The Senate election in Masac…Massache….Massachuse….

What the heck, the Democrats can\’t spell it either.

I\’m simply going to laugh like a drain if Brown beats Coakley.

Gurgle gurgle, that\’ll be me.

The one part of the country that has actually had health care insurance reform along the lines now proposed nationally being the one place that elects the bloke who makes that national health care insurance reform fail.

Gurgle, gurgle.

10 thoughts on “The Senate election in Masac…Massache….Massachuse….”

  1. One of the things I don’t understand about the US healthcare debate is this- what is stopping individual states from implementing their own healthcare policies as Massachusetts has done?

    Individual states are bigger than many nations that have their own healthcare systems so it isn’t a matter of size.

  2. Ross,

    Why should individual states take any political, fiscal and even medical risks implementing healthcare reform when they can wait for the federal Government to decide for them, and take the blame if it goes wrong.

    Plus you can spend your time in your own state campaigning for national healthcare reform while not ever getting around to doing it *in your own state*. Lobby the federal Government to pad out your time in office rather than getting on and doing it on your own patch.

    We have the same here with the EU. Let them do the ‘thinking’ and our politicians have an easy life, and can blame the EU whenever it goes wrong.

    It is a wholly negative mindset. A fear of criticism. An inability to state your case properly. Avoiding blame is the key, rather than having positive policies or some kind of goal you stand by. That is why quangos and inter-departmental committees are so readily made – it carves up the responsibility to the point no-one is responsible, at which point you begin to get irresponsible policies instead.

  3. No matter the country or the subject, pushing power and decisionmaking downwards will provide the best result (and the most honest and hardworking politicians)

  4. Ross-

    The simple answer is twofold: (1) there isn’t much voter demand for such schemes at the state level, and (2) state politicians understand just how hideously expensive it will be.

    I have lived in Ohio forever, and there has never been any sort of serious discussion of a state run health care system here. This is, in no small part, because the state constitution prohibits Ohio’s state government to run a deficit. Ergo, if the state implements a health care system and costs rise, politicians must vote tax increases and voters must accept them. It is the same in many other states. The fact that Ohio cannot simply defer payment via taking on debt is a limiting factor not present on the federal level.

  5. the state constitution prohibits Ohio’s state government to run a deficit

    Is this just in cash terms? Ideally it would prevent any unfunded future commitments, e.g. unfunded public sector pensions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *