CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 11, 2009 02:29 AM UTC

Your Senators on the Public Option; and Why Co-ops Aren't Enough

  • 73 Comments
  • by: MJD

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Senator Michael Bennet was one of 30 signatories on a letter to the Senate leadership demanding that the HELP Committee’s optional public insurance plan be included in the final bill. The next day, Senator Bennet, Senator Udall (not ours, but his cousin from New Mexico), and others joined Senator Brown on the floor to press for the public option in person.

As Senator Bennet said, affordability is critical. It is unconscionable that individuals would be required to purchase insurance for themselves and their families with no mechanism in place to put downward pressure on out-of-control medical inflation.

And while our senior Senator Mark Udall has been less outspoken on the issue (mainly because he’s less outspoken in general, something I can appreciate as a fellow introvert), he is also making the case:

Now we’re closer than ever before to delivering real reform that lowers health care costs, improves care, and preserves the ability of patients to choose their health insurance plan.  To that end, I’m fighting in the U.S. Senate for a fiscally responsible reform bill that includes an optional public insurance plan.

[…]

A public option can make our health care system work for everyone, particularly if it is structured fairly and without hiding costs. At the end of the day, what we’re talking about is freedom – giving Coloradans – and all Americans – the freedom to start a business, change jobs, or just have peace of mind knowing that your insurance company will keep its promises and that you’ll still have coverage if you get sick.

But, as Senator Bennet said, "is not just enough to have a public option. We need a public option, but we also need commonsense regulation of insurance so that we start driving a marketplace that actually makes sense."

Take this story from the Denver Post, for example:

By the numbers, Alex is in the 99th percentile for height and weight for babies his age. Insurers don’t take babies above the 95th percentile, no matter how healthy they are otherwise.

"I could understand if we could control what he’s eating. But he’s 4 months old. He’s breast-feeding. We can’t put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill," joked his frustrated father, Bernie Lange, a part-time news anchor at KKCO-TV in Grand Junction. "There is just something absurd about denying an infant."

Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance for their growing family with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born. They filled out the paperwork and awaited approval, figuring their family is young and healthy. But the broker who was helping them find new insurance called Thursday with news that shocked them.

"’Your baby is too fat,’ she told me," Bernie said.

Rocky Mountain Health Plan has, rightly, been held up as an example of a nonprofit health plan that provides high-quality care as a result of information sharing and comparative effectiveness research (a/k/a "rationing" in Republican-speak), as well as reducing hospital re-admission rates by better managing the care of very ill patients (a/k/a "death panels"). But, as the Langes discovered, it’s not perfect. Even though there isn’t profit motive, there is still a risk management motive. And around the country, we’ve seen repeatedly that non-profit doesn’t mean inexpensive or efficient.

And as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported, the proposed co-ops "seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country or to noticeably affect federal subsidy payments. As a result, CBO estimates that of the $6 billion in federal funds that would be made available, about $3 billion would be spent over the 2010–2019 period."

In other words, they won’t reduce costs. In fact, they will be so bad at reducing costs that the CBO thinks only half of the seed money available for setting them up would ever be claimed. Not only that, but they’ve been tried before and failed. Two of the nation’s largest cooperatives have collapsed because their risk pool was never large enough, nor was their market share.

Group Health Association in Washington, DC collapsed in the early ’90s and the smoldering wreckage was sold to Humana, which a couple of years later gave up and handed the mess over to Kaiser. After 70 years in business, the remaining large cooperative in the Northeast is converting itself into a for-profit corporation because it still can’t generate enough capital to remain in business, let alone compete to the level required to put downward pressure on health care costs in America’s third-largest state.

The bottom line is that cooperative arrangements can help improve the delivery of health care, but they can not improve the cost situation. The only thing that can is a single, national plan with minimum guaranteed benefits. That must be either a single, large cooperative (which would require a costly startup) or a national public plan that can leverage the vast and highly efficient Medicare network that is already in place.

As the letter Senator Bennet signed said, "promoting more co-ops may be a worthy goal." But they are not a replacement for the public option.

Cross-posted from ProgressNow Colorado

Comments

73 thoughts on “Your Senators on the Public Option; and Why Co-ops Aren’t Enough

      1. That’s right, it cant’ be trusted. If he isn’t progressive enough — that’s a reason to oust him! And if he is, in fact, progressive and effective — that’s just because of the primary, and yet another reason to oust him!  

