As to Ms. Turnbull, I do not mean to impugn her character, but I am told that while she once advocated for a single payer system, she now appears to be firmly aligned with the insurance industry, which seems to be the only real benficiary of Chapter 58. Consumers have had no voice at the table, thus far. How does Ms. Turnbull intend to represent our interests?
This law was crafted and passed behind closed doors and does not represent real reform, only a reiteration of the status quo. Individuals are right to be skeptical and suspicious.

By using such benign wording, the public is fooled into thinking that this is a well meaning, progressive plan, when it is simply an underhanded and painful way to extract more money from an already struggling populace.

This expensive enterprise was devised by politicians and number-crunching insurance companies for the benefit of the authors, not the good people who pay for it. In this “laboratory[ies] of reform” (quote from Salvatore DiMasi) Massachusetts citizens are the unwitting sacrificial lab rats.

The architects are clearly indifferent when the human equation doesn’t fit into their pre-determined end. This fact has been demonstrated over and over again in public forums. Even here, on this very forum, there is evidence of this sad fact.

Anyone with a jot of commonsense can see that you can’t replace one fractured system with another and call it “reform. People need heath CARE not health INSURANCE.

True reform would be the removal of profit and expensive administrative overhead with the establishment of a universal single-payer system. Please read: http://www.massnurses.org/single_payer/faq.htm , http://www.pnhp.org/ , http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19886686/site/newsweek/page/0 .

I don’t claim to have answers to lots of questions. I just think we can be nice to one another while we disagree on issues.

I guess there are two ways to deal with these kinds of comments. One is to ignore them, and hope they just fade away. The other is to say out loud that they are inappropriate and mean-sprited and discourage other highly qualified people from serving in advisory capacities in state government. At the risk of stirring up still more such comments, I choose the latter.

Implementation of this law is a difficult task for the members of the Connector Authority Board that will take hours of their time. These people deserve a level of civility and gratitude from members of the public. Sure, we can judge the efficacy of their actions and decisions as members of a public body, but let’s not impugn their personal motives and their beliefs.