NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11689698

Massachusetts is the first state to require its residents to secure health insurance, a plan designed to get as close as practically possible to statewide universal health care. Presidential hopeful and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney originally introduced the idea in 2004.

Effective July 1, 2007, the law, which uses federal and state tax dollars, is aimed at making health insurance affordable to all residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including low-income populations. Those who fall below the federal poverty line may be eligible for health care at no cost. A Health Disparities Council has been created to monitor and reduce racial and ethnic health disparities.

The law's "Individual Mandate" provision underscores the state's requirement that each resident make it his or her personal responsibility to secure health care. Those who choose not to abide by the law will be subject to penalty. State income tax forms in 2008 will be used to verify insurance coverage.

Employers who do not offer health coverage to their employees will be subject to fees imposed by the state.

The law has its critics. There are questions about how costs will be controlled, considering that the state will not regulate the increase of premiums.

Dr. Judy Ann Bigby, the state's secretary of Health and Human Services, explains the legislation and how it's being enforced.

I think it's a step in the right direction.

So, what do you think of Massachusetts? Liberal Gods Among Men? Demonic homosexual-loving closet socialists? Some of the above?

This passed a long time ago. I support it. If we require people to have auto insurance, why not health?

Demonic Homosexual-loving Closet Socialistic Liberal Gods Among Men.

Demonic Homosexual-loving Closet Socialistic Liberal Gods Among Men.

you say that like it's a bad thing

So, what do you think of Massachusetts? Liberal Gods Among Men? Demonic homosexual-loving closet socialists? Some of the above?

Probably somewhere between those two extremes. :p

I don't live in the state, so I don't really have an opinion of it.

you say that like it's a bad thing

On the contrary, some of my best friends are Demonic Homosexual-loving Closet Socialistic Liberal Gods Among Men. *nod*

This is an interesting solution to the US healthcare dilemma. Insurance companies still make their profits, everyone gets healthcare, and the bureaucracy is only increased a bit.

If this works out, it would be interesting to see how it could be applied to the whole of the USA.

So, what do you think of Massachusetts?

I was born and raised in Massachusetts and left there when I was 18. I went back for a year when I was 26, and three years later my wife lived there for a year while I was in Thailand. I will never live there again by choice. It's to damn expensive and cold in the winter. I'll take Louisiana over Massachusetts any day.

By the way there is a big difference between auto insurance and health insurance. Auto insurance is designed to protect the other person in case you injure them as only liability insurance is mandatory. In most states collision, comprehensive and uninsured motorists which are designed to protect you are optional. Health insurance is designed to help you not someone else.

I was born and raised in Massachusetts and left there when I was 18. I went back for a year when I was 26, and three years later my wife lived there for a year while I was in Thailand. I will never live there again by choice. It's to damn expensive and cold in the winter. I'll take Louisiana over Massachusetts any day.

By the way there is a big difference between auto insurance and health insurance. Auto insurance is designed to protect the other person in case you injure them as only liability insurance is mandatory. In most states collision, comprehensive and uninsured motorists which are designed to protect you are optional. Health insurance is designed to help you not someone else.

And yet, we have required people to be able to fix someone elses car (or possibly person) over being able to fix themselves. Yes, they are different. Yes, our priorities have been wrong.

I was born and raised in Massachusetts and left there when I was 18. I went back for a year when I was 26, and three years later my wife lived there for a year while I was in Thailand. I will never live there again by choice. It's to damn expensive and cold in the winter. I'll take Louisiana over Massachusetts any day.

By the way there is a big difference between auto insurance and health insurance. Auto insurance is designed to protect the other person in case you injure them as only liability insurance is mandatory. In most states collision, comprehensive and uninsured motorists which are designed to protect you are optional. Health insurance is designed to help you not someone else.

That depends on the state. In New Jersey, both collision and liability are mandatory.

This passed a long time ago. I support it. If we require people to have auto insurance, why not health?
First, we don't subsidize auto insurance in the United States.
Second, health "insurance" is more like health care. If it were truly insurance, it would be used to offset catastrophic illness or injury, much as major med does now. If auto insurance were used like health insurance, oil changes, tune-ups and any other mechanical malfunction would be paid for by the insurance company.
Third, higher risks would require higher premiums. If health "insurance" were like auto insurance, highest risk users would pay the highest premiums. Or be completely uninsurable.