        1. Take this quote from August 14th in the Durango Herald:

          Bennet, speaking after the meeting, said reform shouldn’t hinge on the public option, though he has said he supports it.

          “I don’t think we should be drawing lines in the sand,” he said.

          It sounds like he is now ready to draw that line in the sand. Why? Who knows. Who cares. He is now ready to draw the line (I hope).

          1. a lot stronger than anything that can fairly be attributed to Romanoff. And I see nothing wrong with his support becoming stronger after hearing more from his constituents. Senators are supposed to be influenced by their constituents.  It’s called representative democracy.

            Another good reason to give him a chance at full term rather than switching to Romanoff for no very concrete reason other than we wanted him in the first place and he didn’t get it.  Bennet is standing as strong as we could wish on this issue.  

            1. Andrew has stated repeatedly that he would fight for a public option. On ‘Your Show’, ‘The Mario Solis-Marich Show’, and ‘Caplis and Silverman’.

              The simple fact is that over the past few months, Bennet has taken a stronger stance in support of the public option. Previously, his support was conditional. There were a lot of mixed reports coming out. For exampel, from the Statesman in July:

              “President Obama has endorsed public option. Is Senator Bennet not yet ready to step up?” he asked Rodriguez.

              “He wants to see the details,” she replied, noting that he wants to learn more about individual cases and why people were denied health care support or insurance.

              So he went from needing to see the details, saying it must be deficit neutral, saying we shouldn’t draw a line in the stand to we must have a public option. This is great news and I’m glad he has changed his mind.  

              1. He went from not having any details to having legislative language, from hot having any details to having one that was not only deficit neutral but deficit negative, and I still don’t think he would vote against a bill on the lack of the public option alone, nor would Andrew.

                Some Republican could drop in an amendment requiring all 6 year old girls for be anally raped and call it “the public option.” You can not fault a brand new senator (either of the brand new senators from our fair state) for being reticent to jump on the bandwagon when there were still lots of people with different understandings of what “public option” meant and no legislative language to examine.

                1. That is my only point. Some deny that it has, but the facts are there. Maybe he learned more details, maybe he heard more from voters, maybe he made a strategic political decision. The point is that he has modified his stance.

                    1. Not really.  I do dislike it when simple charlatans draw big conclusions from little evidence.  Feel free to emphasize nothing from attenuated nuance….it makes you look very insightful.

                2. He was acting more like a closet Republican than a Democrat. He voted no on the cram-down and how is that playing out?  

                  If he is a Senator he should have a grasp of the issues. And if he doesn’t all the more reason to take him out. I firmly believe if AR didn’t enter the primary Bennet wouldn’t be too concerned about the public option.  

                  He’s fighting for his seat and if we get a public option out of it I’m happy but I will never support Bennet. Just like Ritter he will turn on those of us who elect him.  

        1. Last time I checked I am still a Colorado Voter and get to say what I want. He’s running to the left to save himself with the base. He will be back in the middle leaning right soon enough.  

          1. But it would be great if it was based in fact instead of the routine bullshit Romanoff’s supporters seem to love to indulge themselves in.  

            1. Sen Bennett has been hot and cold on the issue. I never said he never supported it but it is a clean sign he is playing the game.  

              Which I guess is fine but I want my senator to be a strong supporter for a public option thank you.  Not one when he is pushed hard enough from the right will give in.

              You maybe middle of the road and so you like a senator who does not fully support the option. I am a left dem who is not that supportive of that idea.  

              1. My user name is the always last resort for folks like you. Middle of the Road, because you seem SO VERY INTERESTED in interpreting it to meet your narrow meme, is based on Aristotle, not on my political bent. Cute but baseless. Nice try, though.

                And where’s your fucking precious “progressive” been for the last 10 months on a single Democratic issue, let alone health care reform? Hmmm? Because all I remember hearing from him is crickets on the subject.

                Unlike you, I am a left Dem who wants my fellow Dems to speak out at all times, not just when they decide they to run for office. Your little darling could take a page from Darcy Burner’s lesson book, who has been front and center on this issue for the last 10 months and she isn’t even running for office but had enough sense to use the power and influence she has built up over 2 runs for the House and put it towards the greater good.

                Romanoff? Other than acting like a petulant child? Crickets. If your idea of a left Dem is a guy who only gives a shit about himself and his career, then yes, get on board the Romanoff bus because more of your type is just what his floundering campaign needs.  

