A Boston Globe editorial has the statement and the details behind the claim. I think they’re reasonably right, but the state will have tougher choices in the future, just like when Bill Clinton’s “welfare reform” punted some tough issues down the road.
And, a “public option” would be a tool to help with those tough choices, but, you can’t expect something like that to be done on a state-by-state basis. Southern states would, again, engage in a race to the bottom, which is exactly why Southern Senators promote, if anything concrete, a “federalized” healthcare “reform” plan.
Massachusetts, beyond not wanting to have a state-based “public option,” also benefits from a low rate of uninsureds as a starting point, and also, surely, from a stronger state regulatory climate than a place like here in Tejas.
A skeptical leftist's, or post-capitalist's, or eco-socialist's blog, including skepticism about leftism (and related things under other labels), but even more about other issues of politics. Free of duopoly and minor party ties. Also, a skeptical look at Gnu Atheism, religion, social sciences, more.
Note: Labels can help describe people but should never be used to pin them to an anthill.
As seen at Washington Babylon and other fine establishments
August 05, 2009
Healthcare change is working on Bay State
Labels:
Massachusetts,
national healthcare
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment