I gave all 4 questions a yes. 1, 2 and 4 were more of a Hell Yeah.

If Dental companies are to increase money spent on care, would they simply do that and make up the difference by lowering salaries or eliminating positions, or by raising premiums to cover the difference? Im thinking they would raise the premiums and consumers end up losing mightily. And shouldn’t licenses be obtainable to those whom have followed laws already and not illegally entered a country?

If they raise the premiums they still have to spend 80% of the raise on coverage. Another company would definitely undercut them if they tried that. And to be clear, licenses will still be available to people who legally entered the country.

What benefit then do we get by stipulating a percentage of premium money spent on care if they will simply raise premiums by 90% to make a 10% gain? I feel like the consumer is always the loser in political vs company monetary affairs. As to the license: i would say illegal in country = shouldn’t be in country = no license. But i really wish politicians would figure out and implement a better legal immigration mechanism.

Yes, yes, no, yes.

Re question 3, I don’t see how it benefits anybody other than big companies.

Same deal here. I don’t see how it benefits anything but megacorps

Star market doesn’t need the help

Same! Was indifferent about 3 but still went w a yes vote

Yeah. Been back and forth on three but I think I finally fully understand it and it’s a big no from me. Not a fan of monopolies and not a fan of the no self checkout for alcohol either. Would rather wait for a better question.

The proposed law for q2 specifically prohibits insurers from raising the premiums by more than the yearly change in the consumer price index (section 1d). As for q4, the real issue for me is about insurance. Currently, illegal immigrants are basically forced to flee from accidents since they're operating cars illegally. This may be how you like it, but you'd probably feel differently if you got hit and run by a car and ended up stuck with the medical bill. That is, maybe "illegal in country = shouldn’t be in country" is true, but I don't think "shouldn’t be in country = no license" holds up to scrutiny.

I agree on 4. I don’t think withholding the ability to have a driver’s license is going to incentivize people not to come here illegally.

Tax: yes

Dental: yes

Supermarket booze: no (fuck you kappy's and wines & more)

Licenses: yes

The question needs to go back to the drawing board tbh. The idea is good but whom it benefits is tainted by too many lobbyists.

>And shouldn’t licenses be obtainable to those whom have followed laws already and not illegally entered a country?

If you listen to Diehl, they're going to give licenses only to MS13.

The benefit is that if dental insurers do this they will actually have to cover far more services than they currently do. Most dental insurance barely covers anything other than routine things like cleanings so it is largely pointless. If they raise premiums, they will have to cover more expensive procedures in order to hit the 83% of revenue spent on dental care threshold. Otherwise they will just have to refund the excess premiums to consumers.

Total Wines & More is against question 3. They're running ads against it. https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2022/10/20/massachusetts-ballot-question-3-alcohol-license-limits/

That's how I voted as well.

3 would benefit you with lower priced alcohol. Big store liquor is always cheaper than small store, but they will have a smaller variety to choose from. I do wish MA had liquor in food stores like other states.

All the police departments are Yes on 4.

But isn't it supported by small package stores and attacked by big outlets like Total Wine?

Well thats bizzare, kappy's is yes on 3.

Except that #3 was put forth by small businesses to try and keep the big companies from making any moves for a number of years.

Correct.

>And shouldn’t licenses be obtainable to those whom have followed laws already and not illegally entered a country?

A huge number of people in the country without authorization entered the country legally and then overstayed their visas. Technically being here without authorization is not a criminal act in of itself.

Unfortunately that's not an option.

Kappy's is a local business where as Total Wine is a huge nationwide chain who "operate 229 superstores across 27 states". Question #3 is being pushed by small businesses to help protect them from large nationwide superstores.

Kappy's is most certainly not a local business anymore. They're a chain, not nationwide, but a chain none the less. Question 3 doesn't protect small businesses.

If you take anything Diehl says seriously please do the rest of us a favor and don't vote.

The Kappy's nearest to me isn't any better than a package store.