Do I need to go on?


Medical Savings Accounts are a far better plan.

That depends on the state. In New Jersey, both collision and liability are mandatory.

Requiring collision insurance for old cars is really dumb. I've driven many a car where the value after being 'totaled' was far less than a year's premium. Are you sure you aren't talking about comprehensive?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11689698



I think it's a step in the right direction.

So, what do you think of Massachusetts? Liberal Gods Among Men? Demonic homosexual-loving closet socialists? Some of the above?

I na ny other nation including some rather conservative ones like Australia japan and ireland this stuff is just sonsidered sommon decency, health care is acceptaed as a human right everywhere in the developed world but here.

And yet, we have required people to be able to fix someone elses car (or possibly person) over being able to fix themselves. Yes, they are different. Yes, our priorities have been wrong.

I never indicated that I was for or against the new law. I only pointed out the differences between the two types of insurance. I really have no opinion on the new law. Let's see how it works out, that will tell if it is a good law or not.

Requiring collision insurance for old cars is really dumb. I've driven many a car where the value after being 'totaled' was far less than a year's premium. Are you sure you aren't talking about comprehensive?

I'm not sure, to be honest. I just remember from driver's ed that we need collision and liability to drive in NJ. I'm not sure about comprehensive, though I've also never had to drive a really old car (The oldest we presently have is from '98, I drive a '01 Civic)

First, we don't subsidize auto insurance in the United States.
Second, health "insurance" is more like health care. If it were truly insurance, it would be used to offset catastrophic illness or injury, much as major med does now. If auto insurance were used like health insurance, oil changes, tune-ups and any other mechanical malfunction would be paid for by the insurance company.
Third, higher risks would require higher premiums. If health "insurance" were like auto insurance, highest risk users would pay the highest premiums. Or be completely uninsurable.

Do I need to go on?


Medical Savings Accounts are a far better plan.
Okay. I understand that health and auto insurance are not the same thing.

I'll repeat that for everyone before this somehow becomes a thread hijack by people who would otherwise skip this post:

I understand that health and auto insurance are not the same thing.

I never claimed they were the same thing. What I said was
If we require people to have auto insurance, why not health?
That does not imply that I think they are the same, or even similar. What it does say is this: we require people to protect other peoples (and in some states, their own) cars, but do not require that people be able to get health care. We have placed a value on property over life. It is inane that we protect people from driving like idiots, but we don't protect them. Why should a person be able to get into a car accident and not lose a penny, but can't get sick without paying increasingly massive sums?

I never indicated that I was for or against the new law. I only pointed out the differences between the two types of insurance. I really have no opinion on the new law. Let's see how it works out, that will tell if it is a good law or not.

I didn't claim you said it was negative. I said it is rediculous that we have required auto for so long, but not health.

Okay. I understand that health and auto insurance are not the same thing.

I'll repeat that for everyone before this somehow becomes a thread hijack by people who would otherwise skip this post:

I understand that health and auto insurance are not the same thing.

I never claimed they were the same thing. What I said was

That does not imply that I think they are the same, or even similar. What it does say is this: we require people to protect other peoples (and in some states, their own) cars, but do not require that people be able to get health care. We have placed a value on property over life. It is inane that we protect people from driving like idiots, but we don't protect them. Why should a person be able to get into a car accident and not lose a penny, but can't get sick without paying increasingly massive sums?
You missed my point. The difference is exactly why we don't or shouldn't require anyone to own a health care plan.

That depends on the state. In New Jersey, both collision and liability are mandatory.

Incorrect. Collision covers your car only and is optional, however it may be required by your finance company to protect their investment if you are financing the vechile.

Here is the scoop on the NJ mandantory insurance coverage and the link.

In New Jersey a driver must have a minimum coverage of 15,000 for bodily injury to one person, $30,000 for bodily injury sustained by two or more persons in a single accident, and $10,000 for property damage that results from one accident. To adequately protect yourself, you may want to purchase much more than the minimum amount of coverage required for New Jersey.

http://www.insurance.com/quotes/Article.aspx/New_Jersey_Auto_Insurance_Mandatory_Auto_Insurance_Coverages/artid/281

You missed my point. The difference is exactly why we don't or shouldn't require anyone to own a health care plan.