      2. Bennet knows he is in trouble with progressives and one wrong move could take him out of the race.  

        Should he get the nomination in the Democratic primary he’ll return to his closet Republican, Ritter clone ways. I personally don’t trust him.

        1. If you think you can trust Andrew Romanoff or Barack Obama or any other politician to fall in line with your rigid view of the world, you’re sadly misguided.

          Beyond that, if you think any politician is smart enough to never be hoodwinked by some lobbyist, principled enough to never cast a vote against his or her own stated position if doing otherwise might upset his or her reelection chances, or pure enough to never bow to the influence of money or power, you’re absolutely nuts.

  1. This entire ‘public option’ is simply a power play to create a nationwide, labor union, patronage system, thus allowing the Democratic Party to poach more salaries of hard working Americans… and of course, that money will probably go to 527 groups like Accountability For Colorado, where it will be used to send race-baiting mailers against minority candidates, like myself, who run as Republicans

    🙂

    I’m not crazy about labor unions, but I don’t hate them either – the important point is that… I just don’t like political parties poaching the salaries of hard working people, without those hard working people even getting a ‘say’ in where their money should be going….

    Seriously…. England’s NHS program is the world’s 3rd largest employer –

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t

    America with a public healthcare system?? That’s a lot of labor union jobs right there…. and lots of salaries to exploit… red meat for the DNC, no doubt

    In addition – Co-Ops are terrific and normally run extremely well – the reason Dems are against them is because there’s much less labor union empowerment with the Co-Op infrastructure

    If us Republicans were more intelligent, we would seek a redress against the Democrats by pooling our money, not spending it on Congressional or Senate races, but rather, spend it on statewide ballot initiatives that would implement the Taxpayer Bill of Rights in every single state of America – because if there’s one year where TABOR will be its most popular, it is this upcoming 2010 election

    Nonetheless….. the Dems and Obama are giving us the world’s greatest political gift, and we’re completely squandering it by setting up 527’s against Democratic Senators and Congressmen, when we could be implementing the Taxpayer Bill of Rights everywhere….

    We’ll win back Congress and Senate in 2010…. and ultimately, we’ll probably lose both houses again, continuing the back-and-forth cycle of political battle…. but TABOR? TABOR is for life…

    Lastly….. I will give a sincere shout-out to Senator Michael Bennet – I completely disagree with his views, but I have to give him some major credit for all the townhalls he’s hosting, where he’s getting slaughtered for his views, but nonetheless, continues fighting – now that’s a sincere man… that’s what separates the leaders from the ‘politicians’

    peace and love all!

    1. The reason why 48,000,000 Americans should continue to have no health insurance is because to provide them with health insurance would be good for the unions.

      Who said the Republicans have no plan?

      1. Stop focusing on providing health care to Americans and start concentrating on passing a TABOR bill in every state and/or nationally!

        Great plan.

        Sincere, caring, compassionate and oh, so sound.

        1. …I’m a Reagan Republican, not a Romney Republican, therefore, I do not believe that healthcare is a right

          That said, we spend enough to insure everyone, so we might as well insure everyone (right?)

          LB’s cartoon below is actually very good – of the quoted “47 million” who are uninsured, around 34 million or so, of those folks, are in between jobs and about to receive insurance

          In reality, there are really around 10 million Americans who are too rich to qualify for Medicaid, but unlikely able to purchase private insurance

          With that said, we need to completely privatize Medicaid and expand it – such a trick would save billions thanks to privatizing, allowing us to expand the program and insure 10 million more – that’s the best solution, imo

          The second best solution is to do nothing – again, healthcare is not a right

          Lastly – President Obama, to his good credit, has already solved a MASSIVE portion of this problem, by forcing an Electronic Healthcare Record (EHR) system to be put in place – this is HUGE – a synchronized EHR system, that connects HMOs, Doctors, and Hospitals all on one system, allowing everyone to participate in a patient’s health is going to greatly decrease the amount of unnecessary tests, doctor’s visits, phone calls, and time used – that alone will be enough savings to expand Medicaid for the 10 million who are inuinsured

          Lastly – we need a guest worker program so that illegal immigrants can start signing up for Medicaid and private insurance – otherwise, we will continue paying their health bills

          Sadly – the Democrats only want plans that increase labor union salaries, not insured Americans

          1. A rich kid with half baked ideas seems to be your profile as well.

            Thanks for detailing your idea of what constitutes your plan; although, it is still crap.

            Whether health care is a right or not is neither here nor there. If it were up to you we would privatize the medical safety net for millions allowing the private insurers to continue the status quo with billions of more dollars in their bank accounts.  

