 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mass. Senatorial race
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:48 PM From the Washington Post: Just deserts for Massachusetts Democrats? A new poll from Suffolk University and the decision by two noted pollsters to declare the race a toss-up provide more evidence that voters in the Bay State could do the unthinkable next Tuesday: fill the senate seat held for almost 47 years by Ted Kennedy with a Republican. If that happens, it will be a bit of cosmic justice exacted on the state's Democrats. Not once, but twice, they changed the Massachusetts law on filling Senate vacancies to maintain their hold on power. The Suffolk survey of 500 Massachusetts voters shows Republican state Sen. Scott Brown leading the commonwealth's Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley 50 percent to 46 percent. Because the margin for error is 4.4 percent, they're tied. But this shouldn't be in a state where the Democrats currently control the governor's mansion, the state house and senate and every seat in the congressional delegation. The survey shows that crankiness over the health reform effort in Washington is playing a roll in Coakley's problems. She hasn't helped herself with a bad debate performance this week and a clumsy and listless campaign overall. But I suspect the voters don't like being manipulated, either. Before 2004, Massachusetts law gave the governor power to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy. But Democrats feared that then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, would put a fellow GOPer in the seat if Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, made it to the White House. So they changed the law to require a special election 145 to 160 days after declaration of the vacancy. Until then, the seat would sit empty. Before his death last August, Kennedy called on Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to quickly appoint someone to his Senate seat. After his death, the state legislature changed the law again to allow Patrick to fill the seat with someone who would serve until Tuesday's election. Patrick tapped Paul Kirk, a former chairman of the Democratic Party and close friend of Kennedy's. Gubernatorial appointment to fill senate vacancies is undemocratic. Voters should have a say in who represents them in Washington. But had Massachusetts Democrats left the system enough alone six years ago, they wouldn't be facing the scare of their lives right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: SINSULL Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:58 PM The single most disturbing aspect of this race is the appearance of Bill Clinton, stomping for the Democrats. Seems he forgot he is the UN's Special Envoy to Haiti. A few grim-faced appearances on TV will have to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:04 PM A Senate seat vs a few million Haitians? Obvious choice as to which is more important to Democrats... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:12 PM APNewsBreak: Obama to Massachusetts AP - Friday, January 15, 2010 9:10:24 AM By GLEN JOHNSON and LIZ SIDOTI His health care bill at stake, President Barack Obama plans a weekend trip to Massachusetts to campaign for endangered Senate candidate Martha Coakley after a poll showed an edge for Republicans in the race for a seat Democrats have held for over a half-century. The White House said he will travel there Sunday. "If Scott Brown wins, it'll kill the health bill," Democrat Barney Frank, D-Mass., said, underscoring the stakes of Tuesday's special election. Said presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs: "I don't think Scott Brown is going to win on Tuesday." Obama's trip was hastily arranged as the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress sought to nail down a deal on historic legislation overhauling the country's system of medical care. His visit comes after he taped a Web video e-mailed to his supporters and an automated phone call asking Massachusetts to vote for Coakley, and promising "She'll be your voice and my ally." A Suffolk University survey released late Thursday showed that Brown, a Republican state senator, with 50 percent of the vote in the race to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in this overwhelmingly Democratic state. Coakley had 46 percent. That amounted to a statistical tie since it was within the poll's 4.4 percentage point margin of error, but it was far different from a 15-point lead that Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney general, enjoyed in a Boston Globe survey released over the weekend. The Suffolk poll also confirmed a fundamental shift in voter attitudes telegraphed in recent automated polls that Democrats had dismissed as unscientific and the product of GOP-leaning organizations. And it signaled a possible death knell for the 60-vote Senate supermajority the president has been relying upon to stop Republican filibusters and pass not only his health care overhaul, but the rest of his legislative agenda heading into crucial mid-term elections this fall. Brown has pledged to vote against the health care bill, and his election would give Senate Republicans the 41st vote they need to sustain a filibuster. But Secretary of State William F. Galvin, Massachusetts' top