Questions for Martha Coakley

I just got a mass e-mailing from a journalist who wants questions to ask Martha Coakley at a town meeting event. Here was my reply:

1) What will she do to address the issue of same-sex partners each being taxed federally on health insurance provided by one of the person's employers? (Employee is taxed because health insurance for a legal stranger can't come out of pretax funds, and spouse is taxed because health insurance provided by a legal stranger is considered income).

2) What will she do to ensure that the national health plan doesn't have the working class loopholes the MA plan has? People whose employer provides an insurance plan with huge copays and deductibles and minimal coverage aren't eligible for any of the state-subsidized plans because they have access to insurance. Also, many people whose income is around $40K-$50K are offered a plan through their employer that the state's worksheet deems "unaffordable," yet make too much for any of the state-subsidized plans. These people are not required to have insurance under current state regulations, so the plan isn't really "universal." What will she do to make sure this doesn't happen on a federal level?

3) Similarly, what will she do about access to healthcare for working people with disabilities? Currently, because the states are allowed to choose what types of Medicare they offer, people in Massachusetts aren't eligible if they are working. A person I know who has a disability makes about $40,000 a year, has a plan through work with high deductables and copays, and had medical bills in the $30,000s last year, because of having at least one doctor's visit per week with a $30 copay, dozens of medications with copays between $30 and $50, and needing things like MRIs and medical equipment that aren't covered by the plan the employer offers. Said person applied for MassHealth and was denied, because people who work full time and make a working-class income aren't considered disabled by MassHealth. The feds don't require the states to have a "medically needy" classification; 30ish states have one that would cover this person, but Massachusetts doesn't. What will she do to ensure that the federal plan doesn't create situations where someone's health costs are more than a reasonable percentage of their income?

(I resisted the urge to ask whether as a senator she would take steps to charge people with federal crimes if they attached LED Mooninites to structures.)