Massachusetts, Senate Seats, Private Insurance, Big Pharma and Health Care Reform

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']just curious, how do you figure obama will turn it into a 40 point landslide?[/QUOTE]
Did you not see what this guy wrote yesterday? It's obvious this guy is over-the-top out of his mind.
And I'm not talking about the idea that this could be a 40 point landslide. Even if it is, I'm in the camp that thinks it's still near-miraculous that Obama and Clinton even need to come try to help win Kennedy's lifelong seat. But things like what is below are just crazy.

[quote name='rumblebear']No it's KENNEDY'S SEAT, PERIOD! It's not yours, not mine, not the ignorant public "people's", and especially not Republican's seat! The Kennedies have held the seat for over half a century and is THE symbolic seat of the entire Democratic party. The seat belongs and is entitled to the Kennedies -- as if it's bonded to their family blood -- and their anointed ones only. To even dabble with the thought of giving THE Kennedy seat to a Republican is not only shameful, despicable, and a travesty, but very disrespectful to the late Ted Kennedy who JUST DIED, or have you forgotten about that? In fact, anyone who dares to vote for the Republican candidate (equivalent of pissing on Ted Kennedy's warm corpse) is not only heartless but deserves to be haunted by Ted Kennedy's spirit for the rest of their life. After all, Ted sure as hell is going to be very, very pissed off if his lifelong seat is given to a goddamn Republican who uses it as the 41st vote to bring down the entire healthcare bill -- the bill whose cause was championed by Ted his whole life.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='spmahn']I don't get this either, how is Obama, whose own approval rating is circling the drain, supposed to help her?[/quote]
Obama has a 3.4% positive spread on RealClearPolitics, an aggregation site of a bunch of pollsters. Bonus lulz: Fox News has Obama at a +8 spread.

But don't let reality get in the way of the voices in your head. You believe em. They have to be true.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Obama has a 3.4% positive spread on RealClearPolitics, an aggregation site of a bunch of pollsters. Bonus lulz: Fox News has Obama at a +8 spread.

But don't let reality get in the way of the voices in your head. You believe em. They have to be true.[/QUOTE]

Is that from a nationwide poll or just a Massachusetts state poll? Because only the latter is important for this one.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Is that from a nationwide poll or just a Massachusetts state poll? Because only the latter is important for this one.[/QUOTE]
Very true. Those are national numbers I believe. I found those doing a search for "president approval ratings by state" and "president obama approval rating massachusetts". Neither gave me what I was looking for.

I can't imagine Obama doing worse than national average in MA though.
 
It's also important to look at trends than overall approval rating for this. If Obama's approval rating there has gone down in recent weeks there, his coattails are likely to be very weak.
 
51% of MA voters are against the health care bill so I'm not sure Obama would help that much. Clinton will help more than Obama.

However, according to polls, Brown is ahead 50% to 46% with a +/- 4.4% margin of error. Amazing.
 
Obama campaigning for Coakley is a greater risk for Obama than it is a plus for Coakley. Surprised he changed his mind on making an appearance.
 
"There are no terrorists in Afghanistan."
"Catholics shouldn't work in the Emergency Room."
"As opposed to standing outside (sneer) Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?"
"Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan."
"I am honored to have received this recognition from ACORN." (an A+ rating)
"We need to get taxes up."

She went to a senior center the other day and tried to leave without speaking to the residents. She treats common people with utter disdain. Somebody needs to make a Coakley "hope" poster with "snob" underneath her.
 
Maybe that was the plan. Let's take the worst candidate we can find and see if she can get elected.

You think they would have learned with John Kerry. Or noticed that it didn't work with Palin.

Pretty soon, these parties are going to be running a Carrot Top/Vince Offer ticket.
 
I used to tell people that a blue chair could run against a Republican in MA and win, but I guess people here have a little more common sense than I knew.
 
[quote name='lordwow']I used to tell people that a blue chair could run against a Republican in MA and win, but I guess people here have a little more common sense than I knew.[/QUOTE]
It's the bummer of our system. If I live to be a thousand years old I'll never vote for a winning Democratic senator, no matter how god awful the Republican is.

God votes Republican, you see.
 
It turned into quite a rally here for both sides. My apartment overlooks the building where Obama is speaking in a few.
 
I honestly can't believe it's happening, but polling and trends seem to indicate that there's a pretty good chance the Republicans might win this one. Fivethirtyeight has been pretty accurate in the past, and they have this one as a statistical tossup, so even if the Dems do prevail, it may not be by a whole lot, and if it ends up being by less than 2 percentage points or so, we could have another Minnesota situation where this thing gets dragged out for months. Tuesday's results are going to be very interesting....
 