Or work towards some sort of system where only major medical coverage was necessary, for, say, major operations and emergencies.

You're right in that enforced medical coverage for things like regular doctors visits and physicals is like requiring auto insurance for oil changes and tune-ups.

Edit: And you're right. I just looked up NJ State driving laws, and you're only required to have liability.

I'm not sure, to be honest. I just remember from driver's ed that we need collision and liability to drive in NJ. I'm not sure about comprehensive, though I've also never had to drive a really old car (The oldest we presently have is from '98, I drive a '01 Civic)
I'm don't doubt that the State of New Jersey might require collision insurance, but it's a dumb thing for a old car. States have been known to do dumb things -- case in point is the topic of this thread.

Incorrect. Collision covers your car only and is optional, however it may be required by your finance company to protect their investment if you are financing the vechile.

Here is the scoop on the NJ mandantory insurance coverage and the link.

In New Jersey a driver must have a minimum coverage of 15,000 for bodily injury to one person, $30,000 for bodily injury sustained by two or more persons in a single accident, and $10,000 for property damage that results from one accident. To adequately protect yourself, you may want to purchase much more than the minimum amount of coverage required for New Jersey.

http://www.insurance.com/quotes/Article.aspx/New_Jersey_Auto_Insurance_Mandatory_Auto_Insurance_Coverages/artid/281

Aye, I just looked that up.

Or work towards some sort of system where only major medical coverage was necessary, for, say, major operations and emergencies.

You're right in that enforced medical coverage for things like regular doctors visits and physicals is like requiring auto insurance for oil changes and tune-ups.

Edit: And you're right. I just looked up NJ State driving laws, and you're only required to have liability.
That's where I think the idea of MSAs is great. If the Commonwealth wants to sponsor a major medical plan for low-wage earners or no-wage earners, I do think that's the way to go.

But wait, we've already got that...Federal law prohibits any hospital from turning away critically ill patients. And, I suspect big hospitals like Mass General will treat just about anyone. I know our Grady Memorial will do that, to the point of near-bankruptcy.

You missed my point. The difference is exactly why we don't or shouldn't require anyone to own a health care plan.You fail to make that point. You outline the differences, but no where do those imply that we shouldn't have universal health care of some kind (in this case, through insurance)
No, we don't subsidize auto insurance. Yes, health insurance covers all healh-related needs (depending upon what plan you have, of course) and not just near-death things like a deflated lung. Yes, high risk people pay higher premiums in many cases (smokers, obease often do pay more for an individual plan, iirc)

MSA's are a great idea if you have the money to create one. Not to mention, according to the government, you have to have an HDHP. So, in order to have an MSA, you need health insurance.

By the way there is a big difference between auto insurance and health insurance. Auto insurance is designed to protect the other person in case you injure them as only liability insurance is mandatory. In most states collision, comprehensive and uninsured motorists which are designed to protect you are optional. Health insurance is designed to help you not someone else.

And this new health insurance law is there to protect the rest of the residents of Massachusetts from you (not you precisely, of course) going to a hospital uninsured, and not being able to pay for a life saving treatment that by federal law the hospital cannot deny based on your inability to afford it.

When uninsured show up like that, which is a serious problem in Massachusetts, the bill goes to the hospital. Our hospitals were getting severely hurt by the expanse, and the two options were this insurance law (which I won't go into details on, but suffice it to say it is designed to be affordable even by the poor), or raise taxes again.

I don't want another tax increase. That is the same as not protecting me from the uninsured.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11689698

I think it's a step in the right direction.

So, what do you think of Massachusetts? Liberal Gods Among Men? Demonic homosexual-loving closet socialists? Some of the above?

I love Massachusetts, because I live there, but I hate insurance.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11689698



I think it's a step in the right direction.

So, what do you think of Massachusetts? Liberal Gods Among Men? Demonic homosexual-loving closet socialists? Some of the above?

This is not a step in the right direction. The politicians who voted on this have no clue how much the average MA resident makes/spends on living expenses. The plan they have in place is too expensive for people. We may be demonic and homosexual loving, but I fail to see the socialism here

EDIT--
I'm for a plan like this, but in it's current incarnation, it's not feasable. If I didn't get my insurance through work, I would not be able to afford to have insurance.

