One has to wonderful why if RomneyCare was/is so wonderful, then why didn’t masses and masses of people move to MA? Probably because the liberals with money really *don*t* want to pay for it (just sounds good in theory) and those without insurance are mostly getting the health care that they need, one way or another.
But guess which state is probably losing at least one rep...MA.
It is a rash assumption to link the population changes in the country to the Massachusetts health-insurance scheme (which, incidentally, I would never have favored, if I lived there). The Easern states, particularly New England, have been losing population relative to the country for years.
There are many other reasons not to live in Massachusetts: it is not called “Taxachusetts” for nothing. Even property taxes are sky high. The gun laws are ridiculous: almost as bad as CA and NJ. The state of MA is highly corrupt. First you have the Kennedy clan. Then you have Boston, the only city in the country where the local FBI office was actually infiltrated by the local Irish mafia. It is a state with a majority Catholic population which apparently has NO pro-life congressional representation! The more beautiful the scenery, the dumber the electorate: thus we get Barney Frank.
Ugh. I would not want to carry MA plates on my car. When you consider all that, Romney did very well in such an unfavorable environment. Certainly his successor is far worse.
I would trade in an Obama for a Romney any day. Heck, I would trade in Obama for almost anyone. Just let me get a chance to make the trade!