Squarestate - Recommended Diaries

Unconcerned about very poor? Then expanding Medicaid is "very radical"

Jason Salzman — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:08:17 GMT

Even people like Colorado Sen. Greg Brophy, who's told me he's willing to put the health, and even lives, of poverty-stricken kids at risk by charging more for state health insurance, says it's hard to decide what to do about Medicaid, given the complexities involved and the struggles of the poor, especially kids.

That's the tenor of the debate about cutting Medicaid in Colorado. It's not like the Republicans want to do it, we read in the media, because they know that cutting money for poor people can cause hardship, sickness, and even death.

But there's a budget problem (assuming we don't want to raise taxes on the vulnerable 1 percent) and, besides, skin should be inserted in the game.

When Mitt Romney changes the tone of the conversation about poverty, and says brazenly, "I'm not concerned about the very poor," that's news.

And rightly so, because in America, we're supposed to care about each other, and our country is supposed to provide basic opportunity for everyone, right? And, as the debate about Medicaid shows, no one's saying, let the poor get sick and die.

But what about proposals to expand Medicaid? These proposals save lives, yet politicians go around trashing the Medicaid-expansion aspects of Obamacare day in and day out, with near media immunity, as if saving poverty-stricken Americans from sickness and death is so outrageous.
You don't have to search very hard to find examples, but I'll use one from Rep. Mike Coffman, who, as I've written, deserves more media scrutiny now that he's in a competitive district.

Coffman told Mike Rosen during the debate on health care that "there are some very radical elements to [Obamacare] such as the expansion of Medicaid, a government run healthcare program."

Very radical elements? Sounds like communists are hiding in the bill, but Rosen treated the statement like normal air.

It turns out that, from perspective of anyone who is concerned about the very poor, Republicans and Democrats alike, the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare isn't so radical.

It sets a national standard for Medicaid eligibility at 133 percent of the poverty level, which amounts to about $30,000 for a family of four, according to Elisabeth Arenales, Health Program Director at Colorado Center for Law and Policy.

"Across the country, most people who are poor, if they are childless adults, unless they are disabled, don't have access to Medicaid," Arenales told me. "It's setting a uniform framework."

Very radical.

Arenales says the Medicaid expansion under Obmacare would also benefit early retirees, under age 65, who run into health problems.

As you can imagine, health insurance is expensive for people around 65, who have health problems. Under Obmacare, if these retirees with very low incomes will be covered by Medicaid, Arenales said.

She points to another example of an early retiree whose kids are grown, gets cancer, exhausts COBRA, and spends all their money on treatment. Under Obamacare, these people get treated under Medicaid. It gives them an option.

"You see those stories," Arenales said.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a debate about whether to cut or expand Medicaid, but my point is, why do we give the silent treatment to the Coffmans of the world who say Medicaid expansion is so radical, while a guy like Mitt Romney is slammed for making a similarly extreme statement that he's "not concerned about the very poor."

Senate Democrat Fail

Zappatero — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:53:29 GMT

Our two regrettable and forgettable senators were key constituents in yet another failure of the Democratic Majority in the U.S. Senate to stop Republicans' assault on the middle class. From FDL:

Senate Passes FAA Authorization Bill with Anti-Union Elements
Despite fierce opposition from major transit unions, the Senate yesterday gave final approval to the FAA Authorization bill, a five-year extension that removes uncertainty from the FAA, approves a next-generation air traffic monitoring system and, in Harry Reid's telling, creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. But unions were unhappy about changes to labor law insisted upon by House Republicans, and they expressed betrayal at the hands of Senate Democrats. (Ho hum. -Ed.)
But 37 Democrats supported the bill, including Commerce Committee chair Jay Rockefeller, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and top leadership members Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin. Here were the 15 Democrats who opposed it:
Akaka (D-HI), Blumenthal (D-CT), Brown (D-OH), Cardin (D-MD), Casey (D-PA), Franken (D-MN), Gillibrand (D-NY), Harkin (D-IA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Leahy (D-VT), McCaskill (D-MO), Merkley (D-OR), Mikulski (D-MD), Sanders (I-VT), Stabenow (D-MI)

Not worthy of mention to Dayen were Colorado Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, both of whom voted for a bill that makes it more difficult for unions to exist and for middle class workers to maintain quality employment and working conditions. Both senators will give justification for their votes on this bill and say it's just one vote of many.

