As is common in op-ed, the author states his opinion at the outset, then sets to prove it point by point. But the order of evidence does not explain the overall set-up of the Massachusetts plan clearly (which admittedly may not be possible). And the title is ill-chosen: "What The Doctor Ordered" suggests that it is being profession-driven, not patient-oriented. I feel I would have to read another piece of straight reportage about the program before I could judge this piece; and even then it is weak on cogency. I am not persuaded.

Though I don't know much about this topic, this seems like a reasonable report on Massachusetts health reform, at first glance. It presents both the legislature's plan, as well as reactions to it, and addresses some of its key points intelligently. It's interesting to note that the author is a Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, whose views often differ from my own. But in this case, I find their report to be thoughtful, balanced and useful.

This is an opinion piece favoring the bi-partisan Massachusetts Health Reform, but the writer provides information, which he says has not been covered sufficiently. I found the article helpful for a better understanding of the plan and its possible effects.

The Massachusetts Health Care legislation is simply more of same - government tinkering at the behest of Health Insurance lobbyists. It's not 'comprehensive' as stated in the first sentence, because it does nothing to control costs, it won't insure everyone, it's unlikely to improve health outcomes, and it will increase the cost of administration for doctors. The legislation's requirement for all residents to carry health insurance - another erosion of freedom - is considered a 'small provision'. No sources are given in this article, and there is no discussion of: how the bill was crafted; why the bill's intends to cover 'almost everyone' (not everyone); the fact that the bill is largely fictional - few details of how it will ... More »

This opinion peice claims that "pundits" are giving short shrift to Massachusetts health reform by picking at details without considering how they fit into a whole that represents a paradigm shift in health insurance access. This argument would be better journalism if the author provided ANY examples of these pundits statements. However, the column does a good job of explaining why the legislation is unique and deserves public attention.

This story lacks a source reference to the full plan approved in Mass. It fails to give examples of costs to show if it will really impact affordability (which is of course a relative term) and access. I could not get enough facts from this article to tell if the Mass. plan is a good idea or not.

This is an opinion piece, not really unbiased journalism. I don't know much about the particular subject but the author is clearly promoting a view and not just providing information.

LIVING IN MASSACHUSETTS I HAVE READ AT LEAST A DOZEN STORIES ON THIS TOPIC. NONE WAS AS COMPLETE AS THIS ONE. I LEARNED MANY THINGS I HAD NOT LEARNED FROM THE OTHER STORIES.