Recommended: 299 times
Posts | Comments
Move 'em to Medicare (1 Reply)
We all love babies. Republicans love unborn babies in particular, but we all love babies.
Move pregnant women to Medicare. Prenatal, delivery, post-delivery, and care for the infant up to one year old.
I believe that this accomplishes a few things:
* It results in reduced rates of abortion,
* It results in reduced maternal death rates,
* It results in reduced complications at birth resulting in expensive long term care, and
* It results in reduced complications after birth for the child.
All of these will drive down cost in the long run. Oh, and have happier, healthier citizens. As a side note, it would also result in a generation of people in their 20s and 30s demanding Medicare — because once they had to not deal with the insurance company and then went back on private insurance, they’d demand access to Medicare again.
opher we're fucked (0 Replies)
(I couldn’t resist)
I hate to... (0 Replies)
He didn't chose to serve for life (1 Reply)
He chose to serve for eight years, and he served them. He didn’t sign a lifetime contract,
It isn't (0 Replies)
It isn’t nobler. But look, if we used the “we can’t all have X, so nobody should have it” we’re in for a tough haul.
It's hard to argue against (3 Replies)
This man spent the last eight years of his life working 100 hour workweeks. How many moments did he miss out with each of his daughters? With his wife? It’s a crazy sacrifice, and plenty of other Americans who sacrifice that kind of time with that kind of pressure make a hell of a lot more than a few hundred grand a year, minus expenses.
Speaking fees of that size are absurd. They reflect a failure of our society to reign in the powers of wealth. They’re as much conspicuous consumption as Mar-a-Lago. But that’s like blaming a landlord for charging market rent in an economy with surging housing prices…
I guess that makes sense (1 Reply)
Gambling is about trying to get something for nothing. In that sense, looking for free drinks and not paying for the infrastructure needed to get you home seems par for the course.
Driving down quickly is hard (0 Replies)
Driving down housing costs quickly may have remarkably challenging side consequences. But its awfully hard to drive down those costs quickly, and I’m not holding my breath.
Figuring out how to make places with ample housing (e.g. Gateway Cities) more attractive to live, work, learn, and play would help a bunch. So too would some inclusionary zoning improvements. So too would improving mass transit, opening up transit poor areas near job centers to better transit, thereby making those lower priced homes more accessible.
Speaking of lies, damn lies, and statistics (0 Replies)
he vast majority of small towns west of Rte. 495, people definitely do not earn “approximately the same incomes” as people in Newton or Brookline.
Neither do the people of Boston, Chelsea, Revere, Everett, Winthrop, Quincy, or Weymouth. You’re comparing a vast region to two cherry-picked communities. I suspect Mr. Clemens would find your comment noteworthy.
And you’re cherry picking isn’t even very good. According to this Dec 2015 Globe article, Brookline isn’t in the top 20% of Massachusetts communities by median household income. In fact, the largest incomes are in the 128 ‘burbs, not the urban areas (Longmeadow notwithstanding).
To pick nits (0 Replies)
The Brookline property is selling for $1.8M, but it’s being taxed at closer to $1.1M. And it’s got 10 bedrooms, whereas the Springfield one has 6.
But yes, point taken on both (a) massive disparity, and what I hadn’t yet thought about, (b) the contractor market prices being driven by the Boston Metro real estate market.
That said, there are no sprinkler requirements for 3 deckers, and furthermore, a 2016 SJC ruling allows many builders to get out of sprinklers for bigger buildings. So yeah, point taken again, but my point is that these things are a bit squishier. The question then becomes: do we either build our economy differently to go to where the already-built housing is, or do we rebuild our housing to go to where the jobs are? The former seems more efficient, but far harder to do without “command and control”…
That's a giant pivot (0 Replies)
Regulations in housing add 200% to the costs.
Getting a mortgage to redevelop a building demanded putting in features that amounted to applying for a loan for 300% of the purchase price.
Those two statements are worlds apart. Retrofit and renovation cost structures are very different from out-of-ground basebuilding construction.
I mean really, are you arguing against requiring developers to employ modern standards for safe wiring, plumbing, fire safety and egress, and so forth? Which standard are you arguing we shouldn’t employ?
If you're going to use numbers, use the right ones. (1 Reply)
I think that regulations in housing (such as sprinklers etc) add 200% to the costs
And I think that 14 unicorns inhabit the Boston Common, frolicking happily where your eyes don’t go. See how I too can use specific numbers based on no actual facts to buttress my inexpert opinion?
Support S.1876! (0 Replies)
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/S1876/CosponsorS 1876 would ramp up our RPS increase from 1% to 2% per year, and would include munis. Huh?
1. We require our utilities (Eversource, Grid, Unitil) to procure renewable electricity on our behalf. Currently, all in, it’s about 17% for 2017, growing by 1% each year. S 1876 would require it to grow by 2% each year.
2. We don’t require our munis (Hull, Wellesley, etc etc) to procure any renewable electricity on their ratepayers behalf, and they don’t. Even Hull sells their green power to others and serves its customers with brown power. This bill would require munis to start serving some green power to their customers, initially 0.5% per year and growing by 0.5% per year, eventually growing by 1% per year, then 2%.
