Glad to See Health Care on the Table,

but I don't think real reform - the kind we need - is going to come from HMOs. We should be happy to hear what the health insurance industry says, though at the end of the day the government has to do what's in the best interest of the American people. Unfortunately, those interests conflict with the profits of the HMOs.

Small concessions - and new corporate welfare in the form of billions of government dollars going to HMOs - isn't going to cut it. We need to tackle the rising cost of health care and make sure that America, too, has a better quality of care, that's universal and costs significantly less per capita - like the rest of the freaking industrialized world. Single-payer isn't the only answer, but no answer is going to come without a high-quality government option for health insurance to introduce true health care competition as well as a high base of care available to everyone.

Some other health care reform items that should be non-negotiable:

• Doctors pick the treatments, not HMOs.
• No preexisting conditions should bar someone from getting private health care.
• The government should be able to negotiate the price of drugs for medicare, medicaid and any other government program.
• It's time for health insurance to cover necessary autism treatments, not public schools.
• Repeating for emphasis: we need a high-quality government health care option available to everyone.
  

Anything else?

Don't Know How I Missed This: Biotech Fued

Lisa Wangsness doesn't disappoint today with a great article detailing why the biotech bill isn't going to pass this legislative session; Speaker DiMasi isn't willing to give up the purse strings.

In an interview yesterday afternoon, as Patrick was listening to DiMasi's pitch, Patrick's economic secretary said the governor did not want to use the political process to hand out economic development money for biotech companies. Instead, he said, a special panel of scientists and other specialists should award incentives, as Patrick's biotech bill proposes.

DiMasi said he asked the governor and Senate President Therese Murray during their weekly meeting yesterday to consider offering as much as $40 million in tax breaks and infrastructure investments to a half-dozen life science companies that are now deciding whether to expand in the state.

So, let's get this straight. Governor Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray want to create a program that rewards good science, providing a means to make sure that the most innovative and ultimately best companies grow and expand in the state. Speaker DiMasi wants to bribe his friends dish out 40 million to his hand-picked companies. Ignoring the ethical problems with that - as well as the fact that it's a policy that holds our state hostage to any company that threatens to leave - shouldn't we be spending our money wisely and efficiently? Shouldn't we be making sure we not only get the most bang for our buck, but that we also support research that will, you know, cure people?

Sadly, the only way we're going to change Beacon Hill is through electoral change. If you're progressive, care about the direction this state is heading in and can work hard to win office, think about running. Call me up and I'll help out. Primaries seem to be the only thing Beacon Hill's House cares about.

Veto the Budget!

The House passed a budget. Sal's 'compromise' with Deval was more spending, primarily out of rainy-day funds and other one-time solutions. Great planning, huh? Meanwhile, Deval wants to eliminate corporate tax loopholes, money that would grow with inflation and would permanently add to the solvency of the Massachusetts state budget. Sal had the audacity to call Deval's spending plans shortsighted on the radio.

Yet, none of this was prominent in Lisa Wangsness's big budget article. In fact, she barely mentions the biggest issue surrounding this budget debate. I guess reporting on the poignant topics of the day is no longer a priority, especially when talking about how much money is being spent on this and that is oh so much more important. Right? I confess myself disappointed in the Globe.

However, to Governor Deval Patrick, I urge he veto this budget. I highly doubt the Senate is going to be able to fix it; it's going to take an epic tug-of-war with business-sleazy Sal. It's time to take the Speaker of the House to the mattresses. Apparently, Sal DiMasi thinks this is a one-sherriff town. While I'd prefer cooperation to power-plays, if it's a fight Sal wants, Deval ought to give it to him. That way, when Sal loses (and he will), we won't have to go through this mess again.

Lisa Wangsness Misses the Point

Her article was so brief, it couldn't possibly cover everything - but it was an important topic that people care about. Sure, Patrick's supporters want more the cops, but the central issue on the budget debate is funding - corporate tax loopholes, meals and hotel taxes, pork spending, etc. The Globe can't be the paper of record with articles as non-substantative as this, at least on important subjects like the entire Commonwealth budget.

I'm So Sick of Anonymous Sources

It used to be that anonymous sources were used rarely and gave people the opportunity to reveal secret information about abuse, often government abuse, when they otherwise couldn't. Now? They're used to trick the public into wars and give politicians the opportunity to launch personal attacks without any worry about the consequences.

Today's Globe and Herald stories on Deval Patrick adjusting his position to give himself more personal time to help his wife both feature anonymous sources. Why? Seriously, what were these people talking about that was so earth-shattering that they couldn't go on the record? I wasn't going to bring this issue up after reading Lisa Wangsness's article because, on the whole, it was fair. Yet, to be honest, this part did bother me:

"The most important part of a new administration is the first six to nine months," said an aide to a former Massachusetts governor.