You're right in that enforced medical coverage for things like regular doctors visits and physicals is like requiring auto insurance for oil changes and tune-ups.

There is one huge difference. You don't get your car fixed, it dies while you're driving and you have a bad day.

You don't get the health care you need (regular checkups, etc), you die. Again, a very bad day, but on an entirely different level.

This is not a step in the right direction. The politicians who voted on this have no clue how much the average MA resident makes/spends on living expenses. The plan they have in place is too expensive for people. We may be demonic and homosexual loving, but I fail to see the socialism here

EDIT--
I'm for a plan like this, but in it's current incarnation, it's not feasable. If I didn't get my insurance through work, I would not be able to afford to have insurance.

I think you have not bothered to take a look at the system then. It is in fact designed with income and expenses in mind. There are plans available that depending on your income are FREE to you.

There is one huge difference. You don't get your car fixed, it dies while you're driving and you have a bad day.

You don't get the health care you need (regular checkups, etc), you die. Again, a very bad day, but on an entirely different level.

Also, your car will not infect other cars with some sort of contagious malfunction. You are also not required to have a vehicle at all. Anyways, the analogy fails on many points.

I think the bulk of the burden will fall on those small businesses that currently do not provide health insurance for their employees. Perhaps a tax break directed at these people would help accommodate the transition.

I think you have not bothered to take a look at the system then. It is in fact designed with income and expenses in mind. There are plans available that depending on your income are FREE to you.

Yes, depending on your income. THat's where your living expenses come in. Rent an apartment and there goes a huge chunk of your income.

I didn't claim you said it was negative. I said it is rediculous that we have required auto for so long, but not health.

Oh, sorry I misunderstood. I don't think we can compare the two anyway.
One is designed to protect against loss or injury that is not your fault. The other is more a matter of personal responsibility, or at least it should be.

If requiring people and/or employers to get health insurance lowers the cost of medical care and the amount of tax dollars spent providing medical care to people then I would say it is a success. However, only time will tell if this program is good or another government boondogle.

Yes, depending on your income. THat's where your living expenses come in. Rent an apartment and there goes a huge chunk of your income.
And that, my friend, is why we have Allston.In all its glory.

Yes, depending on your income. THat's where your living expenses come in. Rent an apartment and there goes a huge chunk of your income.

Since it is based on your tax return where you include expenses and such, it actually does include expenses.

Oh, sorry I misunderstood. I don't think we can compare the two anyway.No worries.
One is designed to protect against loss or injury that is not your fault. The other is more a matter of personal responsibility, or at least it should be.

If requiring people and/or employers to get health insurance lowers the cost of medical care and the amount of tax dollars spent providing medical care to people then I would say it is a success. However, only time will tell if this program is good or another government boondogle.

I don't see how it won't lower costs of the ER at the very least (people won't need to use it as a gen.prac. type thing)

Here's hoping, atleast.

And that, my friend, is why we have Allston.In all its glory.

Hahaha, yeah, I don't think I would want to fight for my territory with the almighty Allstopede.

Since it is based on your tax return where you include expenses and such, it actually does include expenses.

Perhaps. What I know is that based on my income and expenses (last time I checked, I don't know if they've made alterations to it again) would be that I would have to pay about $250-300 a month. I can't afford that.

I think the bulk of the burden will fall on those small businesses that currently do not provide health insurance for their employees. Perhaps a tax break directed at these people would help accommodate the transition.

And those businesses will raise prices to make up for the cost. Some may even have to close or lay off workers. :(

I wonder how much a burger, fries, and coke are going to cost at McD's in Massachusetts. In the end, the consumer will pay be it in higher cost or higher taxes. :(

Hahaha, yeah, I don't think I would want to fight for my territory with the almighty Allstopede.

It's our hot body, we'll do what we want (http://mrbutchshow.com/) :)

Since it is based on your tax return where you include expenses and such, it actually does include expenses.

Nope. Rent is not tax deductable, only mortgage interest is and only if you itmize.

It's our hot body, we'll do what we want (http://mrbutchshow.com/) :)

I will admit, Allston is a fun place. Though when I think of Allston I remember that time I was on Harvard Ave and saw that Hipster still drunk from the night before vomiting on a tree outside at around noon as people passed her by

Nope. Rent is not tax deductable, only mortgage interest is and only if you itmize.

