Nice try senator, but misleading statements like you've asserted here are definitive of what's wrong with Washington D.C. And your use of brinksmanship and false equivalency only compounds Beltway deficiencies. Insurance companies can't turn folks away in Massachusetts with pre-existing conditions, but they can sure charge a lot more. So far as the cost of the mandate the CBO has unequivocally stated that the ACA will reduce the cost of healthcare over the long term. And you claims of it impeding business are getting tired as virtually every regulation, according to the Right, is "bad for business". As far as seniors are concerned the ACA couldn't be better providing a huge boost in coverage by expanding preventative care and significantly closing the donut hole. And let's remember that the ACA actually makes the individual responsible for their own healthcare whereas in the past the emergency room and the insured to pay for it was the free ticket. Isn't that what you and the GOP have been railing about -- individual responsibility? And need I remind the readers that the individual mandate and its reforms are tantamount to the health insurance reforms which Republicans have been advocating for over twenty years and because Obama has successfully implemented it, suddenly the Right is against it. And lastly I'd like to remind you that our founding fathers and the first Congress, which included 20 framers of the Constitution, passed a law mandating that ship-owners purchase medical insurance for their seamen. The bill was signed into law by President George Washington. In 1792 Congress passed, and Washington signed, a law mandating the purchase of firearms by all able bodied men. In 1798, when five framers were still serving in Congress and framer John Adams was in the White House, Congress passed, and Adams signed, a mandate requiring seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. So please if you could avoid the brinksmanship, false equivalency and bipartisanship the voters would greatly appreciate it, especially considering your claims of bipartisanship.

"bumpy" Nice piece of writing I'll leave you to rebut the zealots on this one.

Senator Brown, with all due respect, I will never take any politician seriously who actually uses the hyphenated term job-killing in a serious policy statement. Terms and phrases like that, meant to illicit emotional responses are part and parcel of the dishonest and immoral rhetoric of the right and have no place in Massachusetts. Please adjust accordingly or sell elsewhere.

To state that what is demonstrably an improvement in Massachusetts is an obvious mistake for the nation is just ridiculous and preposterously partisan. At least now I know who to vote for in the Senate race. Nice job, Scott.

Mr. Brown, this is a piece or partisan drivel. You, like Mr Romney, need to consider how completely hollow and stupid you sound when you read things you didn't write and only half believe in a desperate effort to mislead sufficient voters to be re-elected. You would do better to actually listen to what you constituents want, rather than what the tea party baggers want. If you had followed this when you were first elected, you would not be a 2 -year wonder as a senator. Every time you open your mouth, especially to whine on the radio about your opponent and bringing up an issue that bmeans nothing to the voters, you send one more independent to the other candidate.

You just made the best case for Elizabeth Warren.

I would just like to mention that most business referenced "uncertainty" as their most exigent concern in reference to the healthcare situation. With the recent denoument that issue should be assuaged and allow business to adapt accordingly. Secondly, I'm not sure what France has to do with this. They have government provided healthcare, not to mention of host of business and health reforms, rules and mandates that makes them incomparable to us. Furthermore, let's remember that small business is defined as companies with 500 employees or less, not 50. In fact most small businesses are single owner/operator enterprises, where providing insurance isn't a concern. And lastly, small businesses aren't mandated to provide health insurance. In fact fewer and fewer are doing so outright or they are placing more of the cost on the employee. And if they are providing it at reasonable cost they're doing so as an incentive to retain workers. It's the cost of doing business. It's called the free market, which you ostensibly advocate for.

OK, Grover, this is my take. States, if allowed to independantly formulate their own coverages(or not)would reduce efficiencies resulting from the entire population being covered the same way. Any state mandating different or less coverage would increase individual medical bankruptcies and emergency room visits which would COST us all. As a person with a lifetime in construction, I am offended by the constant referance to jobs by card carrying Republicans. Historically, jobs (and job conditions) have been the LAST thing you people thought worth caring about. BUSINESS AND PROFITS are your thing, remember? Only now when so many are worried about jobs, has your party seemed to care one wit about jobs, and I speak from a very long perspective.

