Yes, for costs/fines. But then go ahead explain how having mandatory insurance relates to MA's state treasury, and the inability to pay it's matching Medicare responsibilities? Is the state not having money directly due to having mandatory insurance? (could be, I don't know).
And is the mandatory program is funded with the same cost ratios and income as the Senate federal program (works the same, on the same scale) so is directly applicable?
To me the post sounded like a pretty broad, "government involvement in healthcare sucks, look at Canada" kind of thing to me. Too general, not directly applicable.
I think if you are trying to make the argument, "as MA goes, so will go the entire country" under either the House or Senate healthcare reform you'll need a little more detail.
So rather than some secret agenda that Antitrust suspects I have
, I figured it was just a good point, what's to debate about it?