I don’t spend enough time on RMG to know whether “Simple J. Malarkey” is one of the true believers over there, or one of the progressive infiltrators, or what. But whatever his or her political outlook, he or she poses a superb question on a post “written” by Charlie Baker:
I was talking to a supporter of yours…
…who owns his own business and he was grateful that BCBS sent him a letter rescinding their 13% health insurance hike and I joked that he should write thank you note to Deval. My friend is generally up on things, but he was not aware of the recent hullabaloo around this issue. I mentioned that you were in favor of the 13% increase and, therefore, hurting his small business.
Which got me thinking and I hope you’re kind enough to answer a question … why is it that you take a reasonable position that state government can trim fat and roll-back revenue levels, but you won’t take the same position to the oligopolistic health insurance industry in MA?
I find it concerning that you support 13 % health insurance increases–an industry that the state may regulate–in a time of economic stress, instead of insisting they implement many of the same streamlining you propose for the state. What good is rolling back a penny sales tax for residents, when they’ll pay even more than that with these increases. Frankly Mr. Baker, your better than that and I would expect that you would hold the bloated bureaucracies of the Utilities, insurance companies and other large industries the state regulates to the same level of accountability you want to place on state government. If not, whatever is saved from government reforms will be lost elsewhere.
Very, very well stated. Couldn’t have said it better myself — and if I had, Baker wouldn’t answer, since he doesn’t talk to folks like us. But maybe an RMGer will have better luck. I will check in periodically, and report back.
…as festus/frank.
went over to the post and what I found interesting is that Patrick (not Deval) rated the question as “Needs Work”. Why? Wouldn’t Patrick or anyone else for that matter want to hear Baker’s answer to that question? Doesn’t matter if you are left, right or otherwise.
…and given that I was talking about government regulation of certain industries, there is no way Patrick the Libertarian good rate it a 5. Without a doubt, Patrick consistently show that most independence among conservatives at RMG.
might be a BMG spy, a closet liberal, or some other sort of milquetoast fair weather conservative. Others at RMG assure me otherwise.
…every time I share your suspicion about Patrick being a closet liberal, he plays an anti-abortion card or spouts an economic libertarian viewpoint. I think “contrarian” best sums him up. My biggest complaint about Patrick, which I’ve shared with him (via the blogs) is that he rarely posts diaries, or gives insights into his opinions. I think I would find them interesting.
He’s the most fair-minded and appreciative of challenging discussions, even if he doesn’t always take on the discussion. He also doesn’t always avoid them like the current editors do, who seem desperately intent on molding the direction of RMG like it is a reflection of the GOP itself. They’re worse than feminists the way the are always so worried everyone stay on message.
The RMG scale only goes to 5. And the ratings have different meanings.
<
p>I’d love to hear Baker answer the question. But if you look at his posting history you’ll notice that he’s never commented on anything. Don’t hold your breath waiting for his reply.
never assume as they say.
And the perfect summation of progressive thinking: Why should the private sector get away with everything, but the government should tie its hands?
…I like to hide out in the open…a simple Google of Simple J would quickly lead back to me…