Then you better tell the Massachusetts Package Stores Association who is behind this one then that they are screwing themselves since you seem to know better than them.

…or they’ll just pay dentists a reasonable amount for service.

If you listen to anything Diehl says, just move to Florida.

>Massachusetts Package Stores Association

Can you name a single member in the list of associate members that has small stores in their best interest?

It's as if all of them are national level corporations.

You sound like a shill. So which major distributor do you work for?

Most aren't.

It's important to recognize that Massachusetts has stricter liquor laws than many other states, remnants of puritanical origins and the abolition movement in the early 1900s. Massachusetts liquor laws are stricter and more regressive than just about any other state. This law improves upon that and allows local chains to grow while blocking major chains from staking claim.

MA does have liquor in grocery stores, but the grocery store chain is limited to 5 licenses total. so on one hand, increasing the licenses probably will allow your grocer to carry alcohol, on the other the ban of self checkout kills the convenience.

Why? If rejected now they could try again.

In person

if you think it's good, you should probably vote yes. don't let the idea of great get in the way of good. knowing this state, it'll be a decade before anything close gets voted on again which will also have lobbyists adding stuff to the bill.

with all that being said, i go back and forth on this question

I meant it's too late for this election. We have to vote on the question as it is right now.

Of course, whether we pass this as it is now or not, the legislature could make changes or another ballot question could be proposed in the future.

>Can you name a single member in the list of associate members that has small stores in their best interest?

Yes, most of them. The number of small businesses selling booze in the state far outnumbers the few large retailers like Total Wine. So all those distributors and other businesses on that list make most of their money off those thousands of small single shop businesses and local small chains, not off the handful of big national chains.

I am not involved with the industry at all other than I like to drink.

We do have liquor in food stores. I used to shop at a Price Chopper and Big Y (both in Berkshire Co.) and they both had beer, wine and liquor.

>Yes, most of them.

You clearly didn't look at the list.

A given chain can only sell alcohol in up to 5 of their stores. It’s arbitrary and stupid.

Yeah, it would be a weird hill for anyone to die on. Especially since it's already a law and just barely squeaked onto the ballots with a lawsuit.

I didnt say otherwise. Just pointing out the falsehood in the other comment.

Yes Yes Yes Yes

You certainly implied otherwise.

For most people in the state at a practical level, no, we really don't have alcohol available to purchase in food stores.

Someone said that wished alcohol was sold in grocery stores. I said some grocery stores sell alcohol. You can infer whatever the fuck you want from that. 🤷‍♀️

I'll infer that as a practical matter, very few people live near supermarkets that sell beer and wine because of the stupid fucking law. Being pedantic doesn't change the practical reality.

Ok buddy 👍

No no no no

Why don't companies undercut companies with a low ratio already?

No, Undecided, No, Yes.

Has the Question 2 strategy been tried in any other places? I'd like to see the results. If it hasn't been tried, then I really wish this had a sunset provision.

Look at who is behind the bill. It’s a giant chain liquor store trying to protect their profits while THEY squeeze the small shops out.

I’m yes on all.

They do, by lowering the ratio. You pay half as much and get a quarter of the coverage.

[deleted]

>And shouldn’t licenses be obtainable to those whom have followed laws already and not illegally entered a country?

Whether you like it or not, undocumented immigrants live in the state. They have jobs they need to get to and require transportation. They're going to drive regardless if they have a license or not. Allowing them a license means they've been tested and proven they can drive safely. It also means they can obtain insurance, which is better for everyone. Vote no if you want, but it hurts more than just the undocumented immigrants.

Straight yes on all of them, although 3 was the softest “yes.” My ballot has already been accepted.

Propositions?

If you refer to referenda or ballot questions, I intend to vote yes, yes, no, yes.

> Big store liquor is always cheaper than small store, but they will have a smaller variety to choose from

What? The big box stores are the ones with the best selection. Any of the Total Wines I've been to blow the packies out of the water