As many of us know, Colorado House Democrats lost their majority after the 2010 election by one member. Among other goals for 2012, regaining the majority in the House is a priority. I want to do my part in helping Democrats regain the majority and one way to do that is to work with my House District to elect a Democrat. House District 29 has a Democratic challenger to a Republican incumbent: Tracy Kraft-Tharp. My intention in this post is to introduce the Democratic activist community to Tracy - an introduction that is real, not rumor. I will do so by writing about topics I discussed with Tracy earlier this week.
Tracy's message is simple: she is running so that HD29 has someone representing everybody. Her focus will be on supporting the community. She has experience crafting solutions with multiple stakeholders in a number of jobs and endeavors. She is familiar with the legislative process. Tracy is well situated to start making a positive impact early in her role as a Representative.
So I disappeared for a full week, right in the middle of what should have been a busy writing schedule, and I have to claim some "personal days" to cover the time we missed here at the blog - but it won't be time entirely wasted.
Instead, I'm going to jump into my own personal life for today's story, and I'm going to do it so that we can stimulate some thinking about where we really need to go to if we ever hope to make some sense out of the crazy way we deliver health care in this country.
Since this appears to be the weekend that a lot of decisions are either going to be made about the future of our "social safety net"...or they wont; we're entirely unsure...let's talk about how it actually works for a lot of us - and how it could work a lot better.
I am having a problem with a word, it is one that we're hearing a lot lately, seriousness. Now having been 'round the block a few times I have come to the conclusion that when I hear Right Wing talkers like Robert Samuelson and Republicans using a word over and over then I tend to think they are in the process of redefining it.
Today's little nugget of nothing from Samuelson is all about the false equivalence between the supposed lack of seriousness on both sides. Of course La Samuelson goes after the Dems first insisting that we look at cutting entitlement programs like Medicaid and Medicare and then conflating those two expensive and troubled programs with the much more solvent and non-deficit producing Social Security.
He does take a half hearted swipe at the Republicans and their abject failure to even consider increasing taxes at all to bring down our deficits. But Samuelson has a point that he wants to make in this "A pox on both your houses" column. Here, I'll let him make it:
Our budget problem is conceptually simple. Government's spending commitments, driven by more retirees and uncontrolled health costs, vastly exceed the existing tax base. There is an argument about how fast changes should be made to protect the economic recovery.
He is right as far as he goes. The problem is that Samuelson is not really, um, err, serious about this issue himself. Yes we do have a problem that we don't have enough money for our commitments and yes health care costs are going up and that is squeezing the budget more as we keep our commitments to the poor and elderly to provide them with health care.
However, the solution is not finding a way to slash these programs so that they provide less care and do nothing to control costs. The solution is to fix the underlying problem, that our health care markets are fundamentally flawed.
So Arizona Senator Jon Kyl went and did a stupid thing the other day by claiming on the floor of the Senate that 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is related to abortions, and that, by God, we need to cut that Federal funding for abortions, and we need to cut all Federal funding for Planned Parenthood-and we need to do it today.
Of course, that 90% claim was total hooey; it turns out that only 3% of Planned Parenthood's work relates to abortions. (The Federal funding for abortions part is, too; the Hyde Amendment made such funding illegal decades ago.)
When confronted, Kyl's office released a statement claiming the Senator's comments were "not intended to be a factual statement".
Sir Rev. Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA, decided to have a bit of fun with Kyl, and he challenged his audience to Tweet their own "Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement" about Kyl.
I decided to compose a Tweet of my own...and then another...and before I knew it I had an entire story's worth; that's why, today, we'll be taking a taking a short break from the daily grind to have a bit of fun with a man who truly deserves it: Jon Kyl.
I'm guessing not, since yesterday's vote in the House to repeal the Affordable Care Act was simply the culmination of a go-nowhere strategy that was well publicized since the middle of last year and the Teabagger base hasn't interrupted Republican Teabagger town halls or offices to date. You see, they only care when Democrats spend more money than is available. When their Teabagger Representatives vote to do the same ... there's nothing but silence.
