Answer Me This

*** POST UPDATED *** SCROLL DOWN ***

A few quick question for the "reality-based" "progressives" out there concerning the bill recently passed by the state legislature to require all Massachusetts residents to purchase health insurance, whether they want it or not, and to provide "free" health care for the "poor".

1. Will the "poor" folks applying for this coverage be required to submit to testing for drug and tobacco use. I sure as hell was when I purchased a life insurance policy with my own money. Wouldn't it make sense that someone seeking health insurance on the taxpayers' dime be required to do the same? Seems it would be a matter of simple risk assessment. Why should a chain-smoking, drug addict get the same health care coverage, at the same cost, as his clean-living, yet equally as (and legitimately) poor, neighbor?

Never mind the fact that if they got money to spend on cigarettes and dope, then they got money to pony up for this crock of shit. But, since when has rewarding people for making piss-poor life decisions been considered a bad thing around here?

2. Also, what percentage of the "poor" people applying for "free" health care will be found to have cable TV at home and cell phones in their pockets? 'Cause, again, if they got money for these luxuries - and yes, that's what they are - then they got money to kick into the system, as well.

3. Lastly - AND THIS IS THE BIG ONE - what happens after every deadbeat freeloader (US citizens and illegal aliens alike) and their extended family of deadbeat freeloaders move into Massachusetts to get their "free" health care, and all the hard-working people who had been paying for it pack up all their shit and relocate to the United Free States of America?

This law, if signed by Governor Romney is unlikely to stem the continuing exodus of (productive) Massachusetts residents leaving the state.

Though if he does cave in and sign this bill (in its current form), I'll retract my earlier statement where I said Tom Reilly was full of shit for trying to blame the declining population of the Commonwealth on the policies of the Romney administration.

All rhetoric aside though, a roomful of retarded monkeys walking around in dirty diapers could do a better job running the state government than the current crop of nanny-state, big brother government knows best fruit loops we've got up there now.

OK, I might be exaggerating there...a little. The retarded monkeys probably couldn't do much better. But, they sure as hell couldn't do any worse.

And, just because it bears repeating (again):

Sometimes I think it's the gyroscopic motion of all the dead patriots buried in Massachusetts spinning in their graves that keeps the planet aligned on its axis.

And, because I forgot to stick this at the bottom of the previous post.

(click to purchase)

UPDATE: From the Washington Post (via reader Dan S.):

The bill's passage was celebrated as a victory in the state legislature, with House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi (D) telling colleagues that they had succeeded where other states had failed.

"We did something to solve the problem," he said.

That, Sal, depends entirely on your definition of the word "solve". If, by "solve" you mean replacing one small problem with a whole shitload of new problems, then sure, you have "solved" the problem. Congratualtions.

The same message might provide a political boost to Romney, who is considering a presidential run in 2008. By proving he can work with Democrats, and find a health-care solution that relies on the private sector...

Translation: Redistribution of wealth. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Sound familiar, anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Further, this system doesn't "rely" on the private sector at all. The implication there is that employers are paying into the system freely and without fear of repercussion for non-compliance. It implies that the state is at the mercy of the private sector and its generosity for its continuing financial contributions into the system.

This couldn't be farther removed from reality.

If someone in the private sector doesn't want to play ball, the money is forcibly taken from them by the state. How can that be interpreted as the state "relying" on the private sector when the money is literally there for the taking - whether the subject holding the money wants to go along with the plan or not.

This is like saying the pin-striped gangsters shaking down business owners for "protection" money were "relying" on the generosity of said business owners for their shakedown income.

It's simply absurd.

Now, if we substitute "relies on" with "extorts from", we might just be onto something.

...Romney can portray himself as an executive who can work across the aisle in harshly partisan times.

By caving in to the the leftists running the Commonwealth and their unabashed Marxist ideology. Yippee.

"It might help him to say, 'Look, I have a solution for health insurance,' " said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history at Boston University.

Yeah, Karl Marx had "solutions" too, pal.

And, while that may be the case, Julian, I suspect it would help him more in the long run to say, "Go fuck yourselves. Not only am I not signing that piece of crap, I wouldn't wipe my dog's ass with the paper it's written on."

But that's just me talking. What do I know?

Apparently, I'm not "progressive" enough.