But the pattern is clear and well-established with our 2 Democratic senators. And it is nothing to write home about. Though Mark Udall writes, and tries, he continues to be a milquetoast who compares quite poorly to his blood-relation senator from New Mexico. Bennet, like his political benefactor Bill Ritter, has shown a complete disregard for labor and unions.

This was yet another failure of Democrats in the Senate. Failure is the only way I can describe Bennet and Udall's unrequited bipartisanship, their double-dealing against the base, and downright tepid attempts at legislating. And if they think constantly playing the "middle" against everyone else is the safest way to win reelection, then there's a quarterback in Denver who can explain how that really works to these veteran politicians who currently represent us.

In case you don't trust this Cheetoh-stained blogger, take a peek at Ed Schultz, former Republican and expert on Upper Midwest values, discussing on the tube:

CO HB 12-1049 -- Bringing Bipartisan Common Sense To Education

peacemonger — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:01:36 GMT

Colorado State Representative Judy Solano recently introduced CO HB 12-1049, giving parents the authority to decide if their child should take the TCAP (formerly CSAP) exams, or allow them to be exempt for personal reasons, without negative consequences for the student, the teachers, the school, or the district. This bill reminds me of a conundrum I had years ago...

I remember watching one of my sons, about 8 or 9 years old I think, tell me his stomach hurt one morning just before school. When I woke him up an hour before, he appeared fine. His color was good, his forehead felt normal, and he had eaten the same cereal and milk he had digested many times before. I was about to tell him he could stay home from school, when I remembered why he was suddenly "under the weather".

It was CSAP day-- Colorado Student Assessment Program examinations -- the dreaded day every year my high achieving, very intelligent son became nervous, frightened and sick to his stomach.

I should have remembered. For days, he had been drinking more water than necessary for his health ("My teacher says water hydrates your brain and we have to be well-hydrated before CSAPs" he told me.) We had been to the supermarket for granola bars ("The teacher told us to have carbohydrates in our pocket so our blood sugar doesn't drop suddenly") and later to Walgreens for some gum ("The teacher said chewing helps your brain stay alert and focused"). The night before, he asked if he could have something to help him fall asleep, since he was not tired ("The teacher said we should get plenty of sleep the night before CSAPs." Apparently, he had seen a commercial on television about taking a magic pill for insomnia.) That's where I drew the line. I advised him warm milk would do the trick, and muttered under my breath about the *#$%^&*# "No Child Left Behind" legislation that created the nightmare of high-stakes standardized testing for children.

The next morning, I was late for a meeting preparing the perfect food pyramid breakfast ("The teacher said...") and running back for a sweater and some extra number two pencils "just in case". Sitting outside the school, I wiped a tear from my son's face. "Don't worry, honey, we'll love you know matter how you do on the stupid test." I told him, "I just don't want you to throw up on your paper, okay?"

Each of my children has a very different personality, so for one of my sons, the change in routine was exciting, and he found the exams pleasantly challenging. With the other two boys, this scenario played out again and again and again. For them, the pressure of being in honors classes in the most competitive school district in the state was already more than enough to handle, and CSAPs meant additional stress. Watching my children freak out each year while preparing for a test that meant less than nothing to me, and one which I thought was a complete and utter waste of time, was maddening.

I remember the first time I decided one of my kids would not participate in the developmentally inappropriate, high-stakes testing. I marched into the elementary school where I frequently volunteered (having a much better idea of where my son was "at" academically than any impersonal test could possibly tell me), and informed the teacher he would not be coming to school on test day.

"I don't believe in high stakes testing for children, and I have read the research," I said. "These tests do not accurately reflect how any child is learning because each child's ability to regurgitate facts on a two-dimensional sheet of paper varies. The tests also do not measure creativity, critical thinking, motivation, persistence, and many different types of aptitude. They only measure how well they have memorized what they've been taught the last few weeks. Not to mention that, but my son's self-worth as a human being, or as a learner, should not be based on how some anonymous person scores him on a worthless exam. I don't believe in these tests, so our family will not participate". (Harruummph!)

The teacher looked sympathetic.

"I certainly understand your position, Mrs. _____" (they always called me by my husband's name). "I wish I didn't have to administer this test myself. To be perfectly frank with you..." she continued in hushed tones, "preparing for this test is an enormous waste of our time. I would much rather be working on the things the students are passionate about than teaching them how to properly fill in little shapes with their pencil properly, or lecture them about not being late on test day. Unfortunately, these tests determine an awful lot for our school, and for my job. If your son does not take the test, we get a 'zero'. By keeping your son at home, you punish the entire school. Please don't do that to us, Mrs. ____ . Your kids are smart -- we need your son here."