We've all heard of "low information voters" this year, especially after the Republican Party magically cloned itself into a Tea Party that helped win them a majority in the House. The Tea Party seems to have emboldened a new thing called the Low Information Legislator who, good for comedians and bad for democracy, are going to dominate nightly news, The Daily Show, Colbert, Rachel, and late night talk shows everywhere for the duration of this next Congress.
Here, our very own Jared Polis tries to enforce the basics of thought and logic on Republican Steven King, to no avail.....
First terrorist babies, now trash can babies. Of course, legislation that would help babies grow up to become productive adults is almost never introduced by Republicans.
Google search: trash, abandoned, baby = 1.6 Million hits, some in Philippines.
I was driving to the Littleton Barnes & Noble today when I heard a radio ad in support of Amendment 63, the dreadful attempt by fringe "Coloradans" to kill HCR in our great state. I was surprised to hear that the ad was funded by the Independence Institute (no linky), an unpleasant, local organization hell bent on stripping away our freedoms while claiming they fight for them.
It was also odd because their fearless leader, Jon Caldera, recommended socialized healthcare to me just a few months ago.
Sometimes stories happen because of planning; other times serendipity intervenes, which is how we got to the conversation we'll be having today.
In an exchange of comments on the Blue Hampshire site, I proposed an idea that could be of real value to unions, workers...and surprisingly, employers.
If things worked out correctly, not only would lots of people feel a real desire to have unions represent them, but employers would potentially be coming to unions looking to forge relationships, and, just to make it better, this plan bypasses virtually all of the tools and techniques employers use to shut out union organizers.
Since I just thought this up myself, I'm really not sure exactly how practical the whole thing is, and the last part of the discussion today will be provided by you, as I ask you to sound off on whether this plan could work, and if so, how it could be made better.
It's a new week...so let's all put our heads together and rebuild the labor movement, shall we?
Another barnburner from Former Lobbyist Jane Norton:
Republican Senate candidate Jane Norton revealed her latest health care prescription for Coloradans at a campaign stop in Cheyenne Wells Tuesday, touting the elimination of cancer screening coverage enacted during her tenure as Lieutenant Governor in the Owens-Norton administration. During the campaign event, Norton giddily boasted that as Lieutenant Governor she eliminated requirements for insurance companies to cover cancer screenings, such as cervical and prostate screenings, in health insurance plans. Norton then went on to compare cancer screenings to "shoe fetishes" and "caffeine addictions." Please see the below bullets and the attached audio for Jane Norton's latest prescription for fixing Colorado's health care system.
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities States will have matching funds from the Feds to expand Medicaid coverage with no cap on enrollment, as long as States provide an amended plan by 6/30/2010.
While states do not have to expand Medicaid until 2014, a new coverage option included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) allows states to cover low-income adults now. Adopting this option could provide needed federal funds to states - that currently fund their own coverage programs for low-income adults who are not eligible for Medicaid. It also provides a new pathway for states that want to expand coverage to adults without children before 2014.
Where is Colorado in this process? The following link provides a list of States' legislative initiatives to facilitate Health Care options. It's no surprise which States are absent on this list - hardline Red States, hoping to prove 'what a failure PPACA is' at the polls in November.
Many people are still wrapping themselves around the significance of "It's a Fucking Big deal" HCR. As such, we Democrats must restrain ourselves from joining the "hype and gripe" factions. We're in mid-term elections. Any emotional break from solidarity will hurt us in November.
To those who want to believe Obama's HCR is a re-packaged 90's GOP initiative - Andrew Romanoff, David Sirota, and the Lefty "throw the bums out" contigency - I say, "Bullshit!". The 1993 GOP HC initiatives were created to stop H.Clinton's focus on Universal HC Coverage, and continue Reaganomics. The GOP's legislative initiatives increased the private insurance industry's federal regulatory controls. The Reaganomics corporate rights factions - ironically, with strong support from rightwing States' Rights GOP's - effectively reduced States' Rights and gave increased federal oversight to the private insurance industry.
Activists are disappointed (to put it lightly) that health insurance legislation, and not health care reform, passed after a year of intense debate and discussion at the highest levels of government. A few solidly progressive items made it through the process; many more did not. Among those that did not is a public option, to say nothing of single-payer.
