U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) David Seligman

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(R) H. Scheppelman

(D) Alex Kelloff

70%

30%

10%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Shannon Bird

45%↓

30%

30%

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
November 30, 2009 08:10 AM UTC

In Good Conscience

  • 13 Comments
  • by: JO

Per Nicholas Kristoff in Sunday’s NYT ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11… ):

John Brodniak, age 23, was a foreman at an Oregon sawmill until last April, when he suddenly blacked out. Short version (and you really should read Kristoff’s full version before proceding in order to understand this post): Brodniak suffers from a cavernous cavernous hemangioma–“an abnormal growth of blood vessels (that) in John’s case it is chronically leaking blood into his brain.”

Consequences:

–John Brodniak suffers periodic blackouts that cause him to collapse.

–He suffers chronic pain that itself can be debilitating.

–As a result of this condition, he lost his job.

–As a result of losing his job, he lost his health insurance.

–As a result of his precondition, he cannot buy new health insurance that would pay for the surgery that would cure his condition that would enable him to return to work where he would get health insurance as part of his job.

–He cannot find a doctor willing to perform the necessary surgery for the reimbursement offered by Oregon’s Medicaid, for which he qualifies.

–At least one hospital emergency room, where he goes for treatment for his blinding headaches, has told him not to come back until he has insurance.

–As a result of his condition, John’s wife has had to quit her job to help care for him in sickness and in health, and thereby lost her health insurance and her income.

A real person. Real consequences of our health care system. Untreated, he condition could lead to death, one of 45,000 premature deaths this year and every year caused by our privatized health insurance system of payment for health care.

As a matter of conscience, most people on this blog, most people generally, would not walk past John Brodniak, writhing in pain, without offering help. Nevertheless, three Colorado representatives voted against a bill that would, inter alia, require insurance companies to offer coverage without regard to previous conditions. Three Colorado representatives voted against a bill that would private a government insurance program that would cover John Brodniak to enable him to get life-saving surgery that would enable him to go back to work.

No one was especially surprised at the ‘no’ votes of two of those representatives. Some of us were surprised, and dismayed, at the ‘no’ vote of the third, who had run as a “Democrat.”

She said she voted against the bill “as a matter of conscience.”

“As a matter of conscience” she voted to leave John Brodniak without medical help.

“As a matter of conscience” she voted to sentence John Brodniak to a life of blinding painful headaches for which there is a cure–surgery–that he cannot afford, and that “as a matter of conscience” some people believe that our society cannot afford, even though we can afford crop supports to welfare clients in bib overalls, even though we can afford troops in over 120 countries, even though we can afford to pay salaries to Afghans not to fight against the government of a corrupt politician named Karzai.

Well, “as a matter of conscience,” I can’t stand the thought of such conscientious representatives holding the line…that particular line…against a bigger deficit. Better that we have the snarling grimace of the incumbent’s predecessor, who was easy to hate, in Congress than perky little fake Democrats exercising their “conscience” at the expense of John Brodniak, the 45,000 Americans who will die prematurely each year, 123 each day, without medical care, and the 45 million or so Americans who wonder what would happen to them if they collapsed on the street and the medicare care establishment, and the medical insurance establishment said, “Get lost”–as a “matter of conscience,” you understand.

Tweet
Share

Comments

13 thoughts on “In Good Conscience”

  1. I heard she got a “pass” from Nancy Pelosi. Not sure if it is true, but it would make sense. Again, this state is not blue — it’s Barney purple. “She” knows that. She also knew there were enough votes without hers.  

    Politicians trade votes all the time.  I don’t agree with it either, but they do.

  2. I’ll agree that healthcare is a mess. But bringing up one case is irrelevant. And a bad situation does not mean a given law will make it better.

    We’re all taking a giant leap in the dark with the upcoming healthcare bill. A lot of very smart people think it will improve things. But it may not.

    It may also drive us bankrupt quicker. And the you’ll have stories about how people on insurance can’t get care because the country can’t afford the increasing costs.

    If you want to discuss the bill on its merits – that would be an interesting discussion. But to list a single problem – that doesn’t tell us if the bill wil be a benefit overall.

    1. a bill that would, inter alia, require insurance companies to offer coverage without regard to previous conditions. Three Colorado representatives voted against a bill that would private a government insurance program that would cover John Brodniak to enable him to get life-saving surgery that would enable him to go back to work.

      The health care reform debate does not take place in the abstract. It’s not about “data points.” It’s about people, real people, who emerge from statistical tables with real stories.

      Neither is the debate about “passes,” the subject of endless speculation to no end, which in turn is about what? Having a particular perky DINO in the House after 2010 who needs a pass since she’s unable, or unwilling, or both, to make the case to her constituents? DINOs out “on pass” are irrelevant; by definition, their vote doesn’t really count and they are voting with the opposition. Who needs either one? In this case, if we accept the undocumented act of “taking a pass” (and no one will ever see her canceled ticket) she alienated Obamacrats and simply conceded the issue to Republicans, who in any event will have a less repulsive candidate to field in 2010. (I know this for certain because they couldn’t possibly find a more repulsive one, could they?) Result: lose lose.

      In 2008 large numbers of people turned out to effect change, not to elect “Democrats” per se. If they don’t get change–if by over-turning years and years of the same party representing a particular district they get the old Nay! Nay! to progress–they’re not likely to show up to vote, much less campaign, in 2010. Recent polls show that while something like 86% of Republicans “definitely” intend to vote in 2010, the equivalent number for Democrats is hovering around 55%.

      Blue Dog Democrats is a misleading term for three reasons: they’re not blue, they’re not dogs, and they’re not Democrats.