Apparently Sen Brown did not understand the words of Chief Justice Roberts. Almost all of the objections to the present law were Republican demands backed by insurers. The medical device makers got more "customers" in exchange for a small tax. It was the comprise they struck with the Executive Branch. Their moaning now is indicative of their greediness and non concern for the American people. Sen Brown again shows his allegiance to major industrial players over the public. The rise in premiums predate the Affordable Care Act and were the usual pattern for increases in premiums. It had nothing to do with the passage of the Law since its main provisions has not been implemented in any major way. Sen Brown uses his own insurance industry backer's historic inability to reduce costs and like every Republican takes no responsibility for preserving this system. Eighteen new taxes Senator? I know you are prone to hyperbole, but that takes the cake. The 500 billion in savings over ten years is because in other states Medicare Advantage were overcompensated for what they offered. Some private players decided to charge 130% over what Medicare paid for the same services. A large chunk of the savings also comes from a more aggressive approach to Medicare fraud, an achievement that is higher than any other administration in the past. It would seem logical Americans would prefer the choice to choose their own care givers not what policy they hold. In today's world private insurers restrict patient's choices severely. Finally Sen Brown shows he did not pay attention to Chief Justice Robert's decision. He said the Federal government does have the right to make law that affects the general welfare, like health insurance, but it must be paid for by a national tax and not the uneven hodge podge that was actually the brain child of the Republicans in Congress. After they got it they decided to vote against it. Sen Brown's view stands on the side of major insurers, major

The so called heavy handedness Sen Brown decries were the products of Republican's demands in concert with their industry backers. This includes the mandate as well as the device manufactures' tax. The latter was the result of direct negotiation of the device makers with the Executive Branch. They pledged to back the plan if they got more business and also agreed to pay a small tax to offset this extra cost. Suddenly when the bill is fashioned they came out against it. In other words they wanted their cake and eat it and could not contain their greed. They thought they could fool the public to believe they were being shortchanged. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sen Brown's reading of the Constitution is also a bit off. We no longer have the Articles of Confederation that lets States do whatever they want on issues that need collective solutions affecting interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause does indeed allow for Federal law that promotes the general welfare. We know where Sen Brown would have been when Medicare was proposed. He would have voted against it standing again with unethical monied interests. Further he also did not tune into Justice Roberts' view of how such programs should be paid for. Justice Roberts made an important directive for the legislative branch. If programs are developed to promote the general welfare it must be paid by a uniform tax among the states. So Sen Brown, supposedly a fiscal conservative, recklessly misinterprets the Chief Justice's decision. If you want a universal health plan then a well thought out tax must pay for it according to the Chief Justice. Who knew the conservative Chief Justice preferred a single payer plan over the Rube Goldberg present law distorted by "freebie market" concerns. It shows that the law indeed needs improvement in its payment mechanism. On the other hand Sen Brown is in league with players who function on institutional greed over the public good. I do thank him for making this clear today.

I am very concerned about the medical device tax. Why punish innovation in the health care sector? Thank you, Senator Brown, for a reasonable and reasoned commentary.

Sorry guys for the double entry. I must have inadvertently pushed the submit button and then I though I had deleted my post. However there are some extra points in reading both so it may be a blessing in disguise. I also thank those who agree and disagree with my remarks. It is very satisfying to feel you are making connection with others.

As outlined above it was the device manufacturers who negotiated the deal. They then seeing greener pastures reneged on what they agreed. With more people who will have insurance they have more people who will be able to afford their products.

Brown's political gamemanship has been well trounced by several commenters. I have to ask how and why the Globe would run such an obvious piece of self-serving political fluff by a candidate in the midst of a serious political campaign. Unpaid political ads are not good journalism. Witness the nonsense by John Sununu regularly published by the Globe.

And let's not forget about the jobs created by the ACA. As scored by the CBO there will be an estimated 4 Million Jobs created. Sen. Brown again trys to trick us with the tactic of FUD..Not buying it. P.S.n Great Note Bumpyt

Great writing. I copied and saved this well reasoned and equally well written response. It's one of those columns that I read and say, "That's exactly what I meant to say and how I would have said it." if I had the talent. Again, great!

With respect, Senator, repeal is a poor choice, unless you first have a replacement ready. We are one nation, and health care issues are a national concern, not a local concern. You've served with honor and distinction in the MA National Guard, but you must also understand that effective national defense is not accomplished solely by having 50 National Guards, but by having a standing Army, Navy, etc. A health care network works the same way. The next influenza epidemic will not observe borders, be they state or national, nor will the virus care which states have the worst healthcare insurance plans and spare them. Is the current plan too heavy-handed and too much in the one-size-fits-all mold? Two years of opportunity to fix that have already been squandered. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion basically gives you and your colleagues a mandate to work it out, because the SCOTUS isn't going to step in and fix by judicial fiat what Congress refuses to do by legislation.

I have to wonder if you have a clue what the medical-device tax is, ozark.