This lovely young teacher was literally begging. I felt like a heel. Her words haunted me for days. The flattery of "Your kids are smart" was wierdly juxtaposed with "these tests are an enormous waste of time". I wondered what they told parents whose children had developmental disabilities, or for whom a language barrier might affect their scores. I grew even more concerned. I made an appointment to speak with the Principal, who told me essentially the same thing.

"We don't like these tests, either, Mrs. __________, but our hands are tied. If your son stays home, it only hurts the school, and in the end, it hurts our students", he said. "If your son is feeling stressed, there are things we can do to help. He should be eating healthy, getting plenty of sleep...(blah, blah, blah)."

Clearly, there was nothing the school could do, and I didn't want to hurt the school, or the teachers. They were not the problem; they were being victimized just as the students were. Over a number of years, my boys became more accustomed to taking the tests, and the stomach-aches became less frequent. In the older grades, students were rewarded with the next day being a "free day" (which meant Disney movies).

"What a giant waste of precious teaching time", I thought.

Keeping children home from school for personal, political, religious or medical reasons has always been the prerogative for parents in Colorado, provided they attend school a minimum number of days per calendar year. For example, my son's school gave us the option of keeping our children home the day they learned about sexual reproduction in the fifth grade. (We were also given a choice to keep our children at home for an optional "winter celebration" on the last day before winter break, presumably to avoid the possibility another student might say something scandalous like the word "Hanukkah", or accidentally wish someone "Happy Holidays".)

I went to the "reproductive education" parent meetings, read the curriculum, and asked questions.

"This is what some parents think is objectionable? My neighbors keep their kids home so they don't hear words like "breast", "vulva", mitosis, and "gamete". Seriously?"

I tried not to pass judgment. I knew the school was teaching the biology of sexual reproduction, not the values or the politics of sexuality, so I couldn't understand why other parents were making a big deal of it. Still, it was their right, and I respected their concerns, even though they differed from my own.

"Let me get this straight", I wanted to ask. "When my kids were younger and couldn't sleep at night because they wondered if their teacher would still like them, or if they would someday get into college, on tests they took when they were eight years old, and I wanted to keep them home to avoid the inappropriate amount of stress they were being subjected to, I didn't have a choice. But now, I can keep my child home from school simply to avoid a "holiday party" with snowmen, or on the day their teacher might say the word, "menstruation". Are you kidding me?

Don't even get me started about the day I was given an option to keep my children at home, because their homeroom class planned on playing a ten-minute video clip of the President of the United States telling them to "work hard and have a good year at school"!

My kids are older now, but I still feel passionate about this issue. Please support HB 12-1049. In Colorado, parents have always had the choice to keep their students at home for important personal, religious, medical or family reasons, as long as the students are getting the required number of hours of education in each calendar year. If snowmen-phobic parents are allowed to keep their children home one day a year without repercussions, families like yours should have the same right.

Act now to support a parent's right to opt-out their kids from the CSAP!

Andrea Merida — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:12:29 GMT

Rep. Judy Solano introduced a bill this year, HB 12-1049, the "Parental Rights Regarding Statewide Ed Assessment" bill. This bill would allow parents the right to opt out their children from the CSAP/TCAP without repercussions aimed at their child, teacher or school.

Why is this important? Plainly and simply, the stakes have become too high regarding the CSAP/TCAP, and consequently, school leaders and districts have adopted a punitive attitude toward families and students who choose to opt out.
School curriculums are now firmly focused toward teaching to the test, and CSAP scores are used to close schools and fire teachers, even in populations who are not linguistically ready to take the test.

According to a Pueblo elementary school parent, for example, the principal is actually punishing children (whose) parents have opted out of CSAP. The principal is withholding recess and keeping them out of events due to the parent's decision.

Another Colorado parent writes:

I have now opted out my children for four years and am still pretty involved in our school district...the schools are supported with OUR tax dollars, so we have EVERY right to have a say in how those monies are spent.
But it's amazing what her high school is telling the kids (about opting out of CSAP): You can't graduate and you can't get into college. (emphasis mine)
They're saying if we don't come in tomorrow or have a doctor's note for all absences, all of my children will be "withdrawn" from the school. We're in IOWA (for a family funeral)!! This is all about CSAP and their bitterness towards me for exercising my right to opt my kids out and my right of free speech.

