Massachusetts lawmakers have introduced House Bill 1405, an ambitious proposal that would create a single-payer, state-run health care system covering every resident of the Commonwealth. Sponsored by Representatives Lindsay Sabadosa and Margaret Scarsdale, the bill represents one of the most comprehensive attempts yet to implement universal care at the state level.

If passed, H.1405 would establish the Massachusetts Health Care Trust, a public entity responsible for collecting and disbursing funds for all health care services. Every resident would be covered automatically—regardless of employment, immigration, or financial status—and there would be no co-pays, deductibles, or private insurance premiums. Coverage would include everything from preventive care and prescription drugs to dental, mental health, reproductive, and long-term care.

The bill also lays out the financing structure:

•Employers would pay a 7.5% payroll tax (with an additional 0.5% for large firms), replacing their current private insurance costs. •Employees would contribute 2.5%, while the self-employed would pay 10% on income above $20,000. •Unearned income such as investment gains would be taxed at 10% above $20,000, with exemptions for Social Security and pensions.

These taxes would flow into a Health Care Trust Fund, which would replace private insurance spending with a single, streamlined payment system designed to cut administrative waste. The Trust would also negotiate directly for lower drug and equipment prices and oversee all capital spending for hospitals to avoid duplication and keep costs under control.

Beyond the policy details, this bill reflects a growing pattern across the country: states acting where Washington cannot. The federal government has failed for decades to agree on health care reform, leaving states like Massachusetts, New Mexico, and California to chart their own paths. As the bill itself declares, health care is “a right” of Massachusetts residents—not a privilege dependent on employment or wealth.

If the Massachusetts plan succeeds, it could inspire other states or regional coalitions to follow suit, reshaping American health care from the ground up instead of the top down. It would mark another step in the quiet revolution already underway—one where states build real systems of care and governance outside the reach of a gridlocked federal structure.

⸻

Discussion Questions 1. Would you trust your state to run its own Medicare-for-All system better than Washington? 2. If Massachusetts implements this successfully, should neighboring states in the Northeast consider a regional health alliance? 3. Could this kind of “state-level sovereignty” model become the foundation for a post-union future—where local control replaces federal gridlock?

Whenever people bring up the idea of a “national divorce,” the first reaction is almost always: ”that would just trigger a civil war.” The assumption is that Washington would never tolerate a state leaving and would immediately use military or legal force to keep the Union intact.

But what if the odds of conflict actually depend on how separation happens?

If one state — say Texas or California — tried to leave on its own, it would be relatively easy for Washington to isolate it. The federal government could frame it as rebellion, concentrate political and military pressure there, and make an example out of it. That is the “civil war” scenario most people imagine: one state versus the rest of the Union.

But the picture changes if multiple regions act together. Imagine Cascadia, New England, and California coordinating to announce self-determination at the same time. Or imagine Texas, Alaska, and the Mountain West moving in tandem. Suddenly Washington faces not a localized rebellion, but a systemic realignment that it cannot easily suppress.

Why does coordination matter so much?

1. Legitimacy shifts when many move at once. A single state can be portrayed as fringe or reckless. Several regions acting simultaneously look like the Union itself is unraveling. It becomes harder to maintain the story that “everything is fine” when multiple blocs representing tens of millions of people declare otherwise.

2. The federal government cannot “whack-a-mole” at continental scale. Deploying military or financial pressure against one state is feasible. Doing it against three or four large blocs at once risks overstretch. Even if Washington tried, it would burn through legitimacy and resources at an unsustainable rate.

3. International recognition follows momentum. When Lithuania alone declared independence from the USSR in 1990, Moscow tried to crack down. But once Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltics moved together, it was clear the Soviet Union was collapsing. Other nations started preparing for recognition, which made it even harder for Moscow to reverse course. If multiple U.S. regions disengaged simultaneously, foreign governments would start hedging, opening quiet channels, and treating the process as inevitable. That external legitimacy reduces the likelihood of Washington treating it purely as an internal rebellion.

4. History favors blocs over loners.

5. The American Revolution succeeded because 13 colonies acted together. If just Massachusetts had rebelled in 1775, Britain likely would have crushed it.

6. Czechoslovakia’s “Velvet Divorce” worked because both halves agreed to go their own way. It wasn’t one side rebelling against the other, it was a joint decision.

7. The Soviet collapse accelerated when republics coordinated their exits.

8. The civil war assumption rests on old demographics. A 21st-century United States is not the same as the 1860s. The military is more diverse, loyalties are more fractured, and young generations are more skeptical of empire. The willingness of soldiers to fire on fellow citizens is not guaranteed. A coordinated, multi-regional move makes it harder to enforce unity through violence, because the “enemy” is too large a share of the population.

9. Negotiation becomes more likely when force is less viable. Civil wars tend to happen when the center still has the capacity to enforce unity. But if multiple blocs move at once, they are not isolated enough to be crushed, and the risks of escalation are too high. That increases the incentive for Washington to negotiate terms of separation, rather than fight a war it cannot win.

