(Untitled)

[redcat9]

Just as soon as I decide I maybe don't have to hate my country so much, I have to hate my seemingly safe state. Way to fuck yourselves in the ass people of Massachusetts, but I hear the person you elected doesn't think you should be doing that. By the way, when you lose your health insurance, you have a state option to protect you. But I guess

Comments

[awfief]

The state option isn't available to everyone, only those under a certain household income (depending on how many are in your household). So no, not everyone has the state option

[redcat9]

Not my point. Commonwealth Care subsidized insurance is available based on income levels, it's true. One presumes that if I lost my job my income level would drop precipitously over the following few months. More important to me is that the state has compiled/coerced insurance companies into offering residents affordable individual plans regardless of income levels. I have spent quite a bit of time looking into this potentially planning to be a full-time actor, and Mass is a way better place to quit your job and try to be an artist than most other states.

[awfief]

True, but if I lost my job I wouldn't be eligible for a few months, until I could prove I didn't have income. Which means I'd likely be required to take unemployment insurance even if I did not want to. And in between that time, I wouldn't have coverage.

In addition -- many people are making over the minimums and still can't afford their employer's health care plans, and are stuck. That was the case I was referring to. "Uninsured" != "jobless".

[kvarko]

I know it's not your point, but wouldn't you be eligible for COBRA coverage during those few months?

[liquidsnake]

/hug

[falln_caryatid]

I thought John Stewart said it well: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-18-2010/mass-backwards

"...Democrats will only have an 18 vote majority in the Senate, which is more than George W. Bush /ever/ had in the Senate when he did whatever the #^@* he wanted to do. In fact, the Democrats have a greater majority than Republicans have had since 1923."

And, to be fair-and-balanced (*snicker*), Colbert: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/261995/january-18-2010/massachusetts-special-election

"...Electing Scott Brown will send a clear message to the nation: 'I've got mine, Jack; you can suck it.'"

[redcat9]

Honestly, if I really thought that this was what the people of the state wanted, I would be sad but fine with it. I don't think Brown is evil or corrupt or anything, and I'm not a huge fan of Coakley; I just think a lot of the Democrats/left-leaning independents of the state decided to let irritation with Coakley push them to a "protest vote" of Brown.

I think that over the next six months Massachusetts residents will have a slow "what have we done" realization when Brown, entirely reasonably, sides with the Republicans on issues that this state tends to side with Democrats on.

It's the same way that it pisses me off that this country decided to elect Bush to a second term and then decided it didn't really like him, even though nothing major changed.

[falln_caryatid]

I get you there, and can only hope for pleasant surprises all around