The Division will be independent and “not subject to the supervision and control of any other” public entity.

Notice that he cuts the quote short before finishing the sentence, which reads:

“except as specifically provided in any general or special law.”

So what the quote in context is actually saying is that no public entity OTHER THAN that which is written into the law as having authority over the division, can arbitrarily control the operations of the division. It is limiting the power of government, though Pioneer took it out of context to make it sound like the division’s power is unlimited. Typical tea party sleaziness.

Not to mention, that language is nothing new or unprecedented. Plug that phrase into google and you’ll find a list of laws that include the exact text… including Chapter 176Q for the establishment of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector. moving on…

The mandate approach results in 941 instances in which the House mandates action in the bill, by using the word “shall.”

What is law other than language for government action? Laws determine all that the government shall provide, tax, prohibit, and protect. Pioneer is making the status quo sound radical.

The controversial federal Affordable Care Act drew negative attention for…

“Negative attention” from whom? For that matter, “controversial” according to whom? The lunatic teabagger fringe that regrettably has taken over the national Republican party? Or someone with something intelligent to say?

if you provide patients with cost data but their health plan is not set up to incentivize the use of low-cost high-quality providers, you will have many seeking out the most expensive folks.

Good Lord, do you have any basis for such an outlandish assertion? I’d sure like to see it. It’s fascinating to me that, on the one hand, Pioneer seems strenuously opposed to any sort of government regulation of anything, yet on the other, doesn’t trust individuals to make intelligent decisions without being “incentivized” (there’s a truly creepy word) to do what Pioneer thinks they should do.

This, of course, is Pioneer’s bottom line:

We must ask if we are comfortable with bureaucrats holding the reins to 18% of our state’s economy, that may not have the expertise, resources, or shared values that we do to balance the trade offs associated with government centered cost controls. They decide where billions of dollars will be directed or granted from trust funds. Do we trust their judgment and are we confident that industry influence will not sway these few government officials?

Yeah, ’cause gosh, the “free market” has done such an awesome job so far in controlling health care costs. Get the gubmint out – that’ll solve all our problems.

This kind of petty, dog-whistle post that says nothing at all constructive is, frankly, disappointing from an institute that tries to present itself as a serious participant in important public policy discussions.

Much more to come.

Oooh, I can’t wait.