Nationalizing The Massachusetts Mess
Read Sally Pipes in the Washington Examiner:
Devotees of big government, like Archimedes, believe that if they have a long lever and a place to stand, they can move the world. [...] In 2006, a bipartisan band of such politicians in Massachusetts immersed themselves in wishful thinking, ignored both hard facts and proven theory, and used their political muscle to build bureaucracy, increase taxes, and aggregated power to remake health care in the Bay State. [Democrats] took the act nationwide with the passage in March 2010 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Like the canary in a mineshaft, Massachusetts provides a strong indication of our fate. [...] The ultimate payers will be consumers and taxpayers, who will either pay more for less or more for nothing at all. What happens in Mass won’t be staying in Mass.
Two great ironies of the left are, first, the assertion that they care more about the little guy -- when it turns out that caring is actually a paternalistic contempt for the little guy's capacity to function and make his own choices. And second, a towering optimism in their utopian vision or authoritarian elitist control, despite all historic evidence and economic reality.
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: Nationalizing The Massachusetts Mess
The subtext here is: Mitt Romney is toast.
Re: Nationalizing The Massachusetts Mess
Rob Long: The subtext here is: Mitt Romney is toast. · Jun 14 at 10:15am
Quite the counterpoint to the raging debate elsewhere about Sarah Palin's political future. If it comes down to Mitt Romney, self-made gadzillionaire and inventor of RomneyCare, versus Sarah Palin, former Wasilla mayor and half-term governor, I'd have to go with the latter.
May '10
Re: Nationalizing The Massachusetts Mess
Romney will point out the differences between what he tried to get and was denied by the legislature, the changes made later, and the Heritage Foundation policy papers that were written in support of the plan.
The real problem is that every kind of "health care reform" proposed is only "health care reimbursement/payment reform."
Re: Nationalizing The Massachusetts Mess
Rob Long: The subtext here is: Mitt Romney is toast. · Jun 14 at 10:15am
George Savage: Quite the counterpoint to the raging debate elsewhere about Sarah Palin's political future. If it comes down to Mitt Romney, self-made gadzillionaire and inventor of RomneyCare, versus Sarah Palin, former Wasilla mayor and half-term governor, I'd have to go with the latter.
That's a choice I'd not like to make, George. I supported and endorsed Romney the first time around, in spite of the fact that I preferred Mitt 1.0 to the awkwardly red-meat-dispensing vending machine that was Mitt 2.0. Mitt 3.0 is an improvement, but I remain a little puzzled by Mitt's studied ignorance of the basic laws of comparative advantage. Why on earth would he try to be more like Palin? This is like Palin trying to be more like Romney, an exercise which would rightly get her exiled back to Alaska until the ice caps melt.
May '10
Re: Nationalizing The Massachusetts Mess
Thank you Heather!
My life is consumed at the moment with anticipating the effects of an extraordinary power play taking place inside the Dept. of Education where, through the Federal rulemaking process, the administration is stepping around Congress to rewrite Federal student aid policy to restrict access to students attending for-profit colleges and universities.
Federal student aid is built on a voucher system, and attaches to the student, not the school. But the Feds want to restrict students' ability to spend their voucher at FPCUs.
The issue is student debt. Though drop-out rates for working adults are higher at community colleges, the state and municipal subsidies at public institutions leave drop-outs debt free, whereas those that drop out of FPCUs are left owing money, their lives "ruined." The Department would like them to be able to drop out without consequence.
Industry has pleaded for a disclosure-based regime but USDOE is insisting on a Soviet-style system capping tuition based on what a BLS-determined salary range.
The condescending assumption is that these adults are not capable of making an informed decision about whether to borrow to go back to school and the regulators would like to make it for them.