election official, said certifying Tuesday's results could take more than two weeks. That delay could give Senate Democrats time to push Obama's signature legislation through Congress. Sen. Paul G. Kirk Jr., the interim replacement for the seat, says he will vote for the bill if given the chance. Republicans are using the threatened delay as a rallying point to argue Democrats have been gaming the rules to pass the health care bill despite public opposition. The third candidate in the race, independent Joseph L. Kennedy, had 3 percent in the Suffolk poll. The Libertarian businessman is unrelated to the senator, who died Aug. 25 of brain cancer. "Although the results show a race within the statistical margin of error, Scott Brown has surged dramatically," David Paleologos, director of Suffolk's Political Research Center, said in a statement. "He is attracting independent support by a wide margin and even winning some Democrats who won't vote the party line this time." Paleologos said Joseph Kennedy's supporters could end up being pivotal in the election's outcome. "A late rotation away from Kennedy to one of the major candidates could have a significant impact," he said. The survey of 500 registered Massachusetts voters was conducted in a three-day span ending Wednesday, when Brown enjoyed a surge after being widely seen as beating Coakley in their final debate on Monday. The question surrounding it and a number of recent surveys was whether the group sampled accurately reflected the likely field of voters Tuesday. The election comes the day after the three-day Martin Luther King holiday weekend. Snow is also forecast for Monday, and many locals often head south for warmer weather or north to go skiing during the shortened work week. Brown supporters, meanwhile, are mimicking Republicans and independents who shaped recent GOP victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races. They are showing a high degree of enthusiasm for their candidate, a relative unknown who has never run statewide, while Democrats have shown little passion for Coakley although she cruised in the four-way Democratic primary with nearly 50 percent of the vote. Former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani urged voters who rallied in Boston's North End to elect Brown for his anti-terror credentials. "His election, I believe will send a signal -- and a very dramatic one -- that we're going in the wrong direction on terrorism," said Giuliani, who opposes having the trial of Sept. 11 terror suspects in New York City. Former President Bill Clinton was making two stops in Massachusetts Friday on behalf of Coakley later in the day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:13 PM Getting health care reform passed will save lives, too. They're both important. Republicans, on the other hand, couldn't give a crap about saving any of those lives. If they did, they would spend less time sniping and more time helping. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:18 PM Wrong again, CarolC, YOU do not know what anyone gives a crap about. You want people to push through a bill that they think ( by all available evidence) will raise rates, increase taxes, reduce available medical care and STILL leave millions uninsured? Try reading wht the Congress is pushing instead of the press releases from the Whitehouse as to what the bill is. Obama WILL sign what Congress puts out, regardless of his promises. BTW, there is NO ONE keeping you from getting health care- you might have to pay more for it that you can afford, or move somehwere where the taxpayers pick up the cost, but that is the same for me and a house. I can't afford one in Northern VA- so should I demand that the government make everyone pay more so I get one??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: SINSULL Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:23 PM Wrong Bruce - Clinton chose the senate seat over the Haitians not the Democrats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:29 PM None of what you're saying about what has been proposed so far is true, beardedbruce. And if you don't have the money to pay for something, you can't get that thing. If someone doesn't have the amount of money that insurance companies charge to older people with pre-existing conditions for insurance, how are they supposed to get it? You have to pay them in order to get the insurance. How does someone get it without the money? Explain that one to me, Mr. financial expert. And if someone doesn't have a means of support in a state that has universal health care, they can't move to that state. So in the absence of having the money to do those things, you explain to me how it is possible to get them. Oh yeah, I forgot... let them eat cake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:33 PM YOU claimed that THEY were "preventing" you from getting it- NOW you claim you can't afford it. Well, I can't afford a house near where I work- DO I HAVE THE RIGHT to demand that the government make it possible for me to afford it? I can't afford an airplane, either- WHen will they pass a bill letting me have one? "You have to pay them in order to get the insurance." And what part of ANY proposed bill will change this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: SINSULL Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:40 