Flying somewhat below the back-and-forth arguments of whether or not a public option should have been a part of the legislation and what form it might or might not take is an effort that should be lauded. Rep. Alan Grayson (D,FL-08) has a piece of legislation that accomplishes many progressive goals: H.R. 4789, the "Medicare You Can Buy Into Act". Rep. Grayson has done what many activists wish more of our elected officials would do: show some leadership.
Health care groups Change That Works and Health Care For America Now (a coalition of many groups working on health reform across the state), dispute David Sirota and others' call to add the public option to the Reconciliation bill. Here is a statement released this morning.
Thanks to the tireless work of our President, our Democratic House and Senate leaders, and advocates around the country, the health reform bill signed into law achieves a milestone on behalf of the health and well-being of the American people. Beginning immediately, no longer will small businesses have to choose between providing health insurance and hiring another worker and no longer will parents have to fight insurers to cover a child with a pre-existing condition. As reform reaches full implementation, not only will 32 million more Americans gain insurance, but Medicare's life will be extended and the country's fiscal condition will improve with more than a trillion dollars in deficit reduction.
Important improvements to the health care reform package and to the student loan program are included in H.R.4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. This bill will make health insurance more affordable to families, close the Medicare prescription drug donut hole, and increase federal support for Medicaid programs. It will also end wasteful subsidies in the student loan program and use the savings to give more young people the opportunity to attend college by increasing Pell grants to nearly $6,000, making them available to more students, and making important investments in minority serving institutions and community colleges. Many of these ideas were advanced with bipartisan support.
We ask Senators Bennet and Udall to support this bill, without amendment. A "no" on amendments is a "yes" on health care and college affordability. (Emphasis added by blog author.)
(Remember kids: You don't have to fight if you don't want to. - promoted by Fong)
I've been arguing all day with Romanoff supporters that Andrew's attempt to derail the reconciliation bill by insisting Michael Bennet only vote for it if the public option is included is dangerous. The AFL-CIO just described the situation far better than I could:
For Immediate Release
Statement by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka
On Health Care 'Poison Pill' Amendments
March 23, 2010
"A 'NO' on amendments is a 'YES' on health care."
As senators prepare to take up fixes to the historic legislation passed by the House late Sunday night, they cannot allow process, technicalities, or cynical ploys to derail the legislation. Republicans are going to use a "kitchen sink" amendment strategy, throwing everything they can at the bill to try to sink reform. This will include amendments on issues that we would otherwise strongly support.
Any amendment offered during this process is nothing more than a poison pill. A 'NO' on amendments is a 'YES' on health care.
Working families won't be fooled by dirty tricks from the opponents of health reform out to do the bidding of the insurance companies. And US Senators should not be fooled either. Just as we did in the House, unions will employ all our resources to support Senators in passing the reconciliation package and taking the last step on the path to health care reform for all Americans. We will make sure that constituents of Senators who do the right thing and vote "no" on all amendments know the score about what really goes on in the Senate.
(Jason is the Editor of the Seminal, which is Fire Dog Lakes community blog. - promoted by Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said )
The health reform vote is coming in the House. Representative Betsy Markey (CO-04) needs to listen to us, not the insurance companies.
In Markey's district, the House's improvements to the Senate health reform bill will [pdf]:
Improve coverage for 464,000 residents with health insurance.
Give tax credits and other assistance to up to 170,000 families and 18,900 small businesses to help them afford coverage.
Improve Medicare for 88,000 beneficiaries, including closing the donut hole.
Extend coverage to 69,000 uninsured residents.
Guarantee that 14,100 residents with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.
Protect 1,400 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.
Allow 70,000 young adults to obtain coverage on their parents' insurance plans.
Provide millions of dollars in new funding for 25 community health centers.
Reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and other health care providers by $60 million annually.
A vote for health reform is a vote to stand with these people. A vote against health reform is a vote for the status quo, where insurance companies make record profits by raising rates by double digits (20% in Colorado in the last few months) and dropping millions of customers from their rolls.
The House may vote on health reform as early as this weekend. When the vote comes, Representative Markey has a chance to show us that she's on our side.
