As a blog admin myself, I’m surprised this is a *new* policy. I commend you for tackling the problem this way. Although it requires more work on the part of the admin, it is better than requiring posters to register. I look forward to being able to read this blog without the “troll” posts.
Thanks, and keep up the good work.

To “Mittineague” (is that really your name?) –

quick question for you. which comments are the “trolls” here?

I’m a person that does a bit of blogging on a variety of sites (BlueMassGroup, DailyKos, UniversalHealth, Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review, etc), and i haven’t seen what i would call “troll” posts here. so I’m wondering which comments you identify as trolls?

BTW Health care and health reform is an issue with very real life and death implications.

Expressing grave concern — even outrage about healthcare injustices and disingenous tactics that are being used in the health reform arena — is a normal and healthy reaction when having an honest dialogue on this issue.

Sarcasm does seem to be used by commentors on this site quite a bit but that’s not the same as troll posts, and sarcasm can often be an effective communication device.

I hope you’ll elaborate on your reference to trolls. Otherwise it could make you seem like a troll. Thanks.

If any other reader needs a dictionary to follow the discussion on “trolls”, I recommend the following entry at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll.

Ann E Malone, RN posted:
Comment posted May 27th, 2007 at 3:47 pm

“To “Mittineague” (is that really your name?) –

quick question for you. which comments are the “trolls” here?

I’m a person that does a bit of blogging on a variety of sites (BlueMassGroup, DailyKos, UniversalHealth, Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review, etc), and i haven’t seen what i would call “troll” posts here. so I’m wondering which comments you identify as trolls?”

I think the new policy on this board came about because of the post I made in this thread.

http://www.wbur.org/weblogs/commonhealth/?p=106#comments

To Dave and others,

thanks for your thoughts and opinion on this “new policy” issue. I found Dave’s post on economic fascism to be quite relevant to our current difficulties (to put it mildly!) with achieving needed healthcare system reforms. i will admit to not reading every word and thinking it did seem a bit long–maybe some excerpts with a link to the longer text would work?

I greatly appreciate dave’s and others’ input that helps to inform our critical thinking as a society — and our desire to take effective action — on this social justice issue (healthcare). The Chomsky quote is spot on. A clinician at a local health center just told me about a new book that relates to this work, so I’ll share the title and publisher info here:

“The Revolution Will Not Be Funded;
Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex”

http://www.southendpress.org/2006/items/87662

To Ann E Malone, RN, MSN,

Thanks, I’ve also learned a lot from your posts. Of course, we both know the purpose of this blog by WBUR is as a public service to the state to enroll people in insurance plans and implement the new health policy approved by the legislature and signed by Gov. Romney. The political decision has been made, and even though we can discuss the flaws and even go into political philosophy in an attempt to understand where this type of system originated historically, the reality is that the state and the insurance companies have already made big investments in this new policy and we shouldn’t expect any changes in the near future.

You’re doing a great job and a public service with your work and it is greatly appreciated by those who do not work in the medical field and find the terminology the first great obstacle from which they turn back and retreat.

For the record, I’m an uninsured 47 year old single self-employed carpenter who earns more than $29,000 a year, smokes a lot of cigarettes, and hasn’t seen a doctor or visited a hospital in over 20 years. From what I read, it will probably cost me about $800.00? a month to have an insurance policy that will be of any help. More than likely I will pay small penalty the first year while I consider my options. My most likely option will probably be to work less so I qualify for $57.00 a month plan.

I can’t wait to see the announcement on July 2nd proclaiming this new program as a success because 95%? of the state’s former uninsured are now insured. /sarcasm/

Hey Dave, Re: “we both know the purpose of this blog by WBUR is as a public service to the state to enroll people in insurance plans and implement the new health policy approved by the legislature and signed by Gov. Romney.”

Dave, you left one thing out: The advertising revenue$$$ for WBUR that is now being generated by advertisers on this “Health reform” blog site. The ads started appearing about a month after the site went up…

And lo’ and behold, many of the ads are for….health insurance and hospital systems!!!! Surprise, surprise. Remember, it’s the Gang of Two that has the largest thumb print on the Chapter 58 “health reform” law.

I’m curious about Dave’s remarks. It seems the intent of the Connector and the outcome are at odds and there are probably several ways to highlight the issues.

For me the group is: early retiree families [technically unemployed according the Connector Application Process] earning more than 300% of the FPL, but don’t qualify for Medicare. The “affordability scale” reported in the proceeds of the April 12 Connector Board meeting significantly underestimates the cost of the minimal insurance program elucidated from the current application process on the Connector site [$10,000 annual deductible, no Rx coverage for $8400/year]. But I can’t find anywhere on the site if/how this difference was resolved.

If anyone has any info on this, please post it.