            Or, we could not do anything, because the system is working sooo well now.

            Or, we could pass TABOR in every state restricting their abilities to dynamically solve problems facing them.

            You’re not an idiot but you are the kind of person who got this state and country into the mess we currently find ourselves, so forgive me if your plan doesn’t resonate with me.

            1. I think that might be the nicest thing anyone’s ever said about Ali Hasan.

              But really, what has he done to EARN it? Just not be Libertad?

              Hasan is an idiot with no comprehension of money or hardship or policy, because he’s had everything handed to him all his life. He was born on home plate and thinks he hit a home run. He’s a douchebag and a loser, and anyone who takes him seriously is doing a disservice to America.

              1. …so aside from the fun insults, can either of you ‘factually’ argue for a public-option… or are your best arguments that of ‘Hasan is an idiot’…?

                As far as being born on “home plate” I’m deeply proud that I spent over a year of my life teaching public school in LAUSD’s tyro program, as well as developing films here in Colorado under my small business company

                My best “home runs” are ahead of me – I say that with pride

                1. is not an argument for or against the public option, it’s an argument that you’re an idiot.

                  Anyone who proposes Medicaid should be privatized is probably too stupid to breathe. Do your parents pay for your breathing lessons as well?

                2. But then, I am not young and living off my parent’s money.

                  When you’re 60, MAH, and paying for shit yourself, you might have a different perspective on the issue.

                  In the meantime, don’t assume that everyone is as privileged as you.  It insults you.

                    1. I don’t want the government to do a damned thing for me.

                      Except to let me buy into the same health care coverage that others have.

                      At my age, it’s the difference between having coverage and not.

                      When you’re my age, you can tell me your story.

                    2. The option to purchase with others is a fair argument – I would continue to argue in support of co-ops over public-ran systems

                      I guess we reach the “agree to disagree” boundary

                      Peace and love to you

                    3. doesn’t make it yours.

                      When you complain about poor people getting handouts from the government they don’t deserve, does it occur to you that you’ve lived off handouts you don’t deserve?

                      From your web site:

                      Hasan is an expert snowboarder and likes to think of himself as a budding comedian.

                      Suddenly your posts make so much more sense.

                    4. Last I checked, Dennis Miller, BBC Radio, and Fox News made an independent decision to hire me….

                      I am Blessed and I’m very thankful for that – I also take deep pride in my work

                      peace and love to you as well sx

                    5. Last I checked, everything you have came from mommy and daddy. What was Dennis Miller’s initial offer letter? “Hey, I heard you’re rich and Republican, and not the kind of Muslim I hate! Could you come on my show that’s about to get canceled and talk about stalking your ex-girlfriend? Thanks!”

              1. I could debate the public option with you, but I’ve better things to do. And your assumption that I’m for a public option shows how little you know.  

                A whole year teaching in public schools! Wow, man, you’re a shoo in for Heaven now! Forgive me if I’m not impressed with your public service bio.

                Your solutions would do more harm than good, IMHO. Your attitude that privatization cures all ills and TABOR is a remedy for the nation is absurd and dangerous.  Again, IMO that is the attitude of the last eight years that led us to the dark place we find ourselves.

                So, good luck with your future home runs.  Personally, I’m hoping they occur in public schools gigs or your films because the last thing Colorado needs is an ass like you in the statehouse.

                1. Car 31 – you claim against one that “Your solutions would do more harm than good, IMHO”

                  However – you provide no factual evidence to back up those claims, instead saying, “I’ve better things to do”

                  Which begs the question, Car 31 – what are those better things?

                  Are they insults?

                  “…the last thing Colorado needs is an ass like you [Muhammad Ali Hasan] in the statehouse.”

                  So if I’m to understand this….. you are opting to not provide facts to back up your statements, in exchange for using your time to spend it doing “better things” which, from my perspective, is to insult me?

                  Am I correct?