"You want people to develop a positive view of the administration," said the former aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Right now, they have a negative view."

The former aide said people would probably feel sympathy for Patrick, but even so, if Diane Patrick's condition is serious, "then it's going to be a distraction for him at a very bad time."

I'm sure that a former aide of a Republican administration was only too keen to provide Ms. Wangsness with a few quotes. However, I ask the following question: were those statements so crucial to the story that including them were more important than insisting on divulging the source? None of it was terribly poignant. Ms. Wangsness couldn't even get the aide to allow her to divulge either the aide's level within the administration or even what administration the source was in. Surely neither information would have revealed the former aide's identity, yet would have given readers more information to determine whether the quotes came from someone who had a personal agenda.

Again, the article wasn't bad and I wasn't going to bring it up - until I read the Herald's report. Does the Herald even bother asking people to get on record anymore? They bring up two "sources" to smear the Governor, one on a largely unrelated issue. Let's take a peak:

A source close to Patrick’s administration told the Herald his early missteps have been a nagging source of frustration for even die-hard supporters.... Like Republican Gov. Mitt Romney before him, the source said Patrick is fast learning the pitfalls of being a political outsider on Beacon Hill.... “These business people who think they can run government like a business, it just doesn’t work,” the source said. “The things you can get away with in a private business aren’t allowed in government and people are watching your every move.”

A second source said Patrick’s admission that he made a call on behalf of his controversial former employer, Ameriquest Mortgage, was the “zenith” of his freshman stumblings that have left many questioning just who he’s taking advice from - if anyone.

Now, why those attacks need to be featured in a story about Deval Patrick's wife needing his help and support, I don't know. It doesn't really have to do with the story, but the media thinks these kinds of things sell stories (despite evidence to the contrary: their declining numbers). I find it ironic that the media won't report on certain topics, when it was all too willing to call anonymous sources for quotes about an issue that was extremely personal. For example, the fact that former Congressman Mark Foley was gay wasn't a big secret in the media; they just protected his privacy until bloggers dug up the truth about both Foley and his unscrupulous practices. Imagine the media calling up anonymous sources before the bloggers broke the story? I can't.

The points that these anonymous sources brought up would have been more relevant if they weren't anonymous. None of the insider perspective the articles provided was so important that it warranted the protection of anonymity. Since it's rather likely these attacks are coming from Beacon Hill insiders, I ask the following question: do we really need to give politicians a soap box and a mask? I have no problem with them going out on the attack and making critical points, but by the gods of Kobol, if they don't have the gumption to do it publicly then just don't print it.

Anonymous sources and the journalists who protect them were complicit in getting this country to go into Iraq. They have contributed to the decline of journalism. It's become a norm to have anonymous sources - so much so that we see them in articles, like today's batch, that certainly don't require anonymity to report the story. While anonymous sources can be very important, newspapers need to learn how to use them sparingly - which will not only improve the journalistic integrity of a newspaper, but will end up in those anonymous sources actually meaning something when they're used.

Update: David beat me to the story and brings up the point that the NY Times - the Globe's parent company - changed its policy on granting anonymity after the Judy Miller fiasco. The Globe certainly didn't follow those new guidelines in this story.

Boston Globe: Laziest Piece Yet.

Hey Lisa Wangsness, feel free to actually do a little original reporting next time, okay? I know, it's so easy to go peruse the internet looking for the perfect quotes, but don't you think actually calling up Charley or David at BMG would have been at least somewhat feasible? People keep telling me how the Boston Globe's really number crunched, but I don't think a simple phone call is all that hard.

How about asking what some other bloggers feel about this whole recent fiasco? I can say this once, very simply, Blue Mass Group isn't the only liberal blog out there in Massachusetts. In fact, lately, I dare say the bulk of its readers isn't necessarily any more liberal than the rest of the state. How about talking to some others, who have a different and fresh take? David and Charley are both extremely intelligent, but couldn't using two sources from the same place for a story be a teensy bit - oh, I don't know - wrong? (And you couldn't even interview them, to boot? Geez, that's the kind of stuff I felt guilty about when I wrote articles for my college newspaper.)

Let's also do without the unrelated, nonsensical mugshots pictures. I'll clue you in, it has *nothing* to do any of this bruhaha and tells readers he's guilty before even reading the article.

Update: I regret using the word "lazy." Lisa Wangsness wasn't lazy, there was just room for improvement in her article. Next time she writes about the blogosphere, I hope she considers looking beyond just David, Charley and Blue Mass Group. Sure, it's the largest blog in Massachusetts by far, but it's not the only voice out there. When the article is about how the blogosphere was supposedly turning on Deval, that's an important distinction.