Is Massachusetts Embracing Socialism?

Socialism, in the form of state-sponsored medical coverage, has taken hold in Massachusetts through the passage of a medical reform bill. The Massachusetts State Legislature has passed a bill that is designed to allow poor people free or heavily subsidized medical coverage; citizens who decide to pay their medical bills as they accrue them will be faced with increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage; and those who already have medical insurance will supposedly see a drop in their premiums.

 

"The plan", quoting from this Red Orbit news article, "hinges in part on two key sections: the $295-per-employee business assessment and a so-called 'individual mandate,' requiring every citizen who can afford it to obtain health insurance or face increasing tax penalties." The article continues by explaining, "The state's poorest -- single adults making $9,500 or less a year -- will have access to health coverage with no premiums or deductibles. Those living at up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $48,000 for a family of three, will be able to get health coverage on a sliding scale, also with no deductibles." What the Massachusetts Legislators have created is de facto State sponsored health care. This is nothing more than social engineering to achieve a desired result. The end goal is to have socialized medicine, and this plan is how they intend to implement it.

 

The most interesting quote from the article was this, though:

The cost was put at $316 million in the first year, and more than $1 billion by the third year, with much of that money coming from federal reimbursements and existing state spending, officials said.

"Federal reimbursements" That's money out of your pocket; that's money out of my pocket; that's money out of all our pockets! Now we all get to help pay for the medical care of residents in Massachusetts. Tell me I'm wrong when I say that Massachusetts hasn't embraced full-on Socialism. What else do you call it when the State says to its citizens, "Pay up if you can, be penalized if you refuse, and the State will pay for those who can't." A better example of wealth-redistribution will not be found.

 

But wait! There's more... Do you see it? Do you see the language that is code for federally sponsored healthcare coverage? It's right there in the quote: "...money coming from federal reimbursements". I believe this is part of a much bigger picture that is directly tied to the Social Security Act. It's part of the Democratic Party's long push to implement socialized medicine in the United States. For more information on this see Mark's post at South Puget Sound Libertarian and my comment to his post. As a teaser, here is a quote from the SSA that will shed some light on why Massachusetts may be pushing so hard for this bill to become law (hint: it's the money!):

SEC. 1903. [42 U.S.C. 1396b] (a) From the sums appropriated therefor, the Secretary (except as otherwise provided in this section) shall pay to each State which has a plan approved under this title, for each quarter, beginning with the quarter commencing January 1, 1966...

In closing, let me make it clear that I do not agree with state-sponsored medical coverage. I also don't agree with taxpayer-subsidized medical bill bail-outs, either. The creation of a governing body is not to bail you out if you get caught short on cash. The state should never be used in the role of wealth redistribution (aka federal reimbursements). This is why my position has always been that if you're going to claim to be a free citizen, then you will also need to be financially responsible for all that life throws at you. Governments are not charities.