Diary

Quick Note: Brown, Independents, ObamaCare and Massachusetts

People can complain about RomneyCare, but if they don’t live in Massachusetts, it really doesn’t matter. It’s called federalism and the tenth amendment, which I thought conservatives embraced. People seem to forget that the people of Massachusetts wanted reform. But that’s besides the point. The truth is that ObamaCare is a winning issue for Scott Brown amongst independents, somewhat ironically, because of RomneyCare.

Conservatives may be a minority here, but conservative arguments are not the sole arguments for opposing ObamaCare. Everybody knows the arguments against ObamaCare. But there is another dimension in this race and that is the interaction between RomneyCare and ObamaCare.

Quite simply, the folks of Massachusetts will be the recipients of all the burdens of ObamaCare, but none of the so called “benefits” because ninety-eight percent of all residents are already insured. Many of the so called “fixes” are already in place. People here have also witnessed the downside of a government managed system. They don’t like the mandates or the costs.

Under ObamaCare, the voters of Massachusetts will pay extra taxes. They will pay extra fines. They will carry the national debt. They will have to deal with two layers of beaurocracy. And Medicare will still be cut. But many of the so called “fixes” in ObamaCare are redundant.

Scott does defend RomneyCare, but he wants to fix it and he defends it from a states rights perspective. He doesn’t believe such a system should be forced on any state. It is one of those circumstances where genuine conservatism aligns with perceived moderation. You don’t have to like RomneyCare, but you should respect federalism, the tenth amendment and the will of Massachusetts voters. Scott respects federalism and your ability to govern your own state.

If Martha Coakley wins, it will be because there are too many Democrats in Massachusetts, not because of any support for ObamaCare. By defending ObamaCare, Coakley is asking the citizens of Massachusetts to carry the financial burdens of the rest of the country. Its a reverse Ben Nelson, all the burdens and none of the benefits. Even independents here realize this is a deal for suckers and that Coakley is not looking out for the best interest of Massachusetts.