PM I guess the question is: Is it the responsibility of government to ensure that its citizens get adequate health care. I think YES. I don't need a jet or an expensive home to survive. I do need affordable health care. And I am willing (and in fact do) pay for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:44 PM Like I said, "let them eat cake". That sums up your attitude about people without access to health care, beardedbruce. They're preventing me from getting it by pricing me out of the market. They do that on purpose so they won't have to insure people who will cut into their profits. It's a deliberate strategy. They use every means at their disposal to cull their clientele of anyone they will have to actually pay for their care. They make their money by denying care, rather than providing it. Insurance companies don't have a right to discriminate against older people and people with pre-existing conditions. They have rendered themselves irrelevant. They don't have a right to exist, much less rip the consumers off. The taxpayers, on the other hand, have a right to set up insurance pools that will charge everyone the same amount regardless of age or infirmity. That is our right. That is also what the propose legislation (so far - it isn't finished) will do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:47 PM Bruce, There aren't any market forces preventing us from getting health care; just the artificial government support of PRIVATE INSURANCE companies. The only way that health insurance works, anywhere that it does work is where PRIVATE INSURANCE companies cannot pick and choose who they cover. And no, the Republicans do not give a fuck who dies for lack of insurance, and obviously neither do you. I am so sick and tired of Republicans being unwilling to do their share for the well being of society while refusing to do their part. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 15 Jan 10 - 04:01 PM Just goes to show ya' that Obama ain't no liberal 'er the Democratic base would be more energized in Massacuttes... One thing fir sure is that the Repubs have done at rilin' up their base... That's really what elections anymore are about... Rile the base and split the moderates... My gut feeling is that the Dem will pull off a sqeaker but who knows until the fat lady sings... One thing I do know is that if the Dems lose this one and don't get health care reform thru then it's gonna be a bad year for them come November 'cause the voters are purdy scared and pissed off... That is never a good sign for any majority party regardless of the factors for which that party has no power to change... Actually, I wouldn't mind seein' the Repubs do well in November... I think the American people are too qucik to forget just how messed up things get with them in power and maybe need a refresher course... One thing is fir sure, until the Senate rules are changed the voters are going to stay pissed off at Wsahington... That is a given... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Jan 10 - 04:17 PM Of course Obama isn't a liberal, he's a decent moderate kind of conservative. Of course in a country where people who elsewhere would be seem as extreme right-wing can be regarded as middle of the road... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 15 Jan 10 - 07:39 PM McGrath: Obviously the description of a "conservative" in GB is different than in the US. Obama, I believe, by most liberals in the US describe him as a liberal. I certainly do. BB: Seems reasonable to me for everybody in the US to subsidize you so that you can buy that dream home in northern Virginia. Of course there are some heartless Americans that wouldn't want to go along with it I guess. Bobert: You probably are right. They probably will figure out some way for the Democrat to take the Mass. seat in the Senate even if it means getting votes from local cemeteries. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 15 Jan 10 - 08:09 PM Whatever it takes, Dougie... lol... But really, I don't much care... The screwed up rules in the Senate and blowhard radio-righties are sure fire formula for endless bickering no matter who wins elections... The country is purdy much screwed 'cause the governemnt is hopelessly broken and Boss Hog has coralled all the money and won't share... The US isn't that far behind Haiti... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: GUEST,999 Date: 15 Jan 10 - 08:14 PM "A Senate seat vs a few million Haitians? Obvious choice as to which is more important to Democrats..." "Wrong again, CarolC, YOU do not know what anyone gives a crap about." Both posts from BB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Donuel Date: 15 Jan 10 - 08:16 PM ITs all true! That is if you trust polls bought and paid for by Right Wing FOX contractors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 15 Jan 10 - 09:18 PM Clinton didn't choose the senate seat over the Haitians, he was just the last president we had who could walk and chew gum at the same time. Some folks have forgotten what that was like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 15 Jan 10 - 10:25 PM I'd better not say what I am thinking right now about some of the conservative posts above, but I am tired of the Republicans campaigning on slogans, and when they DO have power, they do less than NOTHING about heath care. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Genie Date: 15 Jan 10 - 10:35 PM Ah, Bruce ("A Senate seat vs a few million Haitians? Obvious choice as to which is more important to Democrats..."), would that things were that simple and easy. Would that Bill Clinton's going to Haiti a day or so sooner would save even a few dozen lives. A few million? Seriously doubt that. I do hope Clinton as well as other politicians and former politicians will do what they can to help the relief effort for Haiti, but I'm not sure that having them all fly down there is the most helpful thing. I also think most people not only can but need to be able to have more than one project going right now. Some estimates say that failure to reform our US "health care system" will cost hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Genie Date: 15 Jan 10 - 10:57 PM Bobert, you're right that Obama sure hasn't been acting like a liberal. Neither have most of the Democrats in Congress. Giuliani is right that many, if not most voters think "we're going in the wrong direction" (on health care, terrorism, and various other issues. But to spin that as meaning that the disenchanted want the country to move to the "right" is disingenuous. A lot of voters think Obama and the Democrats are not liberal or progressive enough. That may indirectly help conservatives win elections -- as in NJ and Virginia, where the Democratic candidates weren't even as progressive as Obama -- when Dems. stay home or back 3rd party candidates, but it doesn't mean they want anything like the Bush-Cheney administration or a conservative Congress back. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Genie Date: 15 Jan 10 - 11:11 PM [[And it signaled a possible death knell for the 60-vote Senate supermajority the president has been relying upon to stop Republican filibusters and pass not only his health care overhaul, but the rest of his legislative agenda heading into crucial mid-term elections this fall.]] WHAT 60-vote supermajority??? First, there are only 58 Dems. in the Senate. Second, one of the 2 independents who caucus with them acts like he's a Republican half the time, including joining Republican filibusters. Third, there are 3 to 5 "blue dog" (conservative) Democrats who similarly do what they can to keep majority-Democratic-sponsored bills from coming to the Senate floor for a vote. And then there's the very elderly Robert Byrd, whose health precludes him from being present a lot of the time. I am so sick of hearing our media - abetted even by some Dem. talking heads sometimes - pronounce that "the Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority." Nothing of the kind has existed in this Congress. That's a major reason why the Senate's "health care reform" bill is such a mess and such a giveaway to the big corporations. [[Brown has pledged to vote against the health care bill, and his election would give Senate Republicans the 41st vote they need to sustain a filibuster.]] Whatever you citizens of Mass. think of the Dems, do you really want Ted Kennedy's old seat to be filled by someone who's basically promising to filibuster just about any important legislation that the majority Democratic party proposes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Jan 10 - 12:01 AM Obama is pretty conservative. People who call them selves in this country generally are either radical right wingers or religious wing nuts. What else would you call someone who wants a big adventurous military, as long as their guy picks who it bombs? Or people who write a medicare entitlement that pays private insurance companies as much money as they want to give still more money to drug companies for medicine at full retail? People who spend like drunken sailors increase government then say the answer is cutting taxes and less government. Doug you can't talk about Bruce's house with your extra medicare benefits. Your sarcasm would have some sting if your were not sucking off the federal teat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 16 Jan 10 - 12:05 AM Those of us without insurance are subsidizing the health care of those who do, DougR. And while we are subsidizing their health care, we go without. So spare me your bullshit about beardedbruce and his fucking dream house. Without access to health care we die. If beardedbruce doesn't get his dream house, the worst thing that happens to him is that he drives further to work. You really do show everyone how utterly heartless you and your fellow Republican are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 16 Jan 10 - 05:20 AM Once again (indeed as almost always) McGrath is right. It is frankly unthinkable (on a world scale) that any allegedly civilised country should be prepared to let people suffer and die so that insurance companies and drugs companies and private hospitals can make more profit. It is a gross obscenity, and the comparisons above of a proper national health service with a wish for a better house demonstrate a loathsome want of conscience in the utterers. From each according to their means: to each according to their needs. It has to be admitted however that the only presidential candidate with a real grasp on the healthcare needs of the USA was Kucinich. I can only agree with the form of words - if not the meaning of the usual utterers: "God save America". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: VirginiaTam Date: 16 Jan 10 - 07:47 AM The rich, by unfair combinations, contribute frequently to prolong a season of distress among the poor. Thomas Malthus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 16 Jan 10 - 08:53 AM BillD, The reason that the right is stuck with bumper-sticker length positions is because that's about the lenght of the knowledge of the real world... This is where the Dems are failing... The Dems need to counter with their own bumper-sticker positions... Face it, the American people are either so dumbed down that you can't converse with them or they are too consumed trying to figure our how not to end up homeless... This is the perfect storm for the Repubs... But back to the Dems... When was the last time you heard a Dem stand up and say, "The reason we need to reform health care is because it's costing us 17% of our GNP as opposed to the 9% that our competitors are paying and that is costing us jobs"... If the Dems would "Keep it Simple, Stupid" they would be doing alot better in the polls... But, no... The Dems have to run on and on and on and, frankly, are boring the electorate to death... POkay, they maybe right but they aren't matching the right bumper-sticker for bumper-sticker and they had better wake up to the PR battle they are losing... This ain't about right or wrong policies... The Repubs had 8 years toprove that they are the party of wrong policies... It's about salesmanship... Period!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 16 Jan 10 - 07:42 PM Jack the Sailor: I paid into Social Security all of my working years. All I'm receiving is what any other American citizen who has done the same and is over the age of 65 receives. Just think about JTS, when YOU are 65, even YOU will be eligible. Richard Bridge: "McGrath is right, etc." So that's it then right? No more discussion, no more speculation? No more opinions? Must be great to be king. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 16 Jan 10 - 07:46 PM OOPS! Sorry Genie, didn't mean to slight you. Your remark about opposing legislation proposed by the Democrat leadership ..., Uh, yes, I'm delighted that there are those in the congress who oppose a bill such as that that is currently intended to take over America's health care. It's a lousy bill! If it wasn't, why does the Democrat leadership go to such extremes to conceal the deal making going on to buy votes to pass it? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: VirginiaTam Date: 17 Jan 10 - 05:20 AM Deal making? That is what lobbies do. They make deals. If you think the Republicans haven't been into deal making right up to their eyebrows, think again. Since the 1980's (thanks to Reagan and Thatcher) a nasty selfish consumerism has infected the voting public, been a boon to capitalism (including and especially medical and insurance) and thereby benefited conservative politics. Unfortunately, historically, it is not the poor who vote. Said it before and I will say it again on any thread of this ilk. If health care had been free or at least affordable to my 23 year old daughter in 2005, she would in all probability be alive now. You read her journals in the last months and see if you can stomach her anxiety over mounting medical bills, caused by an easily treatable condition. Nuff said! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 17 Jan 10 - 12:46 PM DougR couldn't give a crap about your daughter or the daughter of anyone else, VirginiaTam. If she didn't have the wisedom and foresight to be born DougR, it's just too fucking bad for her (and you). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 10 - 12:53 PM Now, now, now, Carol... Dougie can't help himself... He's a Republican... They really aren't wired for critical thinkin' or sharin'... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 17 Jan 10 - 02:11 PM Carol, you're being WAY to kind to Douggie-boy. He's not amusing, he's not entertaining, he's not a "Gentleman". He's a selfish, ignorant prick who doesn't care about anyone but himself. Its his kind that are rapidly turning the U.S. into a shithole. Why anyone suffers him is beyond me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 17 Jan 10 - 02:29 PM From my reading, it's still unlikely the Republican will win. Registration is lopsidedly Democratic--and in Massachusetts they know how to get out the vote. I'm sure unions will be active. The Republican would have to get both Republicans and independents. I'll bet a nickel the Democrat will win. And this will be yet another tempest in a teapot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 17 Jan 10 - 03:43 PM And I still say they are all tarred with the same brush. Their priorities are: 1.Me 2 the party 3 the country. And it should be the other way round. What I don't understand is why have the democrats allowed the right wing nuts to spread such lies about the national health care system in the UK? It works there and it would work here if we could get rid of the greedy fat cats who bleed us dry then dump us when we get really sick.This is the only civilized country in the world who has no national health care system and it's barbaric! Protection from disease is a right just as protection from invaders is a right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Jan 10 - 03:57 PM Obama and the Democrats are on a knife edge and must tread carefully. I hope that they pass the health bill, but their 60 senate votes are hard to hold. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Stilly River Sage Date: 17 Jan 10 - 05:06 PM A quick skim through this thread allows me to conclude that BeardedBruce is still one who feels entitled to his own facts, regardless of their fictional origins. Too bad we can't dump the insurance companies, but even if we can't, once the Democrats get health care reform out of the way many other important causes will begin to fall into place, as jobs are created because everyone has a better shot at health care and employers have more options. So what if we have higher taxes? When a nation chooses to make sure that something important like health care is available to a huge percentage of the population, people pay for it. But the trade off should be that insurance companies can't play fast and loose, can't arbitrarily raise rates or drop people. Better to have a predictable amount of taxes go into the program in exchange for a whole bunch of people not turning up in the poorhouse because of the insurance industry behavior. And more people will have jobs because small employers will be able to compete on a level playing field. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 17 Jan 10 - 07:16 PM Capitalism is nothing but legal greed.And there's gold in them thar ills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 17 Jan 10 - 07:44 PM Ron: A WHOLE nickel? Wow, you sure have a of confidence in your prediction don't you? Greg F: Thank you for those kind words. You're a peach. Bobert: Thank you Bobert. I know I can always count on you to defend my honor. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Jan 10 - 07:48 PM Thank heaven for legal greed. It pays my bills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 17 Jan 10 - 08:00 PM Fortunately for you, Q, the legal greed in the country in which you live doesn't include allowing people to go without adequate health care so that insurance companies and drug companies can make a bigger profit. You live in a country with a sensible attitude about the free market. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Jan 10 - 08:25 PM The idea of a mass senatorial race appeals to me, and I'll tell you why. A lot of Senators are fat men in not terribly good shape. I think if we got the whole Senate to engage in a huge race...something like the Boston Marathon...that there's a good chance half of them might have a heart attack and die. This couldn't hurt the country, and it might help it significantly. Therefore I think it is worth a try. It could be done with other famous "old boy" hierarchies too, like the Vatican or the Mafia or the Ayatollahs in Iran and the royals in Saudi Arabia, etc. Then put some younger women in place of the fallen heroes, instead of more old men. We need a brand new perspective in the halls of power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Jan 10 - 08:28 PM We pay a portion of health care in Alberta, about $1000/year, and part payment on drugs. Many carry additional insurance; I would but my pension includes much of the additional drug coverage. Canada is |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ref Date: 17 Jan 10 - 08:30 PM Kendall, I love "Gold in them thar ills." The Repubs, and too many of the Dems in DC are really only interested in their bank accounts and their continuing hold on power, so I'd argue that they don't care about country at all. If they did, they wouldn't be such lockstep opponents of anything proposed by Dems. I don't live in Mass, but if I did, I'd be holding my nose hard while voting for Coakley or, rather, for the "D.". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Jan 10 - 08:30 PM That should have read Canada is not uniform in health care across the provinces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 17 Jan 10 - 09:40 PM It would be funny, though if Brown won. In as much as the health care bills before Congress wouldn't do much to help anyone anyway, and the cost of Medi-Care would go up for seniors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 17 Jan 10 - 09:54 PM "Gold in them thar ills." is a line from a song about Dr. Freud. "...the health care bills before Congress wouldn't do much to help anyone anyway..." Not as much as the one they started with...but we couldn't allow the Democrats to pass anything REALLY useful, could we? The current bill, if passed would get health care to millions who don't have ANY now. If you want to call that "not doing much to help anyone", I'd hate to see what you WOULD recommend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 17 Jan 10 - 11:52 PM Sorry Doug, I only bet a nickel on anything. Some won't bet at all--fearing for their egos, it appears. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 18 Jan 10 - 01:21 AM Hell, Q, if JtS and I could pay $1000 a year for heath care, we would be feeling quite blessed. We would have to pay more than $12,000 a year for health insurance if we could afford it, and that would not include the co-pays and deductibles. The deductibles alone would be at least $1000 per year, and the co-pay would probably be at least 20%. |
