sort of OT: Celtics co-owner Steve running for US senate...

[Gant]

...probably.

For what it's worth he's a better owner than Herb Kohl, and he has enough money to be a serious contender.

"Celtics co-owner Pagliuca plots Senate run"
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaki ... owner.html

[wigglestrue]

And he stands for...?

[Gant]

And he stands for...?

I like where he stands on the issue of signing free agents. His other policies are as yet unknown.

[OBisHalJordan]

And he stands for...?

he stands for $400 million

[theman]

Pags is a bit of a liberal which always surprises me in a businessman, but as a businessman I would think he at least would have a better understanding of how the world works than the career politicians that are running for the seat. He is definitely better than Martha Cokely.

Curt Schilling is also considering a run but may have to run as an independent which would be a bad idea if Scott Brown is in the race as a Republican because 1) it would split the conservative vote and 2) he would be unable to acquire GOP national money.

On a related note I am strongly considering a run for a State Rep. seat.

[JR Hawks]

Pags is a bit of a liberal which always surprises me in a businessman, but as a businessman I would think he at least would have a better understanding of how the world works than the career politicians that are running for the seat. He is definitely better than Martha Cokely.

Curt Schilling is also considering a run but may have to run as an independent which would be a bad idea if Scott Brown is in the race as a Republican because 1) it would split the conservative vote and 2) he would be unable to acquire GOP national money.

On a related note I am strongly considering a run for a State Rep. seat.

The business community has never been socially conservative. Unfortunately, that's all the GOP is these days...a bunch of socially conservative old, white males from the South.

[wigglestrue]

"On a related note I am strongly considering a run for a State Rep. seat."

Good luck! (Even though I hate your politics)

[Dogen]

"On a related note I am strongly considering a run for a State Rep. seat."

Good luck! (Even though I hate your politics)

If he runs his opponents slogan could be: "Stick it to theman!"

[sully00]

Pags is a bit of a liberal which always surprises me in a businessman, but as a businessman I would think he at least would have a better understanding of how the world works than the career politicians that are running for the seat. He is definitely better than Martha Cokely.

Curt Schilling is also considering a run but may have to run as an independent which would be a bad idea if Scott Brown is in the race as a Republican because 1) it would split the conservative vote and 2) he would be unable to acquire GOP national money.

On a related note I am strongly considering a run for a State Rep. seat.

Schilling was on the radio this weekend about this, for what it is worth. He has no intentions of splitting "the conservative vote" which is like cutting up a cookie in Mass to begin with if his presence in the race doesn't make Brown go away he isn't going to even bother.

The National committee can back who ever they want to. They are not tied to the Mass GOP's nominee, that said I don't think that MA senate seat in a special election is where the GOP is going to be putting a ton of its money.

Good luck to you with your run, I don't agree with you politically on, well probably anything, but something has got change in the way the state is run.

[Gant]

Here's a Suffolk Poll question on Schilling. Those are harsh numbers. Despite the World Series heroics Mass very likely won't be friendly territory for him politically.

Q8. Is your opinion of Curt Schilling generally favorable or generally
unfavorable?
N= 500 100%
Never heard .................................... 1 58 12%
Favorable ...................................... 2 143 29%
Unfavorable .................................... 3 195 39%
Heard of/Undecided ............................. 4 104 21%

(via fivethirtyeight.com)

[Triple M]

Pags is a bit of a liberal which always surprises me in a businessman, but as a businessman I would think he at least would have a better understanding of how the world works than the career politicians that are running for the seat. He is definitely better than Martha Cokely.

Curt Schilling is also considering a run but may have to run as an independent which would be a bad idea if Scott Brown is in the race as a Republican because 1) it would split the conservative vote and 2) he would be unable to acquire GOP national money.

On a related note I am strongly considering a run for a State Rep. seat.

The business community has never been socially conservative. Unfortunately, that's all the GOP is these days...a bunch of socially conservative old, white males from the South.

Agreed it seems to me they missed an oportunity to focus on there fiscally conservative issues in the last election, although people most likely wouldn't have bought it coming from a party that brought back the deficits. Nevertheless that is where the GOP needs to head if they want to start inching into the urban centers.

[GuyClinch]

^^^ Agreed. What's worse IMHO is not only do they not really emphasize fiscal issues they seem to blindly side with big business even when finacially it might not be in the interest of the consumer. Many executives don't realize it but they end getting paid less because much of their potential salary goes to health care costs - especially those with cushy plans.

The Republicans have chosen to throw their lot in with insurance companies - simply because it is that private industry that would get hit. They might win on healthcare - don't get me wrong. But angling for their benefit and not the consumer is an issue.

I can't even call myself a republican anymore with their mix of big government, favoring business at every turn and social conservatism..

Pete

[theman]

^^^ Agreed. What's worse IMHO is not only do they not really emphasize fiscal issues they seem to blindly side with big business even when finacially it might not be in the interest of the consumer.

While I agree Republicans have been way to eager to spend over the last few years it is not as if the Democrats are the spend less, small government option. Nor are the Democrats immune to giving money to "Big Business", witness the trillions of dollars that that have been handed out this year.

Many executives don't realize it but they end getting paid less because much of their potential salary goes to health care costs - especially those with cushy plans.

The Republicans have chosen to throw their lot in with insurance companies - simply because it is that private industry that would get hit. They might win on healthcare - don't get me wrong. But angling for their benefit and not the consumer is an issue.

I can't even call myself a republican anymore with their mix of big government, favoring business at every turn and social conservatism..

Pete

Massachusetts can be used as a test case for the new health care "plan". RomneyCare is not wildly different than what ObamaCare would be. So much so that Gov. Deval Patrick is a big supporter of it.

Opponents of reform claim that the Massachusetts experiment is too costly. They are wrong. State estimates and independent analysis from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation concur that health-care reform has only added moderate incremental costs to the state budget. As more of our residents have become insured, there has been a decrease in demand for costly emergency-room care. Even in the midst of the current economic downturn, our state budget was balanced.

As a Massachusetts resident I can speak from experience and tell you my premiums have gone up since RomneyCare took effect. Not only that but I was nearly fined by the state for not adequately documenting that I had insurance. As an aside, the new law added three pages to the Massachusetts tax return. How many will it add at the federal level.

But in the end Deval's assertion that the Mass. plan is not expensive is just wrong.

In Massachusetts, rising health-care costs, already among the highest in the country, threaten the insurance mandate's long-term viability. The state's costs to expand coverage have swelled nearly 70% to an expected $1.75 billion in fiscal 2010 from a base of $1.04 billion in 2006, about half of which is supported by federal funds, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonprofit policy research group.

Wall_Street_Journal


And there is no end in sight.

The state’s major health insurers plan to raise premiums by about 10 percent next year, prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers.

Increases will range from 7 to 12 percent, capping a decade of consecutive double-digit premium increases, according to a Globe survey of the state’s top health insurers. Actual rates for 2010 will depend on the size of the employer and the type of coverage, with small businesses and individuals expected to be hit hardest. Overall, premiums are more than twice as high as they were 10 years ago.

The higher insurance costs undermine a key tenet of the state’s landmark health care law passed two years ago, as well as President Obama’s effort to overhaul health care. In addition to mandating insurance for most residents, the Massachusetts bill sought to rein in health care costs. With Washington looking to the Massachusetts experience, fears about higher costs have become a stumbling block to passing a national health care bill.

Boston_Globe

[Gant]

Health costs in other wealthy countries are a fraction of what they are here and with better results. The problem hasn't been the government; it's been the insurance and pharma giants gouging everyone (with the politicians in their pockets).