| Massachusetts Politics; comeuppance for the Commonwealth | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 31 2007, 01:26 PM (73 Views) | |
| Dominic Guglieme | Jul 31 2007, 01:26 PM Post #1 |
|
the human MICROscope!!
![]()
|
Okay, as my last thread here was unduly harsh to the south, I figure it is time to beat up on Massachusetts. The front page of the Sunday Globe (7/29) quoted a recent study indicating that Massachusetts is falling behind in all kinds of economic indicator categories. Put simply, the state is making a poor, poor, poor, showing. Perhaps the worst part of it was the migration of people form the state. Put simply, more people are leaving than are coming in. Massachusetts has many schools, and we get students from all over the world. Unfortunately, this state is incapable of keeping many of them. Why? If I had to guess, I would say it is the state's (well-earned) reputation for corruption and ineptitude. I could post a litany of misdeeds and examples of mismanagement from the Commonwealth. But, I will settle for one, recent, example. Massachusetts is one of two states in teh country (the other being oft-mocked California) to require health insurance for all adults. Now, some people may think this is progressive. Others may see this as Massachusetts becoming a European style welfare state. They would both be wrong. The best way to describe this is as similar to the Oligarchy era of post-Soviet Russia, with a hint of old-fashioned boon-doggle spending. Our former Governor, Mitt "stomin' Mormon" Romney gave the state's health insurance lobby the greatest gift they could have hoped for-every adult in the state is a potential customer. If employers do not provide insurance (and there are severe penalties for those who do not), people have to get insurance. This legally mandated insurance removes one of the key requirements for free markets, and social justice, the option to opt out of something. If you are in MA, you have to buy insurance. Mind you, the coverage will not be especially good, either in absolute terms or relative to the amount one has to spend. The employer mandates will likely make it harder for people to find jobs, and less likely for companies to set up shop here, or even to stay. Can we hear that tax-base eroding yet? No tax base means no social programs. And, with all of the people who will be out of work, social programs will become more important. (Do not ask me where the funding will come from, ask your representative in Washington. ) I could go on for pages about this. But, I will close by saying that this state takes commendable liberal ideas and makes them completely unworkable. There is nothing inherently wrong with the public sector. But, one cannot discount the private sector, especially at the most basic individual level. If a state tries to compel people living in its borders to do something transparently foolish, it may find that many of the most capable people (the ones any society needs to progress and grow) will opt out. Some people say that the only winners in Romney's scheme are insurance companies. I disagree. Many neighboring states will benefit from an influx of skilled and educated labor. I only hope the schools stay. |
|
Keep it local. The healthiest leper in the colony is still very very sick. www.theanimalrescuesite.com | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · XTRA! XTRA! · Next Topic » |




)


