How's universal healthcare coverage working out for Massachusetts?

Not well, according to the Chicago Tribune, and Democrats in DC want to do for us what Masshats did for themselves in 2006:

For inspiration, the Democrats borrowed heavily from Massachusetts' pioneering 2006 law, which did much the same thing: It mandated that everyone be covered, imposed fines on those who refused to buy insurance and offered subsidies for those who couldn't afford it.

Really? Really? Sheesh.

The article continues:

Health-care costs are so out of control in the Bay State that the governor just cut coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to close a growing deficit. That should save the state about $130 million. The state is also banking $63 million by no longer automatically enrolling low-income residents in health coverage if they fail to do so themselves. A hospital that serves thousands of poor residents sued the state last week, charging that the 2006 law forces the hospital to cover too much of the expense of caring for the poor. The hospital, Boston Medical Center, said it faced a $38 million deficit in this fiscal year and will lose more than $100 million next year because the state has lowered Medicaid reimbursement rates and changed other rules.

If a small, wealthy state like Massachusetts can't swing the universal healthcare thing, then how are we to believe anyone in D.C. can do even a passable job at healthcare coverage for the entire country? Shudder to think...