If Coakley wins in a close one, I can't see them taking more than a week to declare her the winner. If Brown wins in a close one, probably a month. Maybe more.
 
Well the Republicans picked up a seat.

Now we'll see whether they just wanted a little more time to debate before passing a healthcare reform bill (which I think is total BS) or they really want to kill it. Fun while it lasted.
 
So, John Kerry is complaining about people coming in from out-of-state to support candidates...

...I wonder if he told Obama that his presence wasn't welcome...
 
[quote name='camoor']Well the Republicans picked up a seat.

Now we'll see whether they just wanted a little more time to debate before passing a healthcare reform bill (which I think is total BS) or they really want to kill it. Fun while it lasted.[/QUOTE]

No one knows for sure yet.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, John Kerry is complaining about people coming in from out-of-state to support candidates...

...I wonder if he told Obama that his presence wasn't welcome...[/QUOTE]
Texas is the biggest hypocrite on the planet on that charge. The politicians here adore trotting out the lists of money and support from outside the state as a way of showing this or that "isn't Texan" and prattle on and on about outside influences, but the biggest robo-calling (the absolute worst part of participating in an election) outfit of this special election is based out of...

well, you know.
 
It's mainly a 'keep everyone else of this, I don't want to lose' tactic. In 02 when Bush had massive coattail strength, many Democrats were mad about it. Did Brown even bring anyone in? I certainly didn't hear about anyone coming in.

So stocks are up right now, I'd say mainly on Kraft buying Cadbury. However, some are saying it's because they expect Brown to win. If Brown wins, I do expect a stock surge tomorrow because as we all know Wall-Street loves nothing more than stalemates in Washington.
 
I already have government run health care and it's called Tri-care. All military have it. I can't wait to get out and have to pay for my own. Seriously. If you've seen the way it's done you would all be mortified. JUST HORRENDOUS. I hope to god this health care plan doesn't pass. Health care is so expensive because of all the litigation. Each doctor has to have crazy insurance and good lawyers which drove up the cost for us. Get rid of the frivolous lawsuits and lawyers and say hello to savings.

As for Mass, i lived there for 20 years. I don't see myself moving back. Keep in mind Romney is a republican and was elected in MA. The republicans have a shot.

DISCLAIMER: I'm for neither party. They both represent everything that's wrong with our country.
 
Keith Olbermann said it best. Scott Brown is a homophobic, racist, and a shameless right wing teabagger extremist who supports violence and rape against women. Brown also approved his supporters desire to "shove a curling iron" up Coakley's behind, and violence toward her supporters. With the diebold machines it's also apparent that Brown plans on rigging the election for himself. With a IQ even worse than Palin, this typical godawful Republican might get elected to Kennedy's seat? If this terrible person wins then MA will officially be declared a racist redneck state alongside with Texas. And bewarned people of MA, Ted Kennedy will claw out of his grave and enact brutal, merciless vengeance against all who gave his seat to a Republican.
 
[quote name='Warn3rv3']I already have government run health care and it's called Tri-care. All military have it. I can't wait to get out and have to pay for my own. Seriously. If you've seen the way it's done you would all be mortified. JUST HORRENDOUS.[/quote]
1. You *do* know how much it costs for a family of 4 to get health insurance right?
2. I've had Tricare and I've had Kaiser. I'd take Tricare 100 times out of 100.
 
So, has anyone other than Colbert/Stewart pointed out the irony here? That the one state with a MORE progressive healthcare plan than Obamacare is determining the fate of Obamacare.

Colbert says a Brown win would send this message to the nation: "I got mine Jack. You can suck it."
 
[quote name='IRHari']
Colbert says a Brown win would send this message to the nation: "I got mine Jack. You can suck it."[/QUOTE]

Brown has actually campaigned on just this sentiment, which was a pretty good strategy.

I grew up in MA and would be considered pretty liberal even for MA Democrats, and while the likely prospect of a Brown win is pretty disheartening for me, I can't say I'm completely shocked. Coakley has never impressed me much as a candidate, and I always wondered why no higher profile MA Democrats took much of a stab at the seat (I think most of the House members would have beaten Brown in a walk, but only Capuano even tried for it). I guess maybe they saw this coming too?
 
Just voted. It's going to be close. If the Dems lose, they only have themselves to blame and hopefully they take a cold, hard look and realize that they can't take anything for granted.
 