Rent up to a certain point is non-taxable. But you don't get that back until April

Nope. Rent is not tax deductable, only mortgage interest is and only if you itmize.

Federal or state taxes? The rules are different, you know.

Federal or state taxes? The rules are different, you know.

The Commonwealth will refund a portion of the taxes on money you spent on rent. The Federal government will not however

Perhaps. What I know is that based on my income and expenses (last time I checked, I don't know if they've made alterations to it again) would be that I would have to pay about $250-300 a month. I can't afford that.

Move South or West young man. Get the heck out of there and your money will go much further.

Cost of Living Indexes Tulsa, Oklahoma Boston, Massachusetts United States
Overall 81.9 145.3 100
Food 98.3 110.3 100
Housing 56.3 200.7 100
Utilities 98.9 125.2 100
Transportation 88 113.4 100
Health 99 127.3 100
Miscellaneous 97.4 110 100

Cost of Living Indexes Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana Boston, Massachusetts United States
Overall 79.7 145.3 100
Food 88.1 110.3 100
Housing 60 200.7 100
Utilities 87.7 125.2 100
Transportation 93.1 113.4 100
Health 91 127.3 100
Miscellaneous 92.6 110 100

Damn Housing cost up there is outrageous.

Rent up to a certain point is non-taxable. But you don't get that back until April

Must be a state tax thing not federal. I stand corrected sir.

Move South or West young man. Get the heck out of there and your money will go much further.

Damn Housing cost up there is outrageous.

It is damn expensive, but fortunately I don't have to worry about the mandatory insurance. I get that through work for about a fifth of what I would pay normally.


Must be a state tax thing not federal. I stand corrected sir.

I just checked my state return. $8000 of my rent for the year was non taxable

I just checked my state return. $8000 of my rent for the year was non taxable

My mortgage payment comes to $7,649.28 per year and that includes principle, intrerest, insurance, and taxes. The house is on 1/4 acre and has an attached garage with about 1,550 sq. ft. of living space. Four bedrooms, two full baths, living room with fireplace, dining area, kitchen, and laundry room. All bedrooms have walk in closets. If we sold right now we would get about $120,000.00.

As I said, living in MA is damn expensive and you have to deal with that white stuff in the winter. :( I do miss the bbeautiful fall colors though.

Bostongrad is right. The general idea may be good, but Massachusett's statute is seriously flawed. Most of this state's so-called social programs are flawed because none of them account for the real cost of living in Mass. Also, it is not as simple to qualify for a low-cost/free state plan as the state's Health Connector website and advertisements make it seem. The fact is, the current law does not help the "working poor" as much as it helps the completely indigent, so it will not assist in reducing poverty in Mass. It may even increase it, as insurance premiums go up and people have to either leave the state or reduce their income to qualify for assistance to cover their costs.

I'm self-employed and have to pay for my own insurance. Like my rent, a portion of that cost will be tax deductible, but that will not help me make ends meet month-to-month. Since the law went into effect, my insurer (like all the others in the state) introduced more plans with more price structures, and I was able to switch plans and reduce my costs by $90/month, but I am still paying $350/month. That's less than I was paying before, but it is still so high, that if I cannot increase my business earnings, or get a supplemental job, or switch to another even cheaper plan (with a reduction in coverage/services), then I will probably have to leave Mass, possibly next year. I just won't be able to afford to live here because the state is forcing me to carry this personal cost.

As set up, the law will hurt the working poor and small entrepreneurs trying to start businesses. And it leaves the door open for insurers to price the poor and middle class out of the state altogether. The law was passed under Romney. New governor Deval Patrick tried to delay enactment of it until these flaws could be looked at, but the right-wing dominated state congress (lobbied heavily by insurance companies) stymied him on that. I expect the law will be amended fairly soon.

I went without health insurance for 2 years b/c I was young, healthy and made a conscious decision to go without it. In fact, it is not rational for a young healthy person to get normal health coverage (though it is probaby a good idea to get catastrophic health coverage). I think that it's BS for the gov't to go and tell a private citizen you MUST buy this service regardless of whether you want it.

