theloquaciousliberal

Person #1588: 3 Posts

Recommended: 12 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. Nice Try (0 Replies)

    Berwick is “the one consistently leading and changing the debate–about this issue”

    Yeah, right. “A lot of people” apparently means 111 people now (the current number of signatories to Berwick’s groundbreaking decision)? I’d suggest that’s actually an absurdly low number of “followers” for any leader to garner for an online petition.

    Aside from Berwick and Grossman, there have been dozens of high-profile critics of the AG’s proposed consent agreement in this case. Including numerous hospital CEOs, community organizations, the policy leaders on the Health Policy Commission board, and numerous media outlets.

    Given that reality, for either Berwick or Grossman (or their supporters on their behalf) to take credit for the AG’s decision to ask the judge to postpone the decision in this case is hubris at best.

  2. Exactly My Point (1 Reply)

    She’s been in the public eye for 23 years yet only about 40% of the electorate doesn’t like her! And almost everyone knows enough about her to have an opinion. Very little is likely to move that number in a meaningful way.

    Everyone else – including Biden – has more room to move (up or down!). And everyone else starts with “alarming” negative ratings that math or are lower than Hillary’s. History shows that it’s very rare for a candidate to greatly improve their favorability rating as name recognition increases. Obama got re-elected easily in 2012 with 40%-45% negative favorability ratings.

  3. You're Not Making Sense (1 Reply)

    This whole debate started when you suggested that Hilary’s negatives are “alarmingly high.” I then pointed out that (despite the “common knowledge” that Hillary is widely hated) her 40% negative rating is actually lower than almost all the other candidates. You said, yeah but favorability will change as name recognition increases. I replied that it seems likely to me that favorability will stay about the same (on average!) since name recognition increases based on both positive and negative publicity. To which you replied, Rand Paul’s favorability is likely to get even worse than the current 42% as he becomes better known.

    So…. what’s your point about Hillary’s “alarmingly high” negatives again?

  4. What Nonsense (2 Replies)

    They might move in synch, but I think it’s wiser to assume that they will change.

    Of course, events will boost name recognition. But those events will be both positive and negative. For example, I’m sure Rand Paul will become more well known as he comments on foreign policy (likely a net positive) but also as his plans to privatize (destroy) Social Security and Medicare become more widely known (likely a net negative). The same is true for all the candidates (except Hillary who has a ridiculous 91% true name recognition).

    It’s just silly to suggest that it is “wiser to assume that they will change”, especially when what you really mean here is “We should assume that, as a candidate gets better known, they will have relatively fewer people that view them negatively.”

    I’d suggest it’s actually “wiser” to assume that the candidate’s favorability ratings will stay about the same (since nobody really knows whether a particular candidate’s increased name recognition will come from positive or negative publicity).

  5. Says Who? (1 Reply)

    That will not be the case.

    I am assuming that the ratios will stay the same as name recognition grows. Why wouldn’t they?

  6. Hillary's Negatives (1 Reply)

    Are far from “alarmingly high” but rather encouragingly low. And she benefits from huge name recognition too.

    Doing the math, Hillary has a 40% negative rating (36%/91%).

    By this calculation, Warren has a 45% negative rating with the other three Democrats at about 50%. The top Republicans are about in that range too with Huckabee at 39%, Paul at 42%, Rubio at 41% and Perry at 45%. Bush and Christie are worse off than Hillary too.

  7. Specifics, your welcome (1 Reply)

    Coakley joined in leading the charge in advocating for An Act to Promote Public Safety and Protect Access to Reproductive Health Care, recently filed in response to the McCollum decision. See e.g.: http://www.pplmvotes.org/newsroom/press-releases/265-legislationfiledtoenhancesafeaccesstoreproductivehealthcenters.html

    As AG (and as a candidate for Governor), Coakley will push for passage and strong enforcement of this legislation. As Governor, she will led enforcement efforts.

