When the government controls health care--any aspect of health care and any level of government--politics will play a role. Such is the case in Massachusetts. Governor Deval Patrick, facing a tough reelection campaign, has recently been critical of health insurance companies for raising rates on small businesses. Now, the state has rejected almost all the rate hikes requested by those insurers, to their dismay and to the delight of small business owners and the self-insured. This is, of course, good politics. But what are the consequences? Facing smaller profit margins, the insurance companies will look for ways to make up for their inability to raise premiums. They may increase the number of procedures they will not cover, lower their payments to health providers, and the like. Deval Patrick may gain a few more votes, but scores of Massachusetts residents will pay for them in ways they cannot now foresee.

Paul Krugman is calling for a return to old-fashioned banking regulation.

Charles Krauthammer wonders why President Obama seems to be so keen to slap our friends and embrace our enemies. I hope it is a clever plan. I fear it is a result of ideological blindness.

Diane Ravitch, who once supported the No Child Left Behind law, now opposes it, and gives her prescription for education reform. She says testing does not work, and choice does not work, and charter schools do not work. I say let's get rid of the Federal presence in education entirely, and let the states and local districts come up with their solutions. After awhile, we might find some things that work (of course, with the immense power of the teacher's unions, that may not be possible).