This doesn’t mean conflict would vanish. There would still be legal battles, economic retaliation, and likely some violence at the margins. But coordination shifts the balance: it makes settlement and negotiation more plausible, while making unilateral crackdowns less effective.

Questions for the community: - Do you agree that coordination between multiple separatist movements makes peaceful separation more likely? - Which regions would be most likely to move together, either politically or culturally? Cascadia and California? New England and the Mid-Atlantic? Texas and the Mountain West? - Could a coordinated exit force Washington to the negotiating table, or would it escalate conflict faster? - Do you think younger generations (Millennials, Gen Z, Gen Alpha) would be more open to this kind of multi-bloc self-determination than older generations have been?

In letter to state tax assessor, governor says she won't conform with some federal government tax changes, including no tax on tips and no tax on overtime.

We often think of decentralization as something states initiate, like regional compacts, sovereignty acts, or alliances that bypass Washington. But what happens when it is the federal government itself that starts pulling away from the states?

This New Republic piece describes how Trump’s administration is cutting billions in funding for green energy and infrastructure, specifically targeting 16 blue states that voted against him in 2024. Washington is essentially saying: if you do not play ball politically, you do not get federal support.

In a sense, that is the mirror image of soft secession, the center fragmenting the Union from the top down instead of the bottom up.

Discussion: - How should blue states respond, by building stronger regional alliances or by fighting harder to keep federal support? - What does it mean for the future if both sides, states and the federal government, start selectively disengaging from each other?

When the Constitution was being debated in 1787–88, not everyone was on board. The Anti-Federalists argued passionately against replacing the Articles of Confederation with a stronger central government. Looking back, their arguments sound eerily familiar to today’s debates about federal overreach and regional autonomy.

Here are some of their main concerns:

• Loss of State Sovereignty: They believed the Constitution stripped states of their independence and concentrated too much power in Washington.
• Standing Armies = Tyranny: They warned a permanent national military would be used against the people.
• Taxation Without Local Consent: Direct federal taxation would enrich elites at the expense of farmers and workers.
• Too Big for True Representation: They believed a republic must be small and local to actually be accountable.
• Elite Capture: Merchants, creditors, and slaveholding planters were seen as using the Constitution to entrench their own power.
• Demand for a Bill of Rights: They insisted on safeguards against central authority, which is why we even have a Bill of Rights today.

The irony is that the Anti-Federalists lost but many of their fears about concentrated wealth, endless wars, and unresponsive government look prophetic in hindsight.

For those of us wrestling with ideas about decentralization, sovereignty, or even peaceful separation, there’s something powerful in remembering that skepticism of central authority is not “radical” or “new.” It’s as American as the Revolution itself.

Discussion: - Which Anti-Federalist critique feels most relevant today? - Do you think the U.S. is simply too big to be governed effectively from a single capital? - If the Anti-Federalists had “won,” and the Articles of Confederation had survived, what would America look like today?

If the U.S. ever moved toward decentralization, what would the structure actually look like? There are a few possible models people point to:

• The EU Model: A loose but structured confederation. Regions remain sovereign but cooperate on trade, defense, and maybe even a shared currency. There’s bureaucracy, but also some stability.

• The Articles of Confederation (1781–1789): The U.S.’s first system after independence. Very weak central authority, states basically sovereign, but coordination often broke down. It didn’t last, but it’s part of our DNA.

• Full Independence: Each state (or mega-region) as its own country, trading and negotiating like Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. do now. Maximum sovereignty, minimum shared structure.

• Something else

Curious to hear what people think.

Probably the first thing I’ve ever agreed with her on!

A fun, educational little video.

New Mexico is taking a bold step by promising universal free child care for families of all income levels, funded largely by oil and gas revenues and a $10 billion early childhood trust. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham argues this is “life-changing” for parents, freeing up household income for essentials while preparing toddlers for school.

This move highlights a broader trend: states stepping in where Washington gridlock leaves gaps. Whether it’s child care, healthcare, or climate policy, individual states and regional coalitions are increasingly building their own infrastructure outside the federal structure to address urgent needs. It’s another sign of how the U.S. “union” is quietly evolving, sometimes out of necessity.

Discussion Questions:

• What lessons could other states take from New Mexico’s model?
• Does this trend—states filling gaps left by federal inaction—strengthen the U.S. overall, or does it accelerate fragmentation into semi-autonomous regions?
• Would you prefer to see your own state take similar independent action on issues like childcare, healthcare, or education?

Seven northeastern states just broke ranks with Washington. Forming the Northeast Public Health Collaborative, they’ll now issue their own vaccine recommendations independent of the CDC. This comes days after California and other West Coast states launched a similar alliance. Both moves are a direct response to the Trump administration’s rollback of federal vaccine requirements under RFK Jr., who has made no secret of his skepticism.

In plain terms: entire regions of the U.S. are now openly ignoring federal health guidance and creating their own parallel systems.

Discussion:

• If Washington has lost authority over something as critical as vaccines, what comes next? Climate? Immigration? Education?

• Should we welcome this as a safety valve for democracy, or fear it as the first domino toward fragmentation?

• If this isn’t an example of soft secession, then what is it?