S. 1876 isn’t enough. We’ve got to get up to fifth gear, and this puts us in 2nd . But you don’t get to fifth gear straight out of 1st, so lets work our way up. Current cosponsors:
Marc R. Pacheco First Plymouth and Bristol
John W. Scibak 2nd Hampshire
Michael D. Brady Second Plymouth and Bristol
Marjorie C. Decker 25th Middlesex
Jason M. Lewis Fifth Middlesex
Jack Lewis 7th Middlesex
Daniel M. Donahue 16th Worcester
Thomas J. Calter 12th Plymouth
Michael F. Rush Norfolk and Suffolk
Patrick M. O’Connor Plymouth and Norfolk
Natalie Higgins 4th Worcester
Kay Khan 11th Middlesex
Paul R. Heroux 2nd Bristol
Denise Provost 27th Middlesex
Denise C. Garlick 13th Norfolk
James B. Eldridge Middlesex and Worcester
David M. Rogers 24th Middlesex
Barbara A. L’Italien Second Essex and Middlesex
Linda Dean Campbell 15th Essex
Patricia D. Jehlen Second Middlesex
Kenneth J. Donnelly Fourth Middlesex
Patricia A. Haddad 5th Bristol
Daniel J. Ryan 2nd Suffolk
Kathleen O’Connor Ives First Essex
Mike Connolly 26th Middlesex
Elizabeth A. Malia 11th Suffolk
online vs. local is irrelevant for climate (0 Replies)
With respect to climate and pollution, it doesn’t matter if you buy that plastic or electronic gizmo from Amazon or Target or your local mom and pop.
If you’re going to make shopping choices with the environment in mind — buy less stuff. Buy more local keg beer at the bar and go to more music shows (rock or opera or both). Go get a massage or buy some legal advice. Spend your money on software.
Or, don’t. It’s your life.
By number or by population? (2 Replies)
I’d bet the most common is Open Town Meeting, but in terms of percent of the state population, I’m sure it’s quite low.
By population, I’ve got to believe that cities have the largest share, perhaps significantly so.
How big is the “middle” — the Representative Town Meeting — by state population? No eye deer.
Democrats: get thineself on Town Meeting! (2 Replies)
Elected Town Meeting Members are natural grassroots organizers. That’s how you win at the hyper-local level — you become a bit of a maven or go-to for your neighbors. You talk to folks one-on-one. No teevee ads. No autodialers. No media consultants. Maybe a flier or inexpensive hand-stuffed mailer.
Not all towns in MA are representative, of course. I don’t know how many towns are Representative Town Meeting, nor do I know what fraction of the Commonwealth’s population they comprise. It seems like they are more likely to be in the burbs (not cities, but not rural Open Town Meeting communities either), which is exactly where the Dems could really stand to improve vote share if we’re going to win and hold the corner office.
Seems to me it would be clever for the Mass Dems to identify and encourage capital-D Democrats who could become precinct captains to run for Town Meeting.
I think it's a double edged sword (0 Replies)
It’s a great incremental step in public health, and a big one too.
Here’s my fear: once people 50+ have it, they’ve got the majority of voters on Medicare. Why would they ever support expanding it even further? They’ve got theirs.
That’s why I advocate for putting pregnant women, postpartum women, newborns, and infants on Medicare. I have a few reasons. Firstly, nearly all Americans will have fathered or mothered one or more children by the time the adult reaches 40. Secondly, for many Americans, childbirth is their first really significant experience with modern medicine (month of checkups, a delivery that often includes major surgery, unlikely but often unknowable severe medical complications, and then, once mother and child are two, loads more checkups). It’s also those Americans first really significant experience with modern insurance. It’s also one of the few medical experiences with which we can all both empathize and sympathize. We’ve all been newborns in need of medical attention, and we’ve all got mothers who endured remarkable suffering on our behalf.
So, look. Republicans profess their love for the unborn, and what better way to support the unborn than to make sure mother-to-be and newborn-to-be both have access to quality healthcare? Democrats profess their love for those facing undeserved barriers, and what bigger barrier is there than being born sick? We love our mothers, our wives and girlfriends, and our children, both born and to-be. Why wouldn’t we provide Medicare to all pregnant women, postpartum women, newborns, and infants?
Oh, and P.S. Once young people have had medical insurance, then Medicare, then medical insurance again, they will demand Medicare back. And that is exactly the political kick in the pants this issue needs.
I know it when I see it (1 Reply)
Folks laughed at the “I had a career in identifying absurdity.” But the better line was “I know it when I see it.”
Great 8 minutes by Senator Franken.
Talk to your friends (0 Replies)
Bourne Selectmen Address Railroad Concerns
Republicans Want Bourne to Consider Nixing MBTA Membership
To be clear, I support mass transportation, to be deployed fairly and wisely and prioritized around need, benefit, social justice concerns, and yadda yadda. I’m not opposed to weekday Cape service. I’m just reporting what I heard from a friend who works a white collar job at the T and who weekends on the Cape. It is my understanding that it was his understanding that lots of folks on the Cape opposed weekday commuter rail because they felt the commuter rail would encourage folks moving from Boston Metro to the Cape, thereby changing the way of life. I’m not saying they’re right or wrong… I brought it up because I don’t have any idea what the feel is down in those parts.
The First Amendment applies, not the Second (0 Replies)
Ignoramuses have every right to peaceably express their membership in ignoramia.
RSS - Front Page
RSS - Latest Posts
RSS - Latest Comments
ADVERTISE ON THE BLUE MASS GROUP NETWORK