As Diane Ravitch, an education historian, former supporter of No Child Left Behind and outspoken critic of high-stakes testing, says, "No high-performing nation tests its students every year or uses student test scores to evaluate teacher quality." Parents are making serious and informed decisions about curriculum for their kids, and they know what's best for their children.

A parent in the Poudre Valley school district is taking matters into her own hands:

We are opt-out parents in Poudre School District. After considering the options, we have decided (our children) will ride the bus to school next week with their peers, stay in the front office during CSAP, and then join their schoolmates when actual learning commences at 9:10 am. They will have books to read while at school, and their time there will likely be more productive than at home, which is the alternative.
I suspect by reading books their time will actually be more productive than their schoolmates taking the state-mandated high-stakes standardized testing. Most productive of all would be if they and everyone else were actually getting instruction and learning to analyze information and think critically, instead of taking tests designed to fail lower-performing schools and turn them into for-profit charter schools, part of the overall ideological assault on public education in the hopes of turning our precious children into a commoditized profit center for educational corporations.

And it appears that the pressure exerted upon so-called virtual school families may even be worse. Online school parents are reporting intimidation and suspension of access to grades, etc., when they choose to opt out their children from CSAP. This is ironic, since many of these parents have reacted to promises of flexibility when choosing these schools in the first place.

My daughter is a student at Colorado Virtual Academy. For years, I've allowed the administration at my daughter's school to intimidate and threaten me into forcing my daughter to take the CSAP. My daughter has a 504 plan and is exempt from testing, if it is too stressful. She has severe Panic / Anxiety Disorder, and her panic attacks center around school and testing. Regardless, a school administrator told me my daughter wouldn't be welcome back the next year if she didn't take the CSAP. The same administrator told me how to have my daughter cheat on the test so that the test would still count, but it wouldn't be as stressful on my daughter.

And another COVA parent writes:

"..yesterday COVA (Colorado Virtual Academy) has shut off all access to my son's school. I cannot log attendance, have him take any assessments after we complete lessons or have my son complete any "online only" lessons.
I am being forced to call in and ask for permission to school my son. The last letter that I received stated that if I didn't reschedule a time for my son to take the CSAP, I would be forced to meet with administration and my son would have to undergo rigorous testing. I am not interested in putting my son through any of this.
They have taken away the "Internet Service Provider" reimbursement for the coming school year also. That actually cracks me up- my convictions about my son taking the CSAPs are not for sale. Getting a check for $120 bucks is not going to do anything. I am now forced to call the school and again explain that no means no. I am worried how this will turn out. I hope that I can get on with schooling my son ASAP. I am not totally sure where to go after today if they insist on meeting face to face first before they allow my son to continue going to school.

It's for these reasons, and a myriad more, that Rep. Solano's bill is vital, and it's time for parents to get involved.

So here's your opportunity. HB1049 has been scheduled for its first hearing before a committee on Thursday, February 9. The House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs committee meets immediately after the whole House adjourns its session, or roughly at 9:30 a.m., in room 0112 in the ground floor of the state capitol building.

Can you join in and show support, either by testifying or by simply helping to fill up the room?

Uniting4Kids has prepared a great guide on how to testify, and you can read it here.

Also, please take time to sign the petition and send a note to the members of the State Affairs committee, urging them to vote yes on this bill.

If you'd like to make your own, direct contact, the members of the committee are here.

Please support this initiative, whether you're a public school parent or not. Since parents pay the taxes, their rights should be maintained throughout the educational life of their children. Please either testify, bear witness with your presence, and/or sign the petition. A parent's constitutional right to raise their children free from unreasonable state interference, as supported by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, should not stop when they drop their child off at the classroom.

Please do what you can to stand with Colorado's parents.

Mitt Romney Ad

tjwalker — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:32:17 GMT

Has Mitt Romney Shown Religious Intolerance?

Here is a new rough draft for a TV commercial I will be producing for the Democratic Super PAC AmericanLP. Please send me suggestions and criticisms.

"Religious Tolerance"

:60 Second TV Ad

***

Opening video of Rev Jeremiah Wright "God Damn America!"

Voiceover: "Intolerance is ugly in whatever form it takes, especially when it flows from the pulpit."

