I don't understand how anyone can be against something that they don't have a problem taking advantage of. Why shouldn't everyone have the same opportunity that Brown's daughter has and be able to insure their adult children? It is definitely hypocritical.

SO--the other day it was explained by the Globe staff writers that it was OK for Warren to NOT check off the box on her taxes to give that XTRA bit of VOLUNTARY tax because she had done what was legally required. *****Now here comes Brown and he does what is legal and it is an entire NEGATIVE story. WHY DO I EXPECT BALANCE FROM THE GLOBE???????**** We are all masochists for reading this paper.

Funny, my child is 23 yrs. old and my insurance, through Mass. Commonwealth Care won't cover him. What's up with that? I am forced to pay for his coverage through his college plan, at a premiu

Paying a voluntary tax is a completely different issue than utilizing part of a program that Brown supposedly so vigorously opposes.

Everybody that pays for insurance can do what Brown is doing.

Flynn's decision to go republican qualifies him for a room at the Marion Manor.

Of course, this is the way a Democracy works. You vote your conscience, what you think is good for everyone. Then when the majority rules, you abide by that ruling. Democracy 101.

No one argues that the Affordable Care Act needs some significant tinkering. However Sen Brown in contrast to his statement "I'm not a rock thrower," has done just the opposite. Instead of working to improve more affordable access by reforming health insurers practices he chose to deep six the whole thing. Besides showing he is decidedly a rock thrower against people's health he also goes contrary to his other meme, "I'm a problem solver." Actions speak louder than words. Sen Brown has to decide if we move forward in this country or does he stand with the backwardness, fear mongering, luck oriented present state of the Republican Party. So far he has allied himself with the most reactionary segment of his designated political party. He stood for employer's dictating what health care is, even though this is part of a person's earned income. He voted for military equipment the Pentagon doesn't want(so much for debt reduction). He voted against temporary measures to relieve the suffering of out of work families claiming minor debt adjustments are more important. People keeping their home or preserving the ability to put proper food on the table is dismissed after workers lost their job after many years of productive labor. Sen Brown's theme songs do not honestly reflect his true record and 75% of the time he has voted strictly along party lines. The emperor has no clothes.

I have never voted for Brown and I never will, however, I think this story is a cheap shot. We all live under the laws currently in place regardless of our opinion of those laws and there is no reason why Brown shouldn't take advantage of this law even if he did oppose it. This, like the stupid fuss over Warren's ancestry, is nothing more than another stupid distraction keeping us from considering the real issues in this campaign.

No, we are all not. I would be a masochist if I read the Herald. But thanks for supporting the BG with your subscription.

Doesn't this make the Brown campaign's attack on Warren not paying a higher voluntary tax rate sound silly? Just as Warren was following the law as is, Brown is taking a benefit as it is. In both cases, what they are doing does not match what would happen if their position "won".

The health care law is a large, complex entity. Coverage of adult children up to age 26 is but one part of it, and may well be an element that could be retained even if the rest of the law is in one way or another scrapped. Unless Sen. Brown has specifically said he opposes that part of the law then there is no basis for attacking him for covering his daughter. It is sad to see such partisan sniping dominating the electorate and the candidates when there are genuine issues to discuss. Now would be a good time, for example, for Sen. Brown and Prof. Warren to state their positions on this one facet of the law. 'Do you support having the option to cover a child up to age X' requires a simple yes or no answer. What answers they give, and whether they engage in equivocating or hedging will be highly useful indicators of character.

Brown is a hypocrite. He votes for corporations, not people, but when he needs something, he embraces a law that he told us he hated.

Tiny bit disingenuous, don't you think, especially when practiced by a pair of millionaires. If it's good for millionaires who can well afford to support their kids after college, why isn't it good for the poor and middle-classes? Oh, that's right, it's the law of the land until Senator Brown helps to repeal it, at which point he and Ms Huff will support their kid, and the kids of poor and middle-class kids will have no coverage. Beautiful, but you're from Weston / Wellesley / Wayland, so you're cool wid it. Your kids and his will never be without insurance.

This is a very reasonable suggestion.

Sincerely, I understand your position, but it troubles me that an extremely wealthy couple will take advantage of a statutory benefit that is ultimately insignificant to their actual wealth, but want to deny it to families for whom it represents a financial and emotional crisis. Hopefully Senator Brown's child is healthy and well and is not facing future health challenges. One of my children is not so lucky. He requires good health care to simply live. Senator Brown's position is that he or my wife and I bankrupt ourselves to provide that care since he wants to revoke the law that enables us to cover him with our existing coverage. If that is not his intent, he should say that NOW. As for Ms Warren's ancestry, if she took advantage of her NA ancestry in the past and has recently denied knowingly taking advantage of it, then she is accountable for those decisions. Honestly, it's not about her ancestry. It's about what she said then, and what she said most recently. I will vote for her anyway, but it would be disappointing to learn that she has been less than candid on this issue.

His job as a US Senator is not just to bring home the bacon for MA. It's to care about all young Americans. To support state law over federal on this issue is to say I am in favor of healthcare disparity in the US.

Tony7586, with all due respect, you are not keeping up with current events, but Senator Brown IS counting on your vote and the votes of others like you.

I don't have a problem with Senator Brown using the health insurance law for his daughter but I do have a problem with the double standard that accompanies it. My son graduated six years ago and when I checked to see what it would cost to provide similar insurance that he had before he graduated, it was going to be $300 or more. Let me also point out that his insurance under our policy was terminated the day he graduated from college. As a parent who has spent four years providing financial support to a college student, it is very difficult to come up with $300 a month or more for health insurance. I applaud President Obama for making this possible. My second son recently graduated from college and he has insurance until he can find employment that will provide the opportunity for him to get his own insurance. I don't have to worry for an entire summer because my child doesn't have health insurance until a job provides it. Thank you President Obama!

I don't know why people are all over this issue. He is just doing something legal under the law. When and if this law is overturned, then his daughter will be off, just as all parents who took advantage of this provision. Nobody especially the "main streamed" media seem to make a big deal about Warren Buffet taking advantage of all the tax laws so that he paid less tax then his secretary. Buffet is the hypocrite because if he feels he is under tax, why not make voluntary contributions to IRS yearly instead he is spending millions on lawyers to fight the IRS over his tax obligations.