Brown, he writes, “rode to victory on a message more nuanced than flat-out resistance to universal health coverage: Massachusetts residents, he said, already had insurance and should not have to pay for it elsewhere.”

“We have insurance here in Massachusetts,” he said in a campaign debate. “I’m not going to be subsidizing for the next three, five years, pick a number, subsidizing what other states have failed to do.”

What Brown failed to mention is the inconvenient fact that the Massachusetts reform plan (1) focused on coverage, not cost containment (not exactly an approach championed by the fiscally conservative), and (2) relies heavily on federal subsidies to fund an expansion of the state’s Medicaid and CHIP programs, among others. In October, the New England Journal of Medicine, using state data, reported that the federal government dedicated $688 million to Massachusetts health care in 2006, before the reforms took effect. In 2007, after the reforms were in place, that number jumped to $816 million. In 2008, it was $888 million. Last year, it was projected to approach $1.3 billion.

So while Brown says he’s not going to subsidize what other states failed to do, other states are busy subsidizing what Massachusetts has done. He should at least acknowledge that fact as he continues to oppose the Democrats’ proposals.

That strategy, the Democrats wrote in a July 16 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), would have a negative impact on small businesses.

We believe that any revenues for the health care program should be collected from a larger base than the critical small business sector. We encourage you to seek creative ways to reduce the overall need for revenue generation, and to propose a more equitable way of distributing the burden of any remaining needs to ensure that health care reform is a success for small business, our economy, and the millions of uninsured who stand to benefit.

This is no real surprise. The freshman class of Democrats comes largely from conservative-leaning districts where any tax hike — even if it would affect only the wealthiest 1.2 percent of households — is anathema.

As Speaker, Pelosi has repeatedly allowed the members of her flock to cater to their constituents’ ideologies even when those sentiments have bucked the leadership’s priorities — a savvy political strategy aimed always at preserving seats in the next election. And these 22 Democrats are clearly banking on that trend to continue. Still, there aren’t too many funding options available to pay the $1.2 trillion cost of the Democrats’ health care proposal. If the choice falls between providing universal coverage and taxing the wealthiest Americans, well, Pelosi will likely start pushing back on this one.