        2. …the case for health insurance is

          the 45,000 Americans who will die prematurely each year, 123 each day, without medical care, and the 45 million or so Americans

          …who are uninsured.

          “Being uninsured” could mean lots of things, and one of them is this: that your life is one big trip to Las Vegas, a gamble that you won’t end up like John Brodniak.

          When I read about “matter of conscience,” I think it’s helpful to illustrate just what that means when it comes to affected individuals. Of course, the larger case is based on 45 million or so uninsured; I think you and everyone else on this site knows that perfectly well, and I think you know that I am not suggesting wide-ranging health care reform for the sake of one individual. And, as an aspiring journo, you must be aware of how abstract concepts (45 million people is an abstract concept, since none of us have ever seen that many people in one place at one time in order to make the number concrete) are illustrated.

          What I don’t know is: what point were you trying to make by latching onto this “effecting a massive change in our entire economy based on a story about a single individual.” Where did that come from? Certainly not from anything I’ve ever read here or elsewhere, written by me or by anyone else.

          I have my suspicions where it came from, but rather than speculate, I’d like to read it from you.

  3. to problems such as this is to make all necessities of life free to all. A certain amound of food, shelter, health care….

    Education? Okay, not just absolute necessities, but things that are really important to people’s welfare.

    I actually agree with this principle, but it is not trivial. Anything that is provided for free but incurs costs to be provided is paid for somehow, by someone. And the way in which that is done has an impact on how possible it will be to continue to do it in the future.

    At the extreme of egalitarianism, one might argue, we should not leave any wealth in private hands, and should distribute all wealth equitably. This, however, leads to a virtual cessation in the production of wealth, and we would quickly be sharing absolute poverty, suffering, and starvation.

    Stating the problem is not identical to stating the solution. There is no magic wand of “yay” or “nay” that will guarantee that all horrible suffering end in the world.

    I believe, as most rational people do, that it is not only possible for a wealthy industrialized nation to provide everyone with a certain reasonable level of health care services, but that it is actually good for “the economy” (i.e., total wealth production) as well as good for social justice (i.e., the equitable distribution of the fruits of that production). However, the reality of politics, and of the irrationality that plays a role in it, did not put the most straightforward solution to that problem on the table.

    The bill we actually have, rather than the one we would have been better off having, is not so clearly able to solve the problem. It is complex and cumbersome, with many systemic consequences. I strongly support it, but I don’t know that it won’t be disasterous: It’s not simple enough a bill, and not simple enough a world, for anyone to know exactly how it will play out.

    It’s certainly conceivable that a reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion, on careful analysis, that this bill would cause more net human suffering than its absence. I haven’t analyzed it carefully enough to know that no such conclusion is possible. If it were, and a legislator came to that conclusion honestly, then who could blame the legislator who voted against it? And would it then be helpful to the debate to cite an example of someone who suffers horribly in its absence, in order to ensure that manifold more suffer due to its passage?

    However, we make judgments based on what we know and what we value, and those of us who want to move in the direction of universal coverage are eager to see progress on the issue, so we strongly support this bill. But we do so, hopefully, knowing that the mere fact that we want to see improvement on this issue does not mean that any bill with the name “health care reform” is somehow, indisputably, a good idea. It is possible to draft a bill that would take care of all of John Brodniak’s needs and leave everyone else without any health insurance at all: You’re argument would be as cogent then as it is now.

    As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t think that the scenario above, of opposing the bill after careful analysis, is what happened here. I think Peacemonger is right: Markey probably got a pass, because her vote wasn’t needed. Casting an irrelevant vote is very different from casting a decisive vote.

    1. But yes, supply a backup guarantee for the necessities of life when the system fails to provide them in the ordinary course of events.

      Not “free,” but yes, be active in supplying an opportunity to work to contribute to the greater good.

      As for “getting a pass.” This was not about party loyalty. It was about whether representatives favored the form of health care reform that resulted from weeks of negotiation–mostly among Democrats since the Republicans refused to play. Representatives voted for or against. Pelosi does not represent any district from Colorado; she isn’t running for reelection here.

      IF certain Democrats “got a pass,” what does that mean? That they would have voted differently if they did not get a pass? IF the Church of the Incumbents praises the bravery of The Appointed One for resolutely stating “yes” when asked if he’d vote for health care reform even if it meant losing his first election, what does the “pass” theory then say about Perky? She explained her vote not as “I got a pass,” but as “a matter of conscience.” Do you think she’s lying when she says that?  

      Did Perky try–try at all?– to persuade her constituents that some sort of help was appropriate for this part of their lives, as well as for the part of their lives at risk from tornadoes or drought?

      Thus endeth our discussion, as I promised many months ago, lest I succumb to temptation.

      1. and the real work to be done, is on the level of details: economic details, political details, administrative and regulatory details. Sure, we need to fight and win the debate over committing ourselves to doing the best we can to create an ever more robust, sustainable, and egalitarian social institutional framework, but within the context of facing that challenge, you have to focus on the details of the systems involved.

        Whether Markey is lying or not, whether she got a pass or not, are things I don’t really know: We can speculate, but it’s all just speculation. The bottom line is they aren’t important to me, because focusing on them doesn’t get us any closer to where we should be trying to go.

        These are simply my respectfully expressed thoughts and perceptions on the subject that you raised for discussion.

  4. As long as there are “Democrats” like you, who “claim” to be interested in the “common good”, Republicans couldn’t be happier. Cory Gardner sends his regards.

    1. Something is kind of interesting to me.  Never before on this blog have I found myself in total agreement with someone whom I also find so hateful and vindictive. Strange days indeed…

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

242 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols