"This is probably about as close as you can get to universal," said Paul B. Ginsburg, president of the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington. "It's definitely going to be inspiring to other states about how there was this compromise. They found a way to get to a major expansion of coverage that people could agree on. For a conservative Republican, this is individual responsibility. For a Democrat, this is government helping those that need help."
I'm very interested to see how this goes. On it's face, it appears to be a good compromise, but I'm only going on the limited detail of this article. I'm pleased to see people trying to figure out universal health care, and if this is a feasible plan, then I won't argue.
Of course, it's politically useful as well :
Mr. Romney, who is considering running for president in 2008, said in an interview Tuesday that the bill, passed by a legislature that is 85 percent Democratic, was "95 percent of what I proposed."
He said, "This is really a landmark for our state because this proves at this stage that we can get health insurance for all our citizens without raising taxes and without a government takeover. The old single-payer canard is gone."
I think it's premature for Romney to declare that categorically, but it's ideologically desirable for him to believe so.
Massachusetts Sets Health Plan for Nearly All