                  With that said — I will do two things –

                  1. I will not insult you

                  2. I will provide FACTS to back up my claims

                  Privatization of our healthcare system is a good thing

                  Let us take MediCal, California’s Medicaid system, as a an example

                  As of around 2002, 57% of MediCal’s recipients were on managed care insurance –

                  FOOTNOTE – http://www.chcf.org/topics/med

                  Medical recipients under managed care were much more likely to be satisfied with their healthcare than those under ‘public’ care –

                  FOOTNOTE – http://www.chcf.org/topics/med

                  In addition, MediCal, at the time of around 2002, boasted some of the nation’s lowest capitation rates, with many crediting its aggressive plans to put the majority of Medical recipients under managed care –

                  FOOTNOTE – http://www.chcf.org/topics/med

                  And lastly, the bombshell – even the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL confirms that Kaiser Permanent runs a much more efficient operation than NHS –

                  FOOTNOTE – http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content

                  Public Option Care has proved worthless and inefficient in America and overseas – privatized care, on the other hand, is passing tests in terms of efficiency, lower costs, and patient happiness

                  I don’t support privatized care because I’m an “idiot” – I support it because, if we are to insure every American, I want our good countrymen and countrywomen to have the BEST healthcare in the world – and that’s not gonna be public-option-healthcare if so

                  Peace and love Car!

                  – autopsy closed –  

                  1. Got a bit of free time today, I see.

                    You still believe that privatization is good and TABOR will save the states.

                    I disagree.

                    Now I’m off to a meeting that will accomplish much more than debating anything with you.

                    Peace and love back at ya, Hasan!

                  2. http://www.healthp.org/node/16

                    Crucially like was not being compared with like. Kaiser covers around eight million people in the US, mainly the working well. In contrast the NHS provides universal coverage to around 60 million citizens including the unemployed, the poor, and older people. Richard Feachem et al, the authors of the original paper, were not able to adjust for the differences in the populations, thereby negating comparisons of bed use and costs.

                    Similarly Feachem et al also used an unorthodox approach to adjusting for level of service when calculating costs. They did not include the additional charges that Kaiser members incur, currently ВЈ28 for each primary care consultation, ВЈ56 to attend an accident & emergency centre, and ВЈ285 for childbirth, and they omitted the 12% of Kaiser members who take out supplementary cover for services which are not included as part of the plan (‘coinsurance’).

                    They also wrongly applied a double currency conversion which added no less than 40% to their calculation of the NHS’s costs. They converted pounds into dollars at the general exchange rate, and then took this dollar rate and multiplied it again by the special rate that applies to the health sector. As the chief economist for the Department of Health pointed out, ‘it is simply wrong to adjust for health care prices over and above adjusting for general differences in prices’. In spite of systematically inflating NHS costs and deflating Kaiser’s, the NHS still comes out ahead. Undoing it puts NHS costs at $1,102 per capita compared to Kaiser’s $1,951.Prof Allyson Pollock and Sir Denis Pereira Gray said today:

                    ‘When the Lancet published a paper on MMR, which threatened to undermine public health programmes, the DH and other major medical journals lost no time in entering into the scientific debate. Now we have a paper being widely adopted by policy makers, the claims of which concerning Kaiser are not supported by the evidence.’

                    Although this whole debate is really moot. The ideal health care plan in America would be for Ali Hasan’s parents to pay for everyone’s insurance premiums.  

                    1. That’s an opinion paper that, from my searching, is not even recognized by the British Medical Journal, which is a higher authority than the one putting out the paper above

                      If BMJ isn’t willing to rescind their research, then the point stands

                      However – at least you’re arguing back and not running away 🙂

                    2. and I’m not sure what you mean by “not even recognized.” The BMJ got 70 angry letters about publishing the article you referred to, which questioned the actual statistical methods used in gathering data. It’s not unusual for scientists to disagree about such things, and being published in a scientific journal hardly means your research is beyond all doubt. (That’s true in any field, but particularly when writing about public policy.)

                      I’m not sure you really understand how scientific research is done.

                    3. …part of my college degree is in Environmental Science

                      here’s my reasoning of opinion –

                      the BMJ is a higher authority than then the public health institute linked above

                      In addition, in order for the study to be thoroughly invalidated, BMJ would have to rescind it – they have not done that

                      with that said – I choose to listen to BMJ and you’re choosing other sources – we agree to disagree  

                    4. …it’s the Lancet that has no concept of scientific research.

                      “They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated.” The paper had “no scientific standing”. Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? “No.”

                    5. So you want to privatize all health insurance and hope that health insurers play nice ?

                      Do you know sick people who have insurance die every day because health insurers delay approval of lifesaving procedures ?

                      Know what the number one cause of bankruptcy is today ?

                      Do you know what recission is ?

                      And you want more of it instead of less.  

                      We have a healthcare crisis BECAUSE OF PRIVATIZATION, and you see it as the solution ?

