{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024879841673734804, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016963528413910093, 'mean_word_length': 5.386281588447654, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
What Happened in Massachusetts Didn't Stay in Massachusetts

It was a display of irony to rival the antics of the latest reality television show. Voting in Scott Brown, a little-known Republican state senator, to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the untimely death of Democrat Edward Kennedy, the citizens of Massachusetts— beneficiaries of their own brand of universal health coverage—effectively stymied that opportunity for countless other Americans. Brown’s election to the U.S. Senate stopped the legislative progress of national health reform dead in its tracks by denying Senate Democrats the crucial 60 vote to stop a Republican filibuster. Adding to the irony, Brown, who voted in favor of the Massachusetts health plan, justified his opposition to the Senate bill (modeled on his own state’s reform provisions) by stating that he did not want to saddle Massachusetts voters with the burden of financing health care for those in other states (Drew 2010). In response to Brown’s victory, pundits opposed to health reform took to the airways, Internet, and print media to praise the common sense of Massachusetts voters, interpreting their vote as a renunciation of an unwieldy and costly reform package. In doing so, these critics neglected to acknowledge other crucial, and perhaps more important, motivations: voters’ uncertainty regarding their future economic prospects; disappointment over their failure to benefit from the recent upswing in the national economy; anger over the publicly bailed-out financial sector that is back to ‘‘business as usual’’ by continuing to sponsor and trade high-risk financial instruments and providing substantial bonuses to top executives; and not least of all, the lackluster and poorly conceived campaign by the Democratic Senate candidate, Martha Coakley. These pundits failed to own up to their deliberate distortions of the Senate and House proposals—recall the specters of ‘‘death squads’’ and imminent threat of government-run socialized medicine—that played a significant role in diminishing public support for reform. At the same time, we should not absolve the president or Democratic leadership in Congress for poorly explaining the elements of reform to the public, for not discrediting distortions of facts, and for playing ‘‘politics as usual’’ through special deals and concessions to garner support from members of Congress and the pharmaceutical industry, among others. Perhaps most importantly, the health reform debate has once again illustrated the triumph of ideology, political posturing, and the extreme partisanship that casts a pall over legitimate concerns for our health care system and calls into question our collective responsibility and ethical obligation to ensure the well-being of our citizens. Unfortunately, the legislative process has more often than not protected and expanded partisan ‘‘turf’’ through distortions of legislative proposals and the positions of political opponents, and by cultivating extremism in party politics rather that seeking common ground. Our pressing policy issues defy easy solutions and the legislative initiatives to address them are frequently complex, requiring horse trading, compromise, and trade-offs. Pointing out the foibles of this process has been an effective short-run strategy used by politicians to galvanize the worst in public opinion. However, the public has grown weary of such political maneuvering, confidence in Congress has hit rock bottom, and the mid-term elections may bode ill for both parties.