The example of auto insurance is a non-starter. The gov't provides the roads. And operating a car involves risk of loss to a whole bunch of third-parties. Most drivers wouldn't be able to compensate victims of their torts w/o auto insurance.

I wouldn't mind this law if the state allowed residents to jump through a few hoops and sign a statement that says "I refuse health insurance. This is an informed decision and I hereby waive my right to any state or federal provided medical services."

I do think, however, that people should be required to hold a health insurance policy for their children (and maybe for themselves if they have children, b/c if they did get sick and die who would take care of the kids). But to force healthy young workers or college sutdents into having health insurance is a direct affront to their personal freedoms. Remember, a free society means allowing people to be free to engage in utterly self-destructive behavior.

My mortgage payment comes to $7,649.28 per year and that includes principle, intrerest, insurance, and taxes. The house is on 1/4 acre and has an attached garage with about 1,550 sq. ft. of living space. Four bedrooms, two full baths, living room with fireplace, dining area, kitchen, and laundry room. All bedrooms have walk in closets. If we sold right now we would get about $120,000.00.

As I said, living in MA is damn expensive and you have to deal with that white stuff in the winter. :( I do miss the bbeautiful fall colors though.

That does make things sound pretty tempting. Even if I did want to move though I probably wouldn't. My total rent for the year is $9400 incidentally, so a good chunk of that does get the tax on it refunded. (My roommate pays more, she's got the larger room heheh)

I will admit, Allston is a fun place. Though when I think of Allston I remember that time I was on Harvard Ave and saw that Hipster still drunk from the night before vomiting on a tree outside at around noon as people passed her by

haha...ah yes, the sights and sounds of home.

We have all the good bars, clubs, music...cheap(er) cost of living...and if all else fails, we drink more in a night than most drink in an entire year. And consider this somethng to brag about.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11689698



I think it's a step in the right direction.


step in the right direction? Its one step away from having everybody swear allegence to the jouche ideal, maybe.

haha...ah yes, the sights and sounds of home.

We have all the good bars, clubs, music...cheap(er) cost of living...and if all else fails, we drink more in a night than most drink in an entire year. And consider this somethng to brag about.

Ah, I don't know about the clubs, my band can't seem to get into any of them. We end up playing the Skybar in Somerville a lot. Or at least we did. Skybar's closing on the 15th

I went without health insurance for 2 years b/c I was young, healthy and made a conscious decision to go without it. In fact, it is not rational for a young healthy person to get normal health coverage (though it is probaby a good idea to get catastrophic health coverage). I think that it's BS for the gov't to go and tell a private citizen you MUST buy this service regardless of whether you want it.

The example of auto insurance is a non-starter. The gov't provides the roads. And operating a car involves risk of loss to a whole bunch of third-parties. Most drivers wouldn't be able to compensate victims of their torts w/o auto insurance.

I wouldn't mind this law if the state allowed residents to jump through a few hoops and sign a statement that says "I refuse health insurance. This is an informed decision and I hereby waive my right to any state or federal provided medical services."

I do think, however, that people should be required to hold a health insurance policy for their children (and maybe for themselves if they have children, b/c if they did get sick and die who would take care of the kids). But to force healthy young workers or college sutdents into having health insurance is a direct affront to their personal freedoms. Remember, a free society means allowing people to be free to engage in utterly self-destructive behavior.
It pisses me off to no end as well that I have to carry such a high cost for something I never, ever use. I never go to doctors unless I am seriously ill, and I've been lucky enough not to get that sick since 1987. But the fact is, I'm middle aged now, and my chances of getting sick are going up, so the gamble is a lot less safe than it used to be. And prices, especially of drugs, are so outrageous in the US, that there is no way I could afford care if I did not have insurance. And that really pisses me off, too.

Btw, Mass does allow people not to carry insurance. It's just that, if you don't have it, you will be hit with a punitive surcharge by the state if you ever have to go to a hospital for any reason. I really don't see how that can be considered legally acceptable, but there it is. Ironic, really, considering Mass is the home state of the Church of Christ, Scientist, whose followers generally refuse medications and most treatments, unless it's something simple like setting a broken bone. Now they have to be punished for not participating in a system that is, essentially, against their religion.

haha...ah yes, the sights and sounds of home.

