
Just last week I was hearing and reading that Massachusetts' mandatory health plan was the same as the one being pitched by Democrats in Congress with a public plan and the Republicans pushing that view said it was on a trajectory to bankrupt the state.
Now the plan is the same as the Democrats plan without a public plan (and no co-ops or 'utilities' mentioned in this centrist aka pro health industry plan) and isn't about to bankrupt the Bay State. And look it's tagged with the name of a likely 2012 Republican presidential candidate.
Seven out of 10 in the affluent state with the public picking up the tab for the poorer people like it according to CNN report "'Romney care' touted as a model for national health care reform "I've also heard elsewhere that a lot of the younger people just don't get the insurance and pay the fine each year, which is less than their premiums would cost, unless they get seriously ill, and then they go on the insurance plan until they get better and then drop again. With restrictions on using pre-existing conditions that is all possible, but this week that is ignored while CNN touts "Romney Care"as a plan w/o a public option
About a decade ago, I read a report, one of the most actually informative pieces put out on the news business itself, that said most political reporting is spurred and fed by some special interest or another.
Political parties, lobbyists, industry groups.

Think of Tom Ridges's publisher releasing papers to help push his new book, mentioning that Ridge squelched an orange alert just before the 2004 election, and leaving out the never substantiated orange alert during the Democratic convention that year. Well, when pushed, the Bush administration cited a laptop that they had seized and deposed nearly 3 years earlier showing pictures of Wall Street buildings. The Bush administration also exposed the one mole that allies had in al Qaeda completely destroying another CIA asset (c. 1 year after Valerie Plame) and leading to a hurried and botched round up of terrorists in the UK from which a man escaped to lead the next year's bombings of the London Tube system.
The rest of the CNN report shows it's definite Republican-Health Insurance leanings as it warns Democrats not to pass a bill on their own, you know one that Americans, whatever their feelings right now would love once they get it.
The Republican wet dream on health care reform has remained pretty consistent for the last decade as pushed by President George W. Bush, candidate John McCain and others:
1) Tax Cuts (better than tax credits first touted by Bush because it gives the wealthier more money than the rest).

2) Taking away state controls of health insurance. Some health insurance companies in some states actually only pay for the room your stay in at the hospital, not actual care, while pretending they are actual health insurance policies. Some states allow that. Republicans say that taking away the restrictions from states that don't allow such a scam would mean health insurance would be cheaper for all. Yeah it might tame user end costs a tiny bit, but it would be the same as taking $300-500 a month and flushing it down the toilet.
Help for the poor? See the tax cuts benefit above. Don't pay taxes? That's okay. With the flat tax the Republicans want you could be paying the same taxes as Steve Forbes and then, see, you would be getting something back.
Other news on this, coming from the right, which considers this piece a liberal job, LOL.
"Business and Media Institute" in "CNN Pushes Massachusetts 'Model' for Health Reform But Admits 'Rising Costs' "; thinks the article is a liberal plot, but mentions that the price of health insurance under the mandatory program is rising at "nearly double" the national level.
So without the Public Option health insurance is raising at double what the premiums that are constantly going up now? Does that sound like a good plan? I don't think so.