Monday, May 14, 2012

Thanks, liberals

Since it shows their bullshit for what it is, wingnuts will curse this:

Gov. Romney’s candidacy is an opportunity to take a closer look at the state that dare not speak its name. Through all the red mist and flying blue fur this election year, it’s worth reminding voters of a truth Romney probably won’t be emphasizing: The nation’s favorite punching bag is an exceptionally successful state. ...

[I]f America wants to be a healthy, smart, rich, globalized, high-tech powerhouse, we arguably have no better model than Massachusetts.

For many, a steady drizzle of mockery for the state and its “moderates” is the only response to that uncomfortable truth. Still, it’s hard not to dream of a presidential campaign in which a former governor would run on, not from, his associations with Massachusetts. Dukakis, of course, ran on a “Massachusetts Miracle.” But Gov. Romney is already too far from home for that, and probably knows better than to try.
I've hit all these themes, mostly in my obsessive commenting at the MetroWest Daily News (recently here), to the point that I'm sorry I didn't write the Slate piece.


Anonymous said...

Health care costs rise...population drains. Bwarney out of a job, though that's priceless

lovable liberal said...

Massachusetts health care costs were high before Romneycare, and they still are. The difference is that here we're working on reducing them, while free marketeers' only answer is to let poor people do without care.

You need to check the numbers on population. Massachusetts grew in the past ten years.

Anonymous said...

costs are higher, despite your slithery sentence constructions, and higher relative to rest of country... Losing House seats is not a growing state, relative to the rest of the country. since when did you start embracing absolutes?

lovable liberal said...

Check the definition of drains, your word, speaking of "slithery sentence constructions."

Naturally, you used that phrase for one of my sentences, which acknowledged the high costs.

Apparently, you and yours get to deceive with impunity, while my facts deserve attack if they're not the facts you would prefer I state.

I note you didn't claim any better Teapublican idea than letting poor people die. Maybe you want to try that now. Maybe not.

Anonymous said...

Wow, no insults, but higher costs, loss of seat - thems the facts, jack

lovable liberal said...

As if those were all the facts...

Higher costs with many sources, including high degrees of specialization, high levels of teaching hospitals, etc. that are results of a successful economy. It's possible, even likely, that the additional demand of the health insurance mandate of Romneycare adds to overall costs.

Now the legislature is working on cost reductions. You have no faith in them, despite a long record of successful government, but I know several of them, and they will make a difference. While it's unlikely to be single payer (the actual proven low-cost option), they will have good effects at the margin. Come back and admit it when it happens. (Yah, suuure.)

Loss of a seat does not equal a drain in population. Except if you work for Teapublican Minitru, which you apparently volunteer for.

All the other Massachusetts successes? Chopped liver?