(Text only: "November 19, 1993,") Voiceover "the Mitt Romney family baptized Mitt Romney's father-in-law, Edward Davies, 13 months AFTER Davies had died. Davies was a lifelong opponent of organized religion. Was this tolerant of Davies Wishes?"

(Text and images: On March 22, 1969, Ed Davies daughter Ann married Mitt Romney.) Voiceover: "Neither of Ann Romney's parents was allowed into the Romney wedding ceremony performed at the Salt Lake Temple. Non-Mormons are not tolerated at the wedding ceremonies of Mormons."

(text: "From 1966-1969, Mitt Romney was a full-time employee of the Mormon Church. Romney was appointed Bishop in the Mormon Church. Romney became one of the largest multi-million dollar donors of the Mormon Church") Voiceover: "Since the 60s, Mitt Romney has been a powerful, influential Mormon Church leader. Mormons did not accept that Black people had full souls equal to Whites until 1978. What kind of leader promotes an organization that had an official policy of racial intolerance?"

Closing graphic in text "In 2012, vote in favor of religious tolerance."

"Paid for by AmericanLP"

It's not the extended school day -- it the extend use of the lies

JAFO — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 23:44:29 GMT

Much press has been swirling around DPS' proposed extension of the school day by 1 hour for students in middle school. Undoubtedly extending the school day is a good idea. Students who are behind can take the time to hasten catching up. Students at grade level can take enrichment classes not normally offered. And, DPS can easily pay for the extra hour of school time. Most of the teachers I know are excited about the opportunity to work more with students.

However, this plan has the usual trapping of most of DPS' plans, a failure to coordinate with important stakeholders and a bunch of lies.

While a Denver Post editorial claims a wide range of people were involved in creating the plan, those people did not include the school board and it did not include the union leadership. No doubt, the school board will go along, as they have a pattern of forgiveness with Mr. Boasberg. The unions suite will be dismissed out of pocket by some judge who doesn't understand the issue. Nonetheless, the management of DPS' inability to collaborate with one of its stakeholders is a clear indicator of failure when there should be nothing but success.
Once again, DPS made some less-than-honest claim about using a rainy day fund to pay for extending the school day, or, reducing administrative staff. DPS first told 9News it would cost $10 million to implement its plans for one extra hour per day of instruction, with Mr. Boasberg saying this money would come from administrative reductions. He said, "Its all about getting more money into the classrooms." Then, the next day, The Denver Post ran a story wherein the dollar amount for implementing the plans increased to $20 million, with Boasberg saying this money would come from a "rainy day" fund. (DPS loves the amount "$20 million." It comes up over and over.) (This number has since been removed from the Post's story.) The latest cost offered up by DPS is $2.5 million, which was discussed at the School Board meeting held Thursday, February 2nd.)
Regardless of which number is the actual cost of implementing an extra hour of school, all of them are ridiculously inconsequential within the DPS budget so why care on about it? In 2011/2012, Denver's school system budget was just below $1.7 billion. That's right, BILLION. To put $20 million in perceptive within this budget, an extra hour of school will cost DPS 1.1% of its total annual budget. Put another way, this would be like losing $550 over the term of 1 year on a household income of %50,000. Spread this out over a year's paychecks, and you are looking at $45.83 per month, or far less than cable T.V. I won't even go into $2.5 million

The puzzle of Denver's school system is, why must leadership lie to the public at every turn?

Management refinances pension debt and then makes ridiculous claims related to saving money.
The District tells parents they will be included as part of some process effecting the school where the parents' children are enrolled. The inclusion never happens.
DPS actually comes up with a good idea but thwarts the feel good element of the idea because the message sent to the public is wrapped in lies.

Nothing makes stakeholders more demoralized than being lied to time and again. That goes for the teachers' union, certain members of the school board, parents involved in their schools, teachers, even janitors. It is a basic fact of human nature -- if you lie time and again, people will hate you and every task you undertake will be 10 times harder than it needs to be.

Maybe this is why DPS fails so frequently.

Bill Maher Slams Romney Better than Anyone

tjwalker — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:13:13 GMT

Bill Maher gets to the essence with why people do hate and should hate Mitt Romney for his wealth. Romney really is very different from other American icons like Steve Jobs and Walt Disney. Maher points out in this new campaign ad (pulled from sound bites from the Maher TV Show) that Romney is really more like in-your-face rappers than true entrepreneurs. Take a look and see for yourself.