                    6. Well, I’m remain a fan of privatization – overall, I believe it is the much better option in terms of cost, quality, and efficiency

                      however, I think is a moot element in the debate – again, the problems you’re mentioning above will drastically be solved with the oncoming implementation of the Electronic Healthcare Record (EHR), which will make everything synchronized, thus making things faster and cheaper

                      again – we don’t need a public option to make healthcare better – the EHR is the next step in healthcare and Obama already solved that (to his good credit)

                      I hope that’s a fair answer – I always apprectiate the good dialogue

      2. Ralphie your mis-truths are even debunked by Obama.  Worse you’re complicit in expansive corruption at the expense of ordinary Americans (rich, poor and all between).

        Ali is dead on …

        This entire ‘public option’ is simply a power play to create a nationwide, labor union, patronage system, thus allowing the Democratic Party to poach more salaries of hard working Americans… and of course, that money will probably go to 527 groups like Accountability For Colorado, where it will be used to send race-baiting mailers against minority candidates, like myself, who run as Republicans

        1. Everyone knows the easiest way to solve a problem is to just ignore it, but if you’re not brave enough to do that, you can at least post a stupid cartoon.

          1. But having our garbage, bloated government take over healthcare at our over-expense is not the answer.

            Does anyone that says “the public option is just for competition for the insurance companies” really say that with a straight face?

            1. with your cartoon’s imaginary numbers intended to convince people there’s really nobody uninsured who doesn’t want to be.

              Imaginary numbers are for math, not politics.

            2. You have no idea what you are talking about and it shows.

              Private industries are the worst polluters and the most inefficient group of incompetent white collar criminals I have ever seen. And we as taxpayers have to clean up their rotten messes called negative externalities in economics.  They only know how to do two things; socialized their losses and privatize their profits.

              White privilege has made you who you are but you will never have money only your rotten fear mongering and your hate for the human race.  

              Grow up.  

              1. ..and white privelege.

                You DO know how to make a really persuasive argument.

                I don’t want the government running any more of the healthcare industry than they already do.  

                One cannot be a participant, regulator, and have a blank check to fund the bottom line.  THat’s what the public option does.

                BTW, the racist implication is so weak and tired.  If that’s all you’ve got, start reading up a little and come back with some policy, “Sharon”.

        2. Whatever happened to Kenneth Gladney? Remember him, folks? Supposedly, the black conservative had the shit kicked out of him by pro-health care “union thugs” in Saint Louis on August 6th. Yet, interestingly, no assault charges have been filed against the alleged attackers, yet.

          Here’s the latest concerning the web site set up by his attorney: IAmKennethGladney.com (“I am Kenneth Gladney. You are Kenneth Gladney, Remember, we all are Kenneth Gladney.”):

          http://www.iamkennethgladney.com/

          Site Disabled

          Unfortunately, this site has been partially disabled due to nonpayment on the part of Kenneth’s attorney, David Brown.

          The site will resume normal operation once payment is received.

          Says a man who used to work for the attorney, David Brown: “The thing is, David Brown is just using this guy Kenneth Gladney to make money. He told me so. He told me in his own words that Mr. Gladney is his gravy train.”

          http://blogs.riverfronttimes.c

          Not enough gravy, after all?

          “Liberty knows no race, sex, creed, or color. You see, liberty

          is for us all. It was given to us by our Creator.” — Kenneth

          Health care, on the other hand, has to be fought for by We The People.

        3. There are a lot of people who are employed full time who do not make enough money to afford health care insurance or health care.  Take preschool teachers for example, who make $8-10 and hour with no benefits with a degree.  When our country doesn’t value people who raise their children enough to give them a living wage, this happens.  Should these men and women go without health care when they are doing an emotionally challenging job 10 hours a day?

  2. And while our senior Senator Mark Udall has been less outspoken on the issue (mainly because he’s less outspoken in general, something I can appreciate as a fellow introvert)

    Yep.  🙂  We introverts like to mull things over; reason our way through in private, and then say what we think.  It just looks odd in a senator because most of them are such camera hogs.

  3. There needs to be a public option for health insurance.  Current proposals do not address the massive burden health insurance has on households.  And will millions out of work, these people are exhausting their savings to pay for medical insurance.

    Wish these politicians would be required to do community service by working a minimum wage job for 2 weeks a year.  Then they might understand that applying 100% of a minimum wage job’s earnings towards health insurance is still not even enough to pay for reasonable health insurance.  It’s insane!!!!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

28 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!