    On Hobby Lobby, Coakley has pledged to ensure that state law fully mitigates any impact on Massachusetts’ women. She’s also said she will work to ensure that all businesses contracting with the state offer insurance covering contraceptives. See:
    http://www.marthacoakley.com/Campaign-Updates/details/2014-06-coakley-will-work-to-require-companies-that-contract

  8. Harvard is Diverse Too (1 Reply)

    Almost half of Harvard’s student body is now people of color. Slightly more than half at MIT. So…

  9. We Pretty Much Agree (0 Replies)

    Certainly, the Massachusetts Legislature and the Governor are wrong on this. Allowing casinos to be built is terrible public policy and I’d rather see jobs created in just about any other way. And it doesn’t pass the smell test to argue that casinos are in any way a good way to raise revenue.

    However I would continue to argue, apparently, that the unions are not “wrong on this.” The unions have no obligation to oppose the legalization of businesses that might have bad societal impacts. To the contrary, they have a responsibility and collective interest in new job opportunities for union members regardless of the associated societal implications.

    I also can’t believe all the progress we’re flushing down the toilet.

  10. As Usual (1 Reply)

    You put an absurdly negative spin on what I said here.

    What you apparently want us to see as “money for the unions”, I would argue is much better characterized as “good jobs for workers and members of the union.”

    It’s not “greed” to support construction job opportunities. It’s the legal, moral and ethical responsibility of an organization created by workers to further their own interests. It’s not the responsibility of trade unions to decide whether a particular new business is good or bad for society. That’s the job of politicians and all of us as participants in democratic government.

  11. "The Unions"... (1 Reply)

    Is a pretty vague term.

    First, you’re conflating the construction unions (who wholeheartedly support the casinos) with the hospitality and service unions (like Unite-HERE and SEIU) who are much more on the fence about casinos. For the construction unions building casinos is unquestionably “good” even as the other unions probably would prefer better jobs. Even the service and hospitality unions still support building casinos over the other options on the table (build nothing? more hotels anyone?).

    Regardless, this isn’t a matter of the unions “picking the wrong friends.” Unions that organize casino workers are seeking to make existing jobs better. The boss is not and never will be their friend. That doesn’t mean a union should or would oppose the new boss’ efforts to open a new business.

  12. Unions Do (1 Reply)

    In my experience the construction unions support nearly 100% of all proposed new construction (as long as the developer has agreed to or his forced by law to hire union labor).

    Generally Democratic politicians do the same (at least those who want to continue receiving the union’s political support). When, in the rare instance, a Democrat makes a truly principled argument against a particular project, the unions usually forgive them but they don’t forget.

    By your logic, wouldn’t Senator Warren oppose casino development?

  13. Huh? (1 Reply)

    So what?

    Of course, unionized employees picket (and take other actions typically part of collective bargaining) in order to further negotiations of wages, benefits and working conditions.

    But this has absolutely nothing to do with the debate over whether to build new casinos.

  14. Then You Tell Me... (2 Replies)

    … in what way are casinos worse than the lottery for the players and the communities in which those players live?

    Certainly, the odds of winning with the lottery are terrible. The number of jobs (a couple per convenience store) are lower. The state revenue raised from the lottery is about $1 billion (thanks in large part to the criminally low 72% pay-out) while three casinos would contribute about that same amount as a 25% tax on their profits (even as they offer a much more reasonable 90%+ pay-out to the player).

    I don’t actually support repealing the lottery because prohibition doesn’t work. But supporting the lottery “for the children” is pretty regrettable public policy and I’d almost rather have three resort casinos than the lottery on every corner.

    Convince me I’m wrong…

  15. Unions & Casinos (2 Replies)

    There’s really no mystery here, jimc. The union support for casinos comes primarily from the building trades union and primarily because of the construction jobs.

    But, but, you ask, “aren’t there literally hundreds of other big projects that bring jobs.”

    Well, maybe not “hundreds” but, yes, there are certainly many other big projects (Olympics 2024!) that promise jobs for union members. Most unions support those too.

    To be fair, I don’t really think it’s the job of unions (particularly construction unions) to concern themselves with social policy at the expense of jobs opportunities for their members.

  16. That's Right (2 Replies)

    The opinions of anyone who hasn’t actually been involved intimately in this case – opinions which are usually developed based on news accounts – are by definition only partially-educated. Sorry, David, but I’d put your opinion and mine in to that category as well.

    Instead you believe anyone can be an expert and/or that all opinions should be given equal weight, regardless of their level of expertise and knowledge on an admittedly complex matter?

    To me, the very idea that we should base complex public policy decisions (much less decisions about who should lose their job) on the opinions of those without any real, first-hand knowledge of the matter seems ludicrous. Persistent and severe Somatic Symptom Disorder is a real thing whether non-experts understand it or not.

    “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson

  17. Please (2 Replies)

    So, your premise is that no children (no matter how badly they are being abused by their parents) should ever be “aggressively taken by the state.”

    If that’s not your operating premise (which I assume and certainly hope it’s not), then we are talking about complex and difficult decisions about the degree to which a particular child is suffering from parental abuse. Decisions that often, as in this case, involve expert judgment calls by large teams of medical professionals, social workers, lawyers/judges, and state officials.

    No matter how much you’ve read about this case, I find it highly unlikely that your partially-educated opinion is more “correct” than the judgment calls that have been made by dozens of experts with more direct knowledge of the circumstances in this case.

    To suggest that there is “absolutely NO excuse” for the decisions made in this case and that “many people should be fired” is extreme hubris at best.

  18. Oh Yeah? (1 Reply)

    many employees would prefer to keep the insurance they have through the exchange since the job is temporary in nature.

    Says you? That makes absolutely no sense.

    Your theory is that people would rather continue to pay for their own health insurance coverage through the Connector rather than receive free or heavily subsidized insurance through their new employer? In order to avoid a little paperwork they’d rather pay hundreds of dollars a month to obtain their own coverage? Yet, despite this dynamic you purport to understand, Tolman, Coakley, Grossman, Berwick and Kayeem (but not Healey) still managed to hire employees who decided they would accept their employer’s offer of insurance rather than keep the insurance they already had?

    That all sounds pretty unlikely to me.

  19. Respectfully Disagree (2 Replies)

    Your experiences as an unpaid campaign volunteer aside, I believe employers (of full-time paid staff) have a moral obligation to offer a health insurance benefit to their paid staff.

    Interestingly, the state employer mandate and Fair Share penalty were repealed last summer in anticipation of the new ACA employer mandate (which itself was delayed but was supposed to go in to effect this year). Also, of importance, the federal mandate coves only employers of over 50 individuals (the state’s law was for employers of 11+ people).

    So, there’s no legal violation here.

    But experts in health care reform are well aware that an enforced employer mandate is a vitally important component of reform, addressing the “free rider” problem, helping to lower costs, and crucial to ensuring high rates of insurance under the ACA (and RomneyCare) systems.

    On her own webpage, Maura Healey says:

    Maura believes that every resident of our state deserves affordable, high quality health care…. It is critical that we protect patients’ ability to access quality, affordable care while taking steps to drive down costs… She will continue to make access to high quality, affordable health care a top priority for the Attorney General’s Office.

    It’s at least fair, I think, to note that Healy fails to “walk the walk” here by failing to live up to those principles when acting as an employer of her campaign staff.

  20. I apologize (1 Reply)

    For the personal attack.

    But you should know that it comes from a place of real disappointment in your “arguments” on the issue of marijuana policy, particularly in contrast to your usually well-reasoned comments on most other issues.

    Just last month, for example, you offered the following “insights”:

    Doesn’t pot induce laziness and procrastination? Sure such a person might graduate, but the overall message of success is not really compatible.

    Only marijuana seems to have behind it what feels like an ideological compulsion to satisfy our inner hippie.

    I don’t have to inhale fumes from somebody gambling in the room I’m in nor do I have to worry about a gambler driving safely.

    You obviously know quite a bit about the Constitution and public policy. And, generally, your views are progressive with a libertarian bent.

    Yet, you persist with the utterly nonsensical and rapidly shifting arguments against a rational policy of marijuana. A policy of legalization that is supported by the large majority of both progressives *and* libertarians across the country.

    It just frustrates the heck out of me that it’s so difficult to conduct a reasonable debate on marijuana policy in this country. Even with people who are reasonable in so many other debates.