Are the facts in the study in dispute? Who cares who did the study, if you think it is bad, dispute the facts and find other sources.
Oh tell me you didn't.
"The Beacon Hill Institute study found that, on average, Romneycare:
-cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs;
-drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion;
-slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376; and
-reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million."
Of course the agenda of the studier, the sponsor of the studier, and the reporter of the study matter.
Take the 18,313 jobs. What jobs were cost? What was the definition of "cost" and the definition of "job" and over what period of time and was this expected/intended or a surprise adverse consequence?
If 18,313 heart surgeons are out of work because no one in Massachusetts needs cardiac care, was this the intended outcome? An unexpected outcome? Is it fair to characterize this as a "cost" if each of them formerly performed 5 surgeries a year, and each of those patients was off work and under constant care for 6 months each. That's a net effect of nearly 100,000 x 6 months more productivity x 6 months reduced medical costs. And is this net effect actually a positive for the state?
The (let us say entirely indisputable) fact that there are 18,313 fewer heart surgeons working may be the most fabulous endorsement of Romneycare ever!
Or "-slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376". What if the entire thing was paid for by dropping the disposable income of the people who had +$10 million in disposable income that was growing at a rate of 80% down to a growth rate of 5%? It is disingenuous but not factually inaccurate to average the drop across the entire population of the state and make it look like those who were disposing of every last cent of their $25k per year now have $376 less to spend on school supplies at Walmart.
"-drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion" Any word on whether that drive was shorter than it otherwise would have been? If the total insurance costs in Massachusetts was slated to go up by $10.75 billion, then Romneycare driving up costs by $4.311 billion is a bargain! (more likely question: When total health insurance costs went up by $4.311 billion, did the 20-year-future-cost of medical care for the newly insured go down by $100 billion?)
Pointing out all the costs while ignoring the benefits is a pretty important bias to recognize in the studier, the study and the spin attached to it upon reporting. Facts are only facts when not analyzed by someone with an axe to grind.
