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.
Preface: My apologies to the Bennet campaign staff, who have asked their supporters to stay positive. I cannot follow their direction, today, unfortunately. My family is more important than any campaign.
**************************************************
I saw a friend last night who decided to go support Andrew Romanoff in the CO 2010 Senate primary. I've stated here before, most of my political friends are long-time activists. In my area, they know Andrew personally and for many of them, that is an important consideration. I appreciate their loyalty to a friend, and having been a supporter of Andrew's for almost a decade, I get the feeling of "owing him" for his work in the CO State House. I couldn't understand Jim's decision, though, since he doesn't know Andrew.
If Andrew Romanoff wins the primary, Democrats are sunk.
My long history of saying nice things about Andrew Romanoff aside, every day of his campaign makes me more concerned about his ability to make sound judgements. Not taking PAC money (which includes union donations, by the way) is unrealistic -- an incredibly stupid thing to do. Did Andrew not read the news that the Supreme Court has determined corporations can give unlimited amounts of money to elections? Norton, Wiens and Buck are racing to find storage facilities large enough to hold the cash they will have donated to their campaigns by soul-less, conscience-free corporate America.
If a union or company wants to give money to Senator Bennet's campaign, great! In his year of service in the US Senate, he has managed to keep a record of 92% voting in-line with Democrats,despite accepting PAC money. He also still voted to confirm Craig Becker, indicating a commitment to labor, as opposed to big business. As Pam Bennett's earlier article stated so well (paraphrasing), "Take their money, smoke their cigars, drink their booze, etc." Let them waste their money on votes that cannot be bought. Let them give to a Democrat rather than a Republican to make the Democrat more competitive. That's what we want them to do.
It is not just naive, it is stupid to think that a Senate campaign can be won without money. Ask Mark Udall, who spent more than ten million dollars. Commercials cost money, and it won't be long before living rooms across Colorado will be seeing lots of them from the Republican side. If he is not willing to take PAC money or union money to win this election for us, how on Earth does he plan to win? With magic fairy dust? Seriously -- I'm asking.
(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.
