Moreover, to get the necessary votes in the Legislature for such a broad solution, the transportation needs of other parts of the state must be addressed.

With this in mind, my approach to the T begins with greater communication and cooperation between Regional Transit Authorities and perhaps allowing the RTAs to levy local taxes to fund their systems. If the RTAs become more self-sufficient, that will free up resources to invest in the MBTA.

I would also consider a public-private partnership like the one in Chicago that has raised $7 billion. A carefully designed plan for private investment could rescue the T and ensure the Massachusetts economy will continue to grow.

Having become familiar with the importance of the T through the perspective of the residents in the 24th Middlesex, I know the one thing we cannot do is cut service. Too many rely on the subways and buses to get to work.

Further, I am deeply concerned by the raise in The Ride fare. Disabled persons – especially those on a fixed income – have scarce room in their budget for increased fares. Whether this means fewer trips to get groceries or even just to enjoy a movie, this problem also might become a public health issue as a sedentary lifestyle can lead to depression and disease.

This is true because, unlike the capitation models originally advanced by HMOs, global payment systems contain incentives for quality care. Moreover, providers are not incentivized to prescribe unnecessary procedures or tests as they may have been under fee-for-service models. This saves us money upfront, but the best part of these changes is the focus on preventative care.

Chronic health concerns like diabetes, asthma, and the rise of geriatrics are better attended to under the new methods of healthcare delivery included in this year’s reform. Preventative care now means cost savings later.

My only concern is limiting spending by tying it to the rate of the state's economic growth, as price controls do not always work and recent health spending has been almost double the economy’s annual growth rate.

Also, the final version of the bill lacks as robust a regulatory mechanism as I would have liked to see, so we cannot be sure costs will ultimately match state growth.

Rather than spread already thin resources even more, we should support our public schools. We know there are reforms necessary in the public school system, but the answer to the challenges we face is not to siphon resources away from traditional public education.

We should support teachers, parents, and students in the existing system, ensuring that we make the necessary improvements in traditional public schools to allow each child to fully achieve his or her potential.

I recognize the concern that PLAs raise costs and, as a business lawyer, I understand the need to structure sophisticated transactions in such a way as to allow maximum achievable efficiency.

But PLAs do not exclude non-union companies from bidding on projects; they simply mandate a living wage and fair work rules.

I approach problem-solving with an open mind, so I would want to study this issue more carefully. If compelling evidence were produced that the current law needed modifications, I would at a minimum be willing to hear the data underlying a call for changes.

The first round of reform made substantive changes to address the most glaring problems. The second went further to reduce the costs of public pensions to municipalities across the state.

While there may still be opportunities to make the pension system more efficient, it is not a top priority of mine, considering that there have been two rounds of reform already.

Whatever solution we come to, we must strike a careful balance that protects individuals and current retirees and at the same time helps municipalities dealing with significant budgetary constraints.

It is telling that some of the most notable "law and order" jurisdictions, such as Mississippi and Texas, that have a longer history with three-strikes legislation are realizing its shortcomings and seeking changes to their law.

Of course, public safety is paramount, but I do not find adequate data to support the idea that three-strikes laws broadly improve public safety.

Also, while the law marks the beginning of a departure from mandatory minimums, they are not entirely eliminated. Our prisons are already vastly overcrowded and continuing to imprison non-violent drug offenders is a misallocation of money that should instead go to rehabilitation programs. We need to make sure addiction is treated as a public health issue and not simply a criminal law issue.

Finally, the law does not provide for any judicial discretion at all – something I think is essential if we are to have a sensible justice system.

This bill was passed overwhelmingly by the House (139-14), but I would have liked to see a better-crafted version before I could offer my support.