Since we're talking about the MA Senate seat...

Scott-Brown-new3.jpg

Long before he was a politician, the Republican candidate vying for Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat posed nude for the centerfold of Cosmo. Scott Brown won our “America’s Sexiest Man” contest and appeared in the June 1982 issue. In those days he was a 22-year-old law student at Boston College who was cramming for finals just days before stripping down for our photographer.
Click to expand...
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/scott-brown-nude-in-cosmo
 
[quote name='dopa345']It's official. MA is now a purple state.[/QUOTE]

Unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful. Read my post in the other topic if you need clarification on why I call you a troll.
 
[quote name='dopa345']It's official. MA is now a purple state.[/QUOTE]

Yeah really. We're still talking about a state which has gay marriage, the most progressive health care in the nation, and decriminalized marijuana. If MA is a purple state, than I'm not sure what blue is.

Honestly being a MA native, I think what this proves more than anything is that people from MA are especially capable of giving a giant middle finger to people who expect them to act a certain way. No surprise there.

Still, MA weathered Bill Weld, Paul Celucci, Jane Swift, and Mitt Romney. I think they'll weather Scott Brown before remembering what they're all about.
 
[quote name='IRHari']One election in 30 years yields a Republican senator and...it's now officially purple? Really?[/QUOTE]

It's a stupid state, that's for sure, no matter the color.

http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues

Look at his stances on issues. Vapid, 75-word responses to major political issues. Most of his stances take the form of reframing "I'm against _____" to "I support _____." Nevertheless, it's the typical political platform of simply being against something. Being against something is easy.

Which is why he was successful - Coakley's gaffes certainly helped, but for fuck's sake, her lil' Curt Shilling gaffe made loads of media copy, but it's a stupid gaffe that's wholly unrelated to her, or anyone's, ability to govern politically. She fucked her image with that gaffe, which people regard as important - that she said a naughty thing about a beloved fucking baseball pitcher killed her.

Brown was elected for a number of reasons, none of which was any actual platform of his. I've seen stances on issues ten times as long (literally) for people running for mayor of a podunk town, let alone a Senate seat. He offered nothing except what people crave right now: someone who identifies with an intellectually lazy "grumble-washington-grumble" mentality. People applaud an empty stance like "I stand for lower taxes," and feel like they're an informed voter instead of the simpleton they truly are.

But that's why people buy "Slim-Fast" milkshakes, that they drink while sitting on their fucking asses not doing anything to actually become healthy. The American Dream isn't unfettered capitalism, it's uninterrupted leisure without any of the negative side effects. That's why it's a dream.

Obama will have been in office for precisely 1 year as of tomorrow. The public willingly neglects the historical context in which Obama's stimulus bill passed - a recession, the scope of which we have not seen since the Great Depression - and instead brays about "tax and spend" Democrats. They neglect the shedding of jobs, they neglect the recession which started in mid-2007, over 2 years ago, when the housing bubble burst, and those select few who try to be informed about it lie to themselves by blaming the Community Reinvestment Act, as opposed to the 85%+ of subprime mortgages which helped the bubble grow and burst, yet were not under the purview of the CRA.

Was the stimulus a great idea? Time will tell. All I know is that right now I'm sick of everybody and everything in politics. A moron was elected because people with voting power and no intelligence elected someone because of what they stood against, what they perceived they stood against, and the villains that they stood against which were mere phantoms in the minds of voters. The Democrats put a jobber up to run for Kennedy's seat and lost because they were full of hubris.

Most of all, I'm sick to my stomach because voters have already forgotten what the world was like from 2001-2009 under Bush. They forgot how they stretched the limits of constitutionality and went beyond that, how the Republicans ran roughshod over the national debt, and their sitting Presidents sat for over 75% of its total accumulation since 1980, they forgot about a phony war in Iraq, they forgot about detainment of citizens without due process rights, the slashing of habeas corpus. The public's memory goes about 6 minutes into the past to evaluate their lives to that point and they vote as if the first 8 years of this decade never fucking happened.

Most of all, I'm sick because the public has fallen hook, line, and sinker for the new message of conservatives, which is to engage the framework of being "against Washington," but emphasizing conservative viewpoints and vagaries. These "tea bag" motherfuckers bought a copy of Doki Doki Panic because it was called Super Mario Bros. 2, and didn't know any better.

And don't get me started on the "can't do anything with a supermajority" Democrats, because these are largely the same congresspersons who bent over backwards for Bush for 8 years. I dare you to name me a SINGLE PIECE of legislation that the Republicans did not pass, in whole, under Bush. Name me a single successful Democrat bit of obstructionism. Yet they can't do a single thing right in 1 year and more people than the Republicans had.

fuck fuck fuck. Really. I'm so fucking sick right now of how fucking magnificently stupid people are.
 
Arnold was a clown in California until he got stomped in an election. He did an immediate about face, brought in Democratic staffers to complement his Republican staffers, and got serious about the challenges facing California.

I'm not saying Arnold is a great Guv'nor and I'm not saying California is doing well and I'm not saying I agree with the guy, but the man is trying his ass off and it's plain to see. Obama is not trying his ass off. Hopefully he learns the same lesson Arnold did.

Sure, Ronald Reagan had Tip O'neill and the Dems are trying to work with Arnold. Obama doesn't have the luxury of an opposition smart enough to tie its shoes, much less work on issues together. But he's still not getting it done and that's his fault.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']If Coakley wins in a close one, I can't see them taking more than a week to declare her the winner. If Brown wins in a close one, probably a month. Maybe more.[/QUOTE]
...
Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia said the Senate should not hold any further votes on health care until Brown is seated. That, said McConnell, probably means there will be no further Senate action until then.

At the White House, Obama adviser David Axelrod said the president agreed with Webb. Brown won the election and "no one is going to circumvent that," Axelrod told MSNBC.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Isn't the only requirement for a purple state to have members of both parties as elected officials?
[/QUOTE]

I'd say it has to be a more even split between parties at the state and national level.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']They forgot how they stretched the limits of constitutionality and went beyond that, how the Republicans ran roughshod over the national debt, and their sitting Presidents sat for over 75% of its total accumulation since 1980, they forgot about a phony war in Iraq, they forgot about detainment of citizens without due process rights, the slashing of habeas corpus.[/QUOTE]

Well, you're upset. No surprise. But really, is Brown any worse than Coakley? At least he'll stop the dreadful health-care bill, hopefully.

- Republican presidents have been in office about 75% of the time since 1980. Assuming your figure is correct, that means the parties are equal opportunity spendthrift idiots.

- "stretched the limits of constitutionality" -- like signing statements and bribing members for votes? Oh yeah, that happened in 2009 as well. Surprise, the holier-than-thou Democrats do this crap too.

- Detainment of citizens without due process? Bush = Obama.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Well, you're upset. No surprise. But really, is Brown any worse than Coakley? At least he'll stop the dreadful health-care bill, hopefully.[/quote]

We'll agree that the Senate bill is a shitshow handout to insurance companies. I, of course, support the single-payer universal coverage option. You know, the one that makes the most sense?

- Republican presidents have been in office about 75% of the time since 1980. Assuming your figure is correct, that means the parties are equal opportunity spendthrift idiots.
Click to expand...

This assumes that year-over-year deficit spending is (1) equal numerically and (2) occurs in the same context. Neither of which is true. Clinton had 2 years of surpluses. Clinton had 2 years of surpluses. Clinton had 2 years of surpluses. Clinton had 2 years of surpluses.

And he reduced the year-over-year deficit in so doing. So #1 is incorrect. #2 is incorrect because, obviously, times differ from year to year. We had no cold war for the past 20 years, but we have had a war since 2003. We had a recession in 1990 under Bush (and a war, too), so his deficit spending must be looked at in that context. The same can be said of Obama's spending deficit.

So, no, they aren't equal. You know better than that.

- "stretched the limits of constitutionality" -- like signing statements and bribing members for votes? Oh yeah, that happened in 2009 as well. Surprise, the holier-than-thou Democrats do this crap too.
Click to expand...

I mean more like waterboarding, like illegal detention, like wiretapping and spying on American citizens, like human rights abuses by our military abroad, extraordinary rendition, and so on. Would you like me to continue?

- Detainment of citizens without due process? Bush = Obama.
Click to expand...

Obama's been in office 1 year. He's already moving people from Guantanamo to state/federal prisons. He's not moving as quickly as I'd like, but it's 100% false to act like the actions of Obama are equivalent to those of Bush. Progress is being made in shutting down Guantanamo Bay - it's simply not something that can be accomplished in two weeks' time. You know that.

Really, elprincipe, this was one giant-lazy-ass false equivalency from you. I'm very disappointed.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']We'll agree that the Senate bill is a shitshow handout to insurance companies. I, of course, support the single-payer universal coverage option. You know, the one that makes the most sense?[/quote]

I obviously disagree it makes the most sense, but it's nice to hear you agree with the clear fact that the current health-care bills in Congress are terrible.

[quote name='mykevermin']This assumes that year-over-year deficit spending is (1) equal numerically and (2) occurs in the same context. Neither of which is true. Clinton had 2 years of surpluses. Clinton had 2 years of surpluses. Clinton had 2 years of surpluses. Clinton had 2 years of surpluses.

And he reduced the year-over-year deficit in so doing. So #1 is incorrect. #2 is incorrect because, obviously, times differ from year to year. We had no cold war for the past 20 years, but we have had a war since 2003. We had a recession in 1990 under Bush (and a war, too), so his deficit spending must be looked at in that context. The same can be said of Obama's spending deficit.

So, no, they aren't equal. You know better than that.[/quote]

I know they aren't equal. I was surprised to see your figure given the relatively small deficit under the Clinton administration compared especially to Bush II. Where did you get the number? Especially if you take out the record 2009 under Obama (and record by some distance I might add -- about three times as big as the next biggest deficit) surely Clinton did much better on this score than Reagan/Bush I/Bush II.

[quote name='mykevermin']I mean more like waterboarding, like illegal detention, like wiretapping and spying on American citizens, like human rights abuses by our military abroad, extraordinary rendition, and so on. Would you like me to continue?[/quote]

No need, I am well aware of the abuses tolerated and even encouraged under the previous administration. I've never been one to excuse them or rationalize them, like so many on the right like to do (but we need to spy on you to protect you!). The current administration does the same things for the most part. Other than a few cosmetic changes, of course. They even pretty freely admit it, that they need to do this in order to protect us poor, ignorant peons from ourselves.

[quote name='mykevermin']Obama's been in office 1 year. He's already moving people from Guantanamo to state/federal prisons. He's not moving as quickly as I'd like, but it's 100% false to act like the actions of Obama are equivalent to those of Bush. Progress is being made in shutting down Guantanamo Bay - it's simply not something that can be accomplished in two weeks' time. You know that.[/quote]

I'm not talking about Guantanamo, although I doubt Obama will ever be able to close Guantanamo (and really, does it really matter -- as if moving them to Thomson, Illinois is so much better?). I'm talking about things like Eric Holder saying "if the people we try in NYC aren't found guilty, we'll hold them anyway" because it would be too embarrassing to have to release them (not to mention dangerous in that case), and that he would determine whether to try people in military commissions or civilian courts based on whether they think they can get a conviction in a civilian court.

[quote name='mykevermin']Really, elprincipe, this was one giant-lazy-ass false equivalency from you. I'm very disappointed.[/QUOTE]

I think you've (1) given Obama too much credit; and (2) not realized how surprised I was to see your deficit figure.
 
Come on, myke. Do you honestly want us to believe that Government didn't start spying on us until George Bush took office?
 
[quote name='elprincipe'](and really, does it really matter -- as if moving them to Thomson, Illinois is so much better?)[/QUOTE]

while there are many, many, many ways I think we can improve our criminal justice system (especially corrections), it is vastly superior to the military tribunal system.

I'll see what I can find on the Clinton surplus, but really? I thought this was commonly known that we had a budget surplus in FY1999 and 2000 under Clinton. After all, that's what Dubya campaigned on - our surplus was evidence that gov't was taking too much money, so he promised us tax cuts that would give us back what was "ours."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']while there are many, many, many ways I think we can improve our criminal justice system (especially corrections), it is vastly superior to the military tribunal system.

I'll see what I can find on the Clinton surplus, but really? I thought this was commonly known that we had a budget surplus in FY1999 and 2000 under Clinton. After all, that's what Dubya campaigned on - our surplus was evidence that gov't was taking too much money, so he promised us tax cuts that would give us back what was "ours."[/QUOTE]

I still don't see what is so much better about holding terrorists in Illinois instead of Guantanamo. It's a cosmetic difference.

I know about the Clinton "surplus" (not actually a surplus without using borrowed Social Security money). I just thought the 75% was an actual number (it did surprise me).

And of course you're right about Bush and his irresponsible choice to push for tax cuts while increasing spending, and not using the money to pay down the debt like it should have been. What a wasted opportunity! We wouldn't be in the fiscal crisis we are now if not for Bush's (and Congress's) idiocy in wasting that once-in-six-generations relatively easy opportunity to fix our fiscal condition. If we'd have paid off our debt by cutting spending when tax receipts were high, then we could have lowered taxes dramatically in future years and permanently reduced the size of government to where it should be. Alas, our leadership utterly failed on that point, as they have so often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top