I feel about 2% better now.

The only thing anybody can learn from Beck is how to manipulate people's emotions through fear and intimidation. Looks like he's got you right where he wants you, Josef.

Again, you confuse me for somebody who gives a shit about politics.

I'm well trained to differentiate truth from propaganda.



Maybe. But the number of banana trees one can afford from one paycheck now as compared to 5 years in the future, has to do with "politics" as well.

Well, taking into account your voluminous posts here to the contrary, quoted verbatim from known extremist blogs... I'm gonna call shenanigans on this statement.

I'm more than happy to leave the entire mess for you and the rest of the "best and brightest" to deal with. Great Maker help us all.

As all of you know, I live in Massachusetts and voted for Scott Brown.

I will tell you why.

In Massachusetts we have universal health care. 97% of MA residents are covered. The other 3% are people who choose not to purchase it. If you are single and make over 50k a year and choose not to purchase health care you get a penalty on your State taxes.

In fact, you have to put your ins number in to file taxes without the penalty.

If you do not have employer based care and can not afford health care there are subsidies available. Some people get free health care. If you're self employed and make 50k you can still get a subsidy so it's affordable.

In Massachusetts most people I talked to felt that national health care would punish MA for doing the right thing.

If national health care passed, we would pay for it in federal tax, as well as State tax. We are already providing it for MA residents. As if paying twice was not bad enough, LA and NE would pay nothing and get the full benefit, plus Union members would not pay the tax. That's not fair.

The plan was worked out in a bi-partisan bill by Ted Kennedy and Mitt Romney.

It works and it has not really caused our taxes to go up so much.

I believe in strong State government and don't want the Federal Gov messing with my care.

I would urge everyone to contact their State legislators and ask them to take a look at MA's program.

It works very well, has reduced the number of uninsured and quality of care has not been hurt. Plus, those of us who work still have our employer based choices.

Screw the states.

Thanks to you and Josef, Noah, all the other good things that Obama was trying to do won't happen now that the f-ing Republicans can filibuster. Forget about reforming the financial industry - they're going to continue doing what they did to get us into this mess, and it's going to happen again. Unemployment is going to remain at 10% for a long time since there won't be a jobs program or economic stimulus. Nothing will be done to try and reverse global warming, since Republicans don't believe in doing anything.

In other words, you may well have just voted to hasten the end of the world.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Not to the end of the world... just the end of the spending orgy. Btw, there will be plenty more elections .... so stay positive!

Noah... thank you for your vote.

The following is from our lib. newspaper – the Boston Globe (not the more accurate Herald):

Mass. healthcare reform is failing us
By Susanne L. King | March 2, 2009
MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.

What would such a system provide? The prestigious Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, has defined five criteria for healthcare reform. Coverage should be: universal, not tied to a job, affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.

The state's plan flunks on all counts.

First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.

Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.

Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.

Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.

Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. In my practice of child and adolescent psychiatry, a parent told me last week that she had a decrease in her job hours, could not afford the $30 copayment for treatment sessions for her adolescent, and decided to meet much less frequently.

In another case, a divorced mother stopped treatment for her son because the father had changed insurance, leaving them with an unaffordable deductible. And at Cambridge Health Alliance, doctors and nurses have cared for patients who, unable to afford the new copayments, were forced to interrupt care for HIV and even cancers that could be treated with chemotherapy.

Access to care is also affected by the uneven distribution of healthcare dollars between primary and specialty care, and between community hospitals and tertiary care hospitals. Partners HealthCare, which includes two major tertiary care hospitals in Boston, was able to negotiate a secret agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for Massachusetts, which are already the highest per person in the world. Agreements that tilt spending toward tertiary care threaten the viability of community hospitals and health centers that provide a safety net for the uninsured and underinsured.

Susanne L. King, M.D., practices in Berkshire County.

No! Don't screw the states... ITS A STATE ISSUE. Thats the point. STOP making everything a federal issue.