There you go, Mr. Brown. You sided with the Tea Baggers and against your constituents yet again. If you think this seems one-sided now, just wait until November. Remember that you were only elected to an interim job while we had time to find a real Senator. You had two years to show whether you were up to the task, and you failed the test. You should start attending to getting nominating papers filed. You had plenty of time to do housework while you were state senator, and you obviously have much more free time now that you have substituted parroting the party line for any kind of original thought.

With all this cacophony from both sides of this issue, I don't hear anyone - not a soul - mentioning whether or not this system works. Now I know that the majority of this program does not 'kick-in" for a couple of years, but... As it stands now: My mom is 94, in fairly good health for her age, and I am her sole caretaker. She is on Medicare/Medicaid via Massachusetts Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Her monthly premium is about $100 a month automatically deducted from her retirement account. She takes eight medications each day. Since this "version" of Medicare/Medicaid went into effect, her monthly premiums have gone up only slightly, but the cost of her prescriptions have gone down by about 50%. In May, she was hospitalized for three days for an infection and dehydration. The TOTAL cost for the ambulance, emergency room treatment, x-rays, 3-day hospital stay, and numerous tests and procedures was ZERO! I hope this doesn't sound too selfish, but the system - as it is now constituted - works for us!!! So, I don't know who Sen. Brown is talking to, but it might be a good idea to talk to folks who ACTUALLY use the program! "It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt!"

Wow! Scott Brown apparently has not learned anything the past few years, when he opposed the health care act before he read it! As other posters have mentioned, he has a convenient memory and quickly forgot the double-digit premiums asked by insurance companies and his willingness to give it! There is an addendum at the end of the article. Add this to it: Voted NO on Constitutional call for universal health care Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform indicates voting YES in Part III: Health Care:Health Care. [State Senator Brown, a Republican, voted NO]. Vote on a Constitutional Amendment: It shall be the obligation and duty of the Legislature and executive officials to enact such laws... as will ensure that no Massachusetts resident lacks comprehensive, affordable and equitably financed health insurance coverage for all medically necessary preventive, acute and chronic health care and mental health care services, prescription drugs and devices. Relevant platform section: Health Care: Our Party supports the creation of a single-payer health care system both in Massachusetts and in the nation in order to achieve the goal of universal health care. We understand that other methods are less satisfactory to us, but we remain committed to ensuring that every man, woman, and child in our state should have access to high quality health care. Source citation: Constitutional Amendment ; vote number 721 Source: Massachusetts House Journals via MassScorecard.org , Jul 14, 2004 Voted YES on tax credits for all smoking regulation costs Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform indicates voting NO in Part III: Health Care:Tobacco. [State Senator Brown, a Republican, voted YES]. Corporations shall be allowed a tax credit equal to 100 per cent of the costs incurred, for the purchase and installation of ventilation systems and any other materials used in the construction of a designated smoking area designed to reduce the presence of smoke in non-smoking areas, pursuant to any board of health regulation, city ordinance, town bylaw, or any other municipal variance or exemption. [The effect of this legislation would be to make legislating restrictions on smoking fmore difficult]. Relevant platform section: Part III: Health Care: Tobacco: "We support legislation to regulate smoking in the workplace and all public settings." Source citation: Bill H.4249 ; vote number 430 Source: Massachusetts House Journals via MassScorecard.org , Oct 22, 2003

My last post does not read well. Let's just say that re-electing Scott Brown means another health care fight and a Republican Senate is pledged to do plenty of damage. Elizabeth Warren is constantly saying that there are more substantive issues to debate rather than the semi-sensational topics the media select. Let the real debates begin! By the way, Brown brought up his voting record in Massachusetts, sorry though it is. Here are three votes he made while a state senator: He voted against supplemental budgets for the disabled, children and adults. He voted similarly against school meals for inner city children and he voted likewise against a program to support the blind. Seems that Republicans really care about people in the womb. After they are born, not so much.

I get enough of this crap on TV. Do I have to read it in the paper, too? This is like a free ad for Brown.

Am I alone in wanting a stronger Federal Government with subservient States? Our lose Federal system has resulted in disunity and a lack of cohesion and cooperation among all the citizens of the US. One state poaches business from another by offering taxpayer subsidies. All in a race to the bottom. A poor person born in Mississippi has less of a chance than a poor person born in Massachusetts. A middle class person born in Ohio has less of a chance remaining in the middle class than a person born in Massachusetts. Why? Our strong k-12 public school system, our state health system, our public private partnerships, and strong union work rules have created a system in which a person can succeed with ambition and be supported when down on their luck. Enough with states rights, it is time for a stronger Federal system!

Take it off, Scott! Take it all off! Then tell us why a nude model has anything to add to the debate — other than his desire for reelection.