Clancy DuBos gets it wrong

"As for the $100 million annual subsidy — which is a top-end estimate for a decade hence — let’s keep things in perspective."

Wrong.  DuBos is either willfully misrepresenting the figure for an estimated annual state subsidy for the UMC project or he simply didn't read the latest Kaufman Hall report at all (or attend the UMC Board meeting where it was presented).

He refers to the figure as the top end of a range several times: "and the consultant’s report projects state subsidies of up to $100 million by 2020."

Let's be clear: $100 million was an average estimate, not the top estimate, that an observer could draw from the report.  At the last UMC Board meeting, the consultants presenting noted that the subsidy would likely be within a range of about $25 million on either side of that figure. So $125 would be a better "top-end" estimate if you're willing to accept the middle band of likelihoods.

If you're looking for the true, sobering top-end number for a possible annual subsidy requirement by 2020...there's a number on page 42 of the latest Kaufman-Hall report.  $147 million annually.  That's an estimate if certain federal and state reimbursement policies shift in a certain way.

$100 million is a good estimate if you figure nothing will go wrong.  And given the nature of the UMC project thus far, that's not a good bet to make.