Comments on: Discuss: Massachusetts Senate Race - Scott Brown (R) Beats Martha Coakley (D)

By: carol

carol — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:07:32 +0000

Sorry Colleen, haven’t gotten back to read this. Here is a link to Mass Health. A big complaint I have heard is that there are lots of forms involved and it is difficult to get anybody on the phone at Mass Health.

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eohhs2subtopic&L=5&L0=Home&L1=Consumer&L2=Insurance+(including+MassHealth)&L3=MassHealth+Coverage+Types&L4=Applicants+and+Members+Under+Age+65+and+Families&sid=Eeohhs2

To be honest I don’t know much about it since we have health insurance through work.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:55:59 +0000

Health Care costs are spiraling out of control. This means costs for individual citizens, and also costs for the federal government. As these costs continue to spiral upwards, more and more people will become uninsured, more and more people will be bankrupted, and the federal government (and programs like Medicare) will go bankrupt too.
This really is a problem that cannot wait to be solved. If we put off true reform for another 10 years, then it will be a disaster.
Sadly our political system barely allows for any reform to take place. Too many powerful lobbies exert way too much influence on lawmakers and ultimately even on the electorate.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:15:58 +0000

Enron got to be where it was because of politicians who’s only concern was padding their own nests. What I’m saying is that if government protections are taken away from corporations, regulations won’t be necessary. If board members themselves can be sued out of house and home and be held accountable for their actions, the playing field would be leveled. When we have a bloated bureaucratic government where most people in congress makes way more than they are worth in the free market, it’s easy to see why the government would protect big corporations. More tax revenue.

Also, site some sources if you don’t mind. I really am interested in researching all sides of this debate.

By: Michael Kirschner

Michael Kirschner — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:18:20 +0000

When you take away regulation you get companies like Enron who were able to create a higher demand for energy by lowering the supply, remember the so called California Energy Crisis?

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:12:40 +0000

@Kirschner Could you provide some sources for your info? Most stats I have seen are way slanted to prove your point. For instance, one person I was debating threw a stat at me about infant survival rates and the US was behind Cuba, something like 1.5 more infants a year die in the US than in Cuba in their first year of life. This is misleading because it doesn’t take into account accidental deaths and neglect that have nothing to do with health care.

As for government regulation, here’s my problem with that. The government provides protections to corporations so that individuals within the big evil corporation cannot be personally sued for their evil doings. So then when these corporations grow to be so big under the government’s wing people scream “AH! We need government regulation!” When the reason they became so big and bureaucratic is because of the government protections. Part of the solution to our health care issues is that the government REMOVE these protections so that no company is too big to fail, and the true little guy (that is the small business owner) can compete.

In my opinion, the answer is not more government regulations. Regulations are what have killed the job market in this country. Like I posted in your thread, keep our taxes low, let us vote with our dollar, so that we can better give to those who cannot take care of themselves.

By: Michael Kirschner

Michael Kirschner — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:00:09 +0000

The United States pays more for Health Care than any other country in the world, yet is ranked number 34 in quality of health care. We pay more money because we give the corporations to much control and the government to little regulation. If the government regulated health care the cost of care would go down, the little guy would pay less and that would help fix the economy. Health care is not taking priority over the economy because health care is the economy.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:02:31 +0000

So I guess South Carolina, Alaska, Mississippi, etc are all liberal states too. You should double check the list I provided earlier in the comments. It’s the so called blue states that foot the bill for the rest of the nation.

By: Kyle From Kentucky

Kyle From Kentucky — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:54:20 +0000

I try. There’s too many liberals in my state that do nothing and expect everything handed to them by the gov’t.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:59:12 +0000

@Kyle you are the only one who has netioned Bush. Also military decisions are very different than the establishment of new laws. You can blame the POTUS for the way they use the military because there is less congressional involvement. Look Chemey is a draft dodger who loves war but he was VP and the responsibilty no matter whose idea it was or is goes to the POTUS. Just like the Dec attempted falls on Obama, 9/11 falls on Bush. That’s the job. I look at all of these people as EMPLOYEES of the people and am beholden to none. If you hate big govt why don’t you do something about your state which consumes many more federal dollars than it contributes. That would truly be on line with fiscal conservatism.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:51:48 +0000

Yawn