Friday, November 04, 2005

Massachusetts Takes a Great Leap Towards Socialized Medicine

The front page of today's Boston Globe informs us that: "The Massachusetts House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved last night a sweeping healthcare bill that promises to cover nearly all the state's 500,000 uninsured residents within three years."

It continues: "The House voted 131-22 for the legislation shortly before midnight, a few hours after rejecting a Republican-led effort to scuttle the bill's proposed payroll tax on businesses."

Let us pause to consider the magnitude of this event.

Socialism and liberty are mortal enemies, and liberty in this case had less than a paltry two dozen defenders in our statehouse. This is dangerous, bad stuff and it will really hurt. Another example of the achilles heel of democracy: giving away the wealth of others in exchange for votes just *works*.

This majority seems solidly veto-proof. How many small and medium business will go under because of this? How long until we see the macroeconomic effects? Until the abuses start becoming apparent? Until the incentive to be in the "can't afford" healthcare category outweighs the incentive to work to be in the "can afford" category? Who will determine what I can afford? One thing is for sure: business owners eligible to have their wealth redistributed away from them under this plan will feel the socialist boot on their neck from day 1.

Is there any upside at all to this development? I have found a few possible silver lining candidates:

1. This is a small victory for federalism, in that it occurred at the state level. If Massachusetts goes into a deep funk as a result of this, businesses and residents can move over the border to NH or CT and the verdict on this plan will be obvious.

2. The article itself was surprisingly balanced, coming from the Boston Globe.

3. Any failed experiment at socialize medicine will reinforce the futility of the concept. The practical consequences for real people in our state will reinforce the immorality of socialism.

4. If Romney is able to fend this off, or even not fend it off but go down blazing, it might help his visibility for an '08 run.

Who knows how oppressive government has to become before a libertarian revolt throws out the lefty pols at the ballot box? Seems like we may find out.

Edited by WalnutHill, now that I have some degree of partnership in this venture, to encourage consideration of my contribution of some historical perspective in the Comments.


Blogger WalnutHill said...

Remember, demo my friend, that we have been down this road before. If I recall correctly, Michael "My wife is just a little tired" Dukakis left a big wet kiss of a universal healthcare mandate scheduled to take effect during the Weld adminsitration. Weld I think may actually have given rhetorical support to keeping the rendezvous with destiny. But the 1991 crash of the Massachusetts Mirage caused the boys who write the big checks to political campaigns in the commonwealth to tell their minions on Beacon Hill to stop the foolishness.

The utter ignorance on the part of Dukakis or the legislative leadership regarding what the bill would have done to small businesses in the state caused me to change my political enrollment from Democrat to Unenrolled.

I have another silver lining, however. If this takes effect, it is bound to activate an educated class of people politically in the service of liberty: namely doctors.

6:03 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home