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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment