Person #870: 12 Posts

Recommended: 4 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. But under what conditions . . . (1 Reply)

    Would Marty Walsh fire an employee for helping out a union?

  2. Far From Perfect (0 Replies)

    Pat Jehlan was my state senator for a relatively short period of time. I must say that Jason Lewis is a substantial upgrade.

    When Charlie Shannon was my state senator I disagreed with him on a wide range of issues, but when my town went to him for help, he was willing to listen and try. The same is true of Jason Lewis (although I tend to agree with Jason on most matters).

    Pat Jehlan, on the other hand, was either indifferent to my town’s interests or in one case that I can recall actively worked against the town.

  3. Where Was Bernie (0 Replies)

    I understand the appeal of Bernie Sanders. His campaign is doing a good job. His ads are terrific. He raises important issues. I like him.

    However, if you are going to ask where Hillary was at the Democratic state convention, please also keep in mind: Bernie Was Not a Democrat.

    He has been a stalwart party member since 2015. And now he wants to be the head of the party.

  4. Add Facts, then Stir (2 Replies)

    Apparently the Department of Justice agrees with Senator Warren. In 2015 Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates issued a Memorandum to all Civil and Criminal Divisions in the Department of Justice entitled “Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing.” Yates states, in part:

    The guidance in this memo reflects six key steps to strengthen our pursuit of individual corporate wrongdoing, some of which reflect policy shifts and each of which is described in greater detail below: (l) in order to qualify for any cooperation credit, corporations must provide to the Department all relevant facts relating to the individuals responsible for the misconduct; (2) criminal and civil corporate investigations should focus on individuals from the inception of the investigation; (3) criminal and civil attorneys handling corporate investigations should be in routine communication with one another; ( 4) absent extraordinary circumstances or approved departmental policy, the Department will not release culpable individuals from civil or criminal liability when resolving a matter with a corporation; (5) Department attorneys should not resolve matters with a corporation without a clear plan to resolve related individual cases, and should memorialize any declinations as to individuals in such cases; and (6) civil attorneys should consistently focus on individuals as well as the company and evaluate whether to bring suit against an individual based on considerations beyond that individual’s ability to pay.

    The Memorandum also sets forth some of the difficulties the Government faces in proving the culpability of executives of large organizations. Its worth a read.

    I was struck by your statement that “Obama’s two-term effort to compromise with the Republicans has yielded nothing but legislative ashes.” If you look in ashes, you will find the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and other important accomplishments. Last year the President signed a bill that extended the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for two years, and that included an exemption from budget “pay go” requirements.

    Yes, the President has had to compromise. That’s what happens when the Republicans control the House (and sometimes the Senate). President Obama is not perfect, and I wish he had been able to do more, but your critique is over the top.

  5. Its a Federal Issue Now (0 Replies)

    With the ACA in place, its really a federal issue now. Further, I think the state is ill equipped to move this issue forward in a meaningful way.

    Medicare is much more reliable than Medicaid, both for patients and for providers. Medicare funding is not dependent on appropriations — the money does not run out, and the federal government can deficit spend. Medicaid routinely overspends its appropriation in the Spring, and providers are told to wait for a supp budget. Given the confiscatory rates Medicaid pays and the wait for payment, no wonder providers don’t like it.

    EOHHS and the legislature have never been good stewards of the Medicaid program. For example, this year the Senate cut out needed supplemental funding for the “disproportionate share hospitals” that care for large numbers of Medicaid patients. The MassCares bill provide MassHealth for everyone. No thanks.

  6. Overrides (0 Replies)

    In my experience, passing debt exclusion overrides for capital projects is easier. You can point to a project (a new high school, library addition, etc) and ask voters do you want THIS? General overrides to fund the operating budget are possible, but much harder. The worst are the “menu overrides,” which in my experience are hard to pass because the “yes vote” gets split.

    As noted above, the tough problem facing a few municipalities is once they hit the “levy ceiling” of 2.5% of total property value, they can’t grow the operating budget, they can only pass debt exclusions. Its true that these cities also get a much larger share of state aid. Nevertheless, they should have the option to pass general overrides to raise the levy ceiling.

  7. She May be Hopey / Changey (0 Replies)

    . . . but is also very wrong on the legalization of marijuana.

  8. Privacy Rights (1 Reply)

    Developmentally disabled people have the same privacy rights as everyone else. Under the Fair Information Practices Act, the state should not release the report. If COFAR wants the full report, there is an easy way to get it. The patient’s estate can request and receive a full copy, and give it to you. If the patient’s family doesn’t want to release it, that’s their right.

  9. Fast Track (2 Replies)

    The so called Fast Track bill is not a vote on the terms of the TPP. It renews an authority for the President that has been used from time to time since 1974. In essence, it allows the President to negotiate a treaty and requires the Congress to bring the treaty to a straight up or down vote, without amendments for filibuster, promptly.
    So, President Obama did not create the idea of Fast Track just to screw the American people, and a vote on Fast Track is not a vote on the Trans Pacific Partnership. Even if Fast Track is approved, Congress can disapprove TPP.
    I’m disappointed that Senator Warren, whom I support, is confusing the two in her public comments.

  10. This Might Be the Rule You Are Looking For (1 Reply)

    From the ABCC web site:

    204 CMR 2.00:

    204-2.08: Inducements

    No licensee shall give or permit to be given money or any other thing of substantial value in any effort to induce any person to persuade or influence any other person to purchase, or contract for the purchase of any particular brand or kind of alcoholic beverages, or to persuade or influence any person to refrain from purchasing, or contracting for the purchase of any particular brand or kind of alcoholic beverages.

  11. A Solution (0 Replies)

    Wrap your head in aluminum foil instead.

  12. Mostly True (0 Replies)


    A lawsuit was brought to obtain certain records of the Judicial Nominating Council. The Court ruled that records of the JNC are the Governor’s records, and therefore not within the scope of the Public Records Law. The Court ruled:

    The JNC was created to assist the Governor in carrying out his constitutional obligation. It is an interviewing and screening body whose sole purpose is to assist the Governor.[7] It has no public function. The JNC’s records are essentially the Governor’s records on judicial appointments. Those records are not within G. L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth.[8]

    The SJC has spoken.

  13. Public Records Law (1 Reply)

    I don’t believe that the Public Records Law applies to the offices of the Governor or Lt. Governor. Accordingly, it doesn’t matter who owned Murray’s cell phone.

  14. Here is What State Law Says (3 Replies)

    Cities and towns cannot take actions that are not authorized by state law. Herewith, two definitions from Section 4J of Chapter 40:

    “Governmental unit”, a city, town, county, regional transit authority established under chapter 161B, water or sewer commission or district established under chapter 40N or by special law, fire district, regional health district established under chapter 111, a regional school district or a law enforcement council.

    “Law enforcement council”, a nonprofit corporation comprised of municipal police chiefs and other law enforcement agencies established to provide: (i) mutual aid to its members pursuant to mutual aid agreements; (ii) mutual aid or requisitions for aid to non-members consistent with section 8G of this chapter or section 99 of chapter 41; and (iii) enhanced public safety by otherwise sharing resources and personnel.

    It seems clear that LECs are authorized by state law, and are governmental bodies. They are subject to the open meeting law and the public records law. As to the former, file a complaint with the open meeting unit of the AG. For the latter, complain to the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

  15. No Audio (1 Reply)

    The audio fails after 21 seconds, before Dr. Berwick starts to speak.

  16. Maybe (0 Replies)

    My main point is that some of Guardia’s supporters depict him as the sole progressive, the candidate of labor, etc. As you state, labor is divided.

  17. Odd (2 Replies)

    I took a look at the web site for the Boston Public Schools. I found these statements:

    Regarding the current budget:

    The proposed Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) general fund budget totals $934,360,000, representing a 6.9% increase from the FY13 appropriation of $873,693,227.

    Regarding the upcoming budget:

    The proposed FY15 budget totals $973.3 million and reflects our commitments to allocate financial resources equitably to schools to meet the needs of students. The proposed budget expands educational opportunities and continues to improve school quality across the city. The figure is approximately $36 million higher than FY14, thanks to Mayor Martin J. Walsh’s decision to increase the city appropriation to schools by nearly four percent when other city departments are facing reductions.

    Massive cuts?

  18. Some Folks Didn't Get the Memo (1 Reply)

    I received a flyer from SEIU 1199 endorsing Jason Lewis. So I went to his web site, and saw that he is endorsed by SEIU, several locals of the Laborer’s union, the Mass Teachers Association and the United Food and Commercial Workers.

  19. Where to Focus (2 Replies)

    I admire your goals. I think your focus is wrong.

    If you want to advance the triple aim, you should start with the Department of Public Health and the related healthcare regulatory agencies. DPH has been a mess for years, as shown by the crime lab fiasco and the compounding pharmacy disaster. Under new leadership, DPH is now well positioned to boldly march forward into the 1990s. The Division of Health Care Quality is obsessed with paperwork and administrivia. The Determination of Need program rewards high volume providers with permits to build new facilities, while innovation in care processes and increases in efficiency are ignored.

    Single payer has its virtues, but it is not a magic bullet. You would still need to figure out the best way to pay physicians, hospitals, and other providers, how to set budgets and the like. From a political point of view, I question whether the legislature will have the appetite to tackle another big healthcare bill only two years after Chapter 224. Improvements and adjustments are much more likely to pass and there are many opportunities for incremental improvement in our system that do not involve flipping over the table.

    Vermont has not enacted single payer. Vermont has approved the creation of a plan to create a single payer system. Crucially, the law did not include a funding mechanism to pay for it, and this is still up for debate in Vermont. One of the architects of the plan proposed to fund it with an 11% payroll tax, but that has not yet been enacted. Also, the Vermont plan requires a Medicare and ACA waiver, neither of which have been applied for.