We have all the good bars, clubs, music...cheap(er) cost of living...and if all else fails, we drink more in a night than most drink in an entire year. And consider this somethng to brag about.
I don't know, when it comes to the wildlife of the metro Boston area, I find I prefer Slummerville to Allston. :p

Ah, I don't know about the clubs, my band can't seem to get into any of them. We end up playing the Skybar in Somerville a lot. Or at least we did. Skybar's closing on the 15th
I have a few friends who have played Harpers Ferry and places like that. Or just a good ol' basement show
I don't know, when it comes to the wildlife of the metro Boston area, I find I prefer Slummerville to Allston. :p

Blasphamer! How dare you compare Slummerville to Ballston Rock City?

Ah, I don't know about the clubs, my band can't seem to get into any of them. We end up playing the Skybar in Somerville a lot. Or at least we did. Skybar's closing on the 15th
They're closing too? We just lost Tir Na Nog, though I hear they are finding another place around Union Sq.

Lots of places are shutting down around Harvard Sq, too. I get paranoid when shit like that starts happening. Being a New Yorker (NO!! NOT A YANKEES FAN!!! DAMMIT!), I remember how whenever commercial rentals starting shutting down like that, it presaged a major wave of outrageous rent increases and gentrification/redevelopment.

They're closing too? We just lost Tir Na Nog, though I hear they are finding another place around Union Sq.

Lots of places are shutting down around Harvard Sq, too. I get paranoid when shit like that starts happening. Being a New Yorker (NO!! NOT A YANKEES FAN!!! DAMMIT!), I remember how whenever commercial rentals starting shutting down like that, it presaged a major wave of outrageous rent increases and gentrification/redevelopment.

I don't see that happening around Harvard Ave. atleast...it is all student and immigrant housing, and I don't think many others really want to live surrounded by us drunkards

I hadn't heard that Tir Na Nog closed tho...when did that happen?

They're closing too? We just lost Tir Na Nog, though I hear they are finding another place around Union Sq.

Lots of places are shutting down around Harvard Sq, too. I get paranoid when shit like that starts happening. Being a New Yorker (NO!! NOT A YANKEES FAN!!! DAMMIT!), I remember how whenever commercial rentals starting shutting down like that, it presaged a major wave of outrageous rent increases and gentrification/redevelopment.

Yeah, and they're hitting Good Times next from what I hear. We have two more shows at the Skybar, tomorrow night and on the 15th.

It does seem like a lot of places are closing

I have a few friends who have played Harpers Ferry and places like that. Or just a good ol' basement show


Blasphamer! How dare you compare Slummerville to Ballston Rock City?
I didn't just compare it. I compared it favorably. :P Guess I just enjoy the cultural ambience that old Winter Hill Gang survivors and Dominican/Brazilian street gangs provide.

I don't see that happening around Harvard Ave. atleast...it is all student and immigrant housing, and I don't think many others really want to live surrounded by us drunkards
Student ghettos are some of the most stable neighborhoods you'll find in a city.

I hadn't heard that Tir Na Nog closed tho...when did that happen?
Not sure, maybe a month or 2 ago.

Student ghettos are some of the most stable neighborhoods you'll find in a city.


Not sure, maybe a month or 2 ago.

Sprinkler system for them too? That's why they're closing the Skybar

Sprinkler system for them too? That's why they're closing the Skybar
No, I think they lost their lease or something -- the building they were in got sold, I believe.

I live in Massachusetts and I'm glad this has gone into effect.

This passed a long time ago. I support it. If we require people to have auto insurance, why not health?

The difference being that the auto insurance that you are required to have is liability insurance. Basically a guarantee that if you mess up someone else's car, that they'll be compensated, not that if you screw mess your own car it will get fixed.

step in the right direction? Its one step away from having everybody swear allegence to the jouche ideal, maybe.

The UN abassadorship! Where've you been!?

The difference being that the auto insurance that you are required to have is liability insurance. Basically a guarantee that if you mess up someone else's car, that they'll be compensated, not that if you screw mess your own car it will get fixed.
please, read the rest of the thread. It is even bolded for people who didn't feel like reading. Don't make me go back and size-7 it

What exactly do the "Some of the Above" and "All of the Above" options mean?!

I found it strange that there was no mention of Roman Catholicism or Phoney Oirishness, given some of the insults, which were levelled at the state.