at it and therefore everything is stagnant, yet voters are taking it out on the wrong people in my opinion. Imagine if a significant amount of your workforce essentially threw themselves to the floor and had a year long temper tantrum?

    As far as healthcare is concerned I strongly believe coverage is as much a right as sending children to school is. Why, we as a nation flip out over this issue, is beyond me. How much happier would we all be if we just knew we had care? Would we hang onto crappy jobs to keep our benefits? I also believe that politicians (many) are completely out of touch with working (white and blue collar) Americans because politics is all they know. Many working Americans hate the insurance industry, because so many of us have had to fight and waste time and money to deal with their gross incompetence or worse being denied care. Many of us, who not so long ago used to pay $10 co-pay for all of their prescription meds are hit with upwards of $70 co-pays for “name brands”. Sadly some of us don't know to ask for generic or in other cases none are available. Now, with paranoia at an all time high (deadly viruses, self-diagnosing online, etc), we have gotten ourselves far from preventative medicine and into a vicious and expensive cycle of over-testing and over-prescribing, which ends up hitting the consumer at the end. The Pols, if they had business heads on their shoulders, would be much more fiscally responsible and reforms such as this would be practical. Is Scott Brown the answer to that? Absolutely not. He's a lawyer who is going to get caught up in the law and worse, will tow the party line. Coakley wasn't the answer either. Actually nobody who ran was. That of course opens up another can of worms; in our 24/7, nasty, microscope of a world will the best people for the job ever run again?

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    Thanks very much, Mike.

    Now, let's just hope that the Red Sox' new faith in defensive metrics isn't going to be a debacle, too.

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    Well-said. The trouble is that both parties seem to be taking the results as proof that they need to push their own agendas harder. It's exactly the wrong lesson.

    On the other hand – it's really good news for bloggers….

  • Mark Walls

    Great post Evan. I find this whole episode as an example of how disconnected politicians are from the people that they allegedly serve.
    For the most part, people like their health insurance. They would just like lower premiums. This bill was probably going to result in increased premiums for most of us in order to cover the forced adverse selection. The bill just did not have the public support that they thought it did.

  • joeburgess

    Great post. I also really liked Peggy Noonan's piece in today's Wall Street Journal. Lots of interesting comments on this string. Following up on Dick Goff's post, I would like Association Health Plans added to the mix – another form of self-insurance.

  • magyart

    Like you, I doubt Mass. is turning to the Rep. party or more conservative. This shouldn't be taken as a “warning” to Democrats, but a “warning” to all incumbents. People aren't satisfied with Congress and their approval rating has been low for many years.

    It's time to vote against incumbents and get in some new people.

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    Thanks, Mark! It is pretty surprising how badly mishandled this whole effort has been.

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    Thanks, Joe. And I agree the discussion at the Linked In group for the Self-Insurance Institute of America (SIIA) is terrific on this.

  • MKirschMD

    Why did Coakley lose? The Democrats should have paid attention to a smart guy who lived 2500 years ago. Scott Brown certainly did. See http://bit.ly/64qwGg

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    Ah, yes, Aesop. Good post!

  • FreedomWriter

    I supported Scott Brown because he advocates limited government, free market solutions and free enterprise, personal responsibility and protection against terrorists, not rights for terrrorists. He also opposes the federal take over of health care. Finally, I like him as a person; his character shines brightly.

  • Pingback: My Quick 5 Reactions to the Health Care Summit « See First Blog

  • Pingback: The Conspiracy Against Health Care Reform, Ctd « See First Blog

  • Pingback: Six Reactions to the Reform Law « See First Blog

  • Pingback: 6 Reactions To The Healthcare Reform Plan - Better Health

  • "Medicine is learned by the bedside and not in the class room. Let not your conception of manifestations of disease come from work heard in the lecture room or read from the book: see and then research, compare and control. But see first."
    - Sir William Osler, MD
    The Father of Modern Medicine
  • Connect



    BestDoctors.com


    On Twitter


    On Facebook


    Via RSS


    On YouTube


    Subscribe via Email

  • Benefits Package

    BenefitsPackageButton

    Join the best in employer health-benefits blogging!

  • Follow Us on YouTube:

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Categories

  • Archives