Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

[Red Cloud]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

did you just decry universal healthcare using a universal healthcare system (medicaid) in your argument?

I think what he was getting at was that further universal healthcare, quite frankly, is overkill.

 

[joecct]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I think what he was getting at was that further universal healthcare, quite frankly, is overkill.

Death Panel?

 

[SteveF]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I think what he was getting at was that further universal healthcare, quite frankly, is overkill.

except that not everyone is eligible for medicaid - which he obviously sees as important for people who dont have health insurance. which was the crux of the original point.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

except that not everyone is eligible for medicaid - which he obviously sees as important for people who dont have health insurance. which was the crux of the original point.

Right. He's saying that some people who aren't covered could be covered by existing programs. They simply have not signed up for them.

 

[Jon]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Coakley might actually be winning if she didn't run the most malevolently evil campaign since Genghis Khan starting pouring molten silver into people's faces.
This campaign can't end soon enough.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Coakley's campaign makes Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign look like Machiavelli himself came up with it.

 

[Jon]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Coakley's campaign makes Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign look like Machiavelli himself came up with it.

Very few lockboxes.

 

[pirate]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Coakley might actually be winning if she didn't run the most malevolently evil campaign since Genghis Khan starting pouring molten silver into people's faces.
This campaign can't end soon enough.

On a scale of 1-10, molten silver in the face is at least a 9 (the value of the silver keeps it from being a 10)...Coakley must have worked pretty hard to achieve such a rating...she has that going for her

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Here, have an absentee ballot.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/J2fNwttq23s&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/J2fNwttq23s&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Rover]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

As best I can tell, turnout is heavy for a special election. It looks like people are turning out within the 128 belt (Boston and immediate suburbs). Having trouble getting a sense of the exurbs/495 belt, or the old industrial cities. Conventional wisdom if such a thing exists in this race would be for the first one to favor Brown, and the second to favor Coakley. Seems to be more Coakley people on the ground (not surprising), although that doesn't necessarily translate into votes.

 

[geezer]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

except that not everyone is eligible for medicaid - which he obviously sees as important for people who dont have health insurance. which was the crux of the original point.

Yeah, it's been covered but my point is that we already have medicaid, medicare, workers' comp, and endless charity organizations that are ready and able to provide care for anyone that can't afford insurance. My experience was that medicaid was very easy to get post-accident; I don't know who wouldn't qualify that needed to (Obviously, if you're a degreed professional you can get off your wallet and buy your own insurance like I do now). My son's 8 surgeries (about $250K) were covered by private giving to Childrens Hospital (now my own charity of choice).
Given all that, there's no need to add more regulation, bureaucracies (and taxes) to provide more oversight of health care; as Red Cloud said: overkill. Anyone who needs health care can get it without any of the problems prevalent in more "progressive" systems that we hear about.

 

[geezer]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

As best I can tell, turnout is heavy for a special election. It looks like people are turning out within the 128 belt (Boston and immediate suburbs). Having trouble getting a sense of the exurbs/495 belt, or the old industrial cities. Conventional wisdom if such a thing exists in this race would be for the first one to favor Brown, and the second to favor Coakley. Seems to be more Coakley people on the ground (not surprising), although that doesn't necessarily translate into votes.

I was a bit surprised today to see Zogby call it for Coakley, what with recent polls showing Brown ahead.

 

[NMU8405]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

I was a bit surprised today to see Zogby call it for Coakley, what with recent polls showing Brown ahead.

Not sure if this has been talked about previously but...does a high turn out (which seems to be the trend thus far from reports) favor Brown or Coakley?

 

[walrus]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Not sure if this has been talked about previously but...does a high turn out (which seems to be the trend thus far from reports) favor Brown or Coakley?

Mass is a democrat controlled state. Has been for years, I'd say Coakley wins easily

 

[UNH '00]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Brown.... that's all I got...

 

[SteveF]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Yeah, it's been covered but my point is that we already have medicaid, medicare, workers' comp, and endless charity organizations that are ready and able to provide care for anyone that can't afford insurance. My experience was that medicaid was very easy to get post-accident; I don't know who wouldn't qualify that needed to (Obviously, if you're a degreed professional you can get off your wallet and buy your own insurance like I do now). My son's 8 surgeries (about $250K) were covered by private giving to Childrens Hospital (now my own charity of choice).
Given all that, there's no need to add more regulation, bureaucracies (and taxes) to provide more oversight of health care; as Red Cloud said: overkill. Anyone who needs health care can get it without any of the problems prevalent in more "progressive" systems that we hear about.

your premise is still illogical. first, you cannot say with 100% certainty that every single person would be covered by an existing program. second, you are basically still using a world to define itself. if medicaid is so great, then it should be expanded to cover all people. and if all people shouldnt be covered because it costs too much, then medicaid should be abolished. you cant have it both ways. i'm sorry, maybe i'm a skeptic, but i wont put my hopes in the payment of future heathcare costs in the hands of private giving. that is a bonus, not a sustainable solution

 

[SPIN CONTROL]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Not sure if this has been talked about previously but...does a high turn out (which seems to be the trend thus far from reports) favor Brown or Coakley?

Depends on who is turning out. The one scenario where a high turnout could favor Brown is whether the Independants turn out in droves. Independants represent just over 50% of all registered voters and according to the latest polls are favoring Brown at about a 3 to 1 clip.

 

[streaker]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Mass is a democrat controlled state. Has been for years, I'd say Coakley wins easily

That may be true, but even people that favor democratic policies are not enthralled with the cloak and dagger methods being used to try to pass this version of health care reform and/or the character issues associated with supporting that type of deception. I think it was discussed on several programs- people in general see health care as an important issue, but not as much as unemployment and the deficit spending taking place. Not sure if Massachusetts voters will go lock step with (liberal) democrats on this one... and I saw three different polls that suggested they won't.

 

[NMU8405]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

Mass is a democrat controlled state. Has been for years, I'd say Coakley wins easily

But do Mass voters want to vote in someone in favor of Healthcare? Its from my understanding (Im orignally from Maine) that Mass. has a state run healthcare system, that by most accounts-works. If the US Federal Government institues a Federal system, Mass would still have to pay taxes into that, and Mass pays some of the highest taxes in the state and sees the fewest return in those tax dollars.

Plus, Coakley has run THE worst senate campaign in history. In the future, Poly Sci classes will study how NOT to run a campaign based on this.

 

[geezer]

Re: Hey Massachusetts! Coakley or Brown?

your premise is still illogical. first, you cannot say with 100% certainty that every single person would be covered by an existing program. second, you are basically still using a world to define itself. if medicaid is so great, then it should be expanded to cover all people. and if all people shouldnt be covered because it costs too much, then medicaid should be abolished. you cant have it both ways. i'm sorry, maybe i'm a skeptic, but i wont put my hopes in the payment of future heathcare costs in the hands of private giving. that is a bonus, not a sustainable solution

I don't buy that it has to be "all or nothing", as indicated by "100% certainty that every single person would be covered". Is that a reasonable, attainable goal? As for, "if medicaid is so great, then it should be expanded to cover all people", I feel it already covers the people who need coverage, and gov'ts role shouldn't go beyond that (to most people who are saying, no thanks, I'll make my own choices).
In this view, having it both ways is far better than having it only one way. No need for "abolishing" it. The fact that we already have it both ways proves that we can.