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

30%↑

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
December 21, 2009 06:06 AM UTC

Conference Committee Here We Come!

  • 65 Comments
  • by: MADCO

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Conference call with Senator Bennet tonight.

He spoke briefly- mostly about healthcare. And then answered questions. He tends to ramble a little, but he does not dodge questions.

Highlights:

Senate is close to complete on health care. Another vote overnight tonight and then once more before Christmas, and healthcare should go to conference committee.

President expects conference committee to work over the break and be complete just after the recess.

Senator Bennet expressed frustration and disappointment that the public option is out.

And gave a quick summary of the better things that are in:

Immediate ban on pre-existing condition exclusions for children. Health insurers will be immediately prohibited from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children.

Quality of care in Medicare is preserved. He co-sponsored an amendment that guarantees Medicare will not be cut and in fact is stabilized for an additional ten years based on current actuarials.

Multi-state option. Health insurance carriers will offer plans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that currently oversees health plans for Members of Congress. At least one plan must be non-profit, and the plans will be available nationwide to promote competition and choice.

Insurers will be required to spend 80% or more of premium revenues on clinical services with less going to administrative costs and profits or pay rebates to policyholders. These stricter limits will continue even after the Exchanges begin in 2011, and apply to all plans.

Health insurer’s participation in the Exchange will depend on performance. Insurers that jack up their premiums before the Exchange begins will be excluded.

Insurers will have to protect choice of doctors and ensure access to emergency care.

Ensuring access to care. Annual limits on benefits will be tightly restricted to ensure access to needed care immediately, and will be prohibited completely beginning in 2014.

Guaranteed opportunity to appeal coverage denials. All health insurers will be required to implement an internal appeals process for coverage denials, and states will ensure the availability of an external appeals process that is independent and holds insurance companies accountable.

Free choice vouchers. Workers who qualify for an affordability exemption to the individual responsibility policy but do not qualify for tax credits can take their employer contribution and join an exchange plan.

Vulnerable populations. A range of new programs will tackle diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and children’s congenital heart disease, will improve the Indian Health System, and will provide support for pregnant teens and victims of domestic violence.

Community Health Centers. A substantial investment in Community Health Centers will provide funding to expand access to health care in communities where it is most needed

It is not clear to me where portability fits nor how how involved the President will be in the conference committee.

The current health care bill has been scored by CBO as producing savings of $130B in the first ten years.

He didn’t talk about it, but what is not in the bill: No death panels, no cut to Medicare, no golden clinics in Nebraska, no weakening of Hyd Amendment, no gov’t intrusion into dr/patient decisions, no government take over of healthcare, no Medicare buy-in.

He concluded by asking for feedback to him and the campaign staff on what he could be doing better.  I saw him speak once last Spring – and he concluded the same way. If you think he could be doing something better, tell him. I believe he wants to hear from you.

Tweet
Share

Comments

65 thoughts on “Conference Committee Here We Come!”

  1. The Senator mentioned an article that does a good job describing the challenge of upwardly spiraling health care costs.

    “The Cost Conundrum”, Atul Gawande

    http://www.newyorker.com/repor…

    It’s long and egg- heady, but I agree with him that it does a good job explaining some of the more complex health care cost issues.

  2. I appreciate your thorough efforts in doing this.

    Now’s let’s fire up all the comments about how all of the above mean the destruction of capitalism, a creeping wave of socialism destroying American freedoms and yada yada yada.  Lib, you first?  LB?

  3. Great call out for Bennet and nice free publicity all rolled into a nice little package promoted by Colorado Pols.  As one of MOTRs famous posts goes.

    Hehehehe.

    Lucky, lucky Romanoff…with friends like you, who needs enemies?

    Now go fuck yourself. And that’s me asking nicely.

    “What or who do you serve? MOTR?” Sharon Hanson  

    ______________________________________

    by: Middle of the Road @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 08:29:03 AM MDT

    Merry Christmas to you too

    you misinformed, arrogant, nut job.

    : MADCO @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 09:15:55 AM MST  

      1. Not helping Romanoff.  For some reason I see a difference.  Probably because I hate see any candidate associated with random “supporters.”

        You are right that Sharon’s not getting any kind of point across.  Regardless of who it’s supposed to be hurting or helping.

                  1. Help me out.

                    All I see is Sharon being a dumbass (typical) and you complaining about it (ironic).

                    For the record, I’m not a Romanoff supporter, but your bitchy little comments about him push me closer to it.  It never ceases to amaze me that no one from Bennet’s campaign has come to dispute your involvement.  I can’t think it’s helped, at all.

                    It’s kind of interesting that I can tell whether or not Romanoff has been in the news and whether or not it ended up looking bad for Bennet based on your first comment of the day.

                    2. I expected him to defend himself for that.

                      The Bennet campaign is very happy with my efforts.

                      Just happens to be the one I landed on.  Not that it matters if he’s a faux volunteer, he thinks that any supporter should be answered for by the candidate.  That’s here and here.  There are others, but I’m tired of searching.

                      That all takes me back up to my… uh, “incoherent” post saying that Ray balances out Sharon.

                2. 1. He desrved to be appointed. No one else would do.(I guess Rep. Perlmutter and Rep,Salazar have no DC experieince)

                  2. He’s very liberal (He’s a DLC man of the year)

                  3. He wouldn’t “cave to Republicans” (He prides himself in seeking bi-partisan support of his legislation agenda)

                  4. He’s decisive (that’s why he waited until Sept to announce how much he wants to represent Colorado in the US Senate,after it became clear that he wouldn’t be Lt.Gov.)

                  5. He’s fair (that’s why his supporters smear Sen.Bennet and try to get around party rules in HD5)

                  6. He won’t sell himself to PAC money (I guess that means anymore)

                  7. He’s for immigration reform (as long it means he can blame others for the 2006 fiasco)

                  8. He tells good jokes. (He does)

                  You get the picture

  4. Is he in support of destroying women’s lives? The current house and senate bills return American women and female children to the glorious days of the back street coat hanger. At least the Senate bill lets the RWG’s go on record for making sure women have no choice in life.

    1. First off, even the House bill does not return us to the days of back alley abortions. It remains legal and by remaining legal the cheapest way to get it will remain a clinic. This is not to say it’s not a step backwards in availability, but it’s not that far back.

      Second, the Senate bill appears to be trying to address the core issue that exists in the Hyde amendment – to insure that there is no federal funding of abortions. With federal money becoming involved in paying for people’s insurance, this is a new take on it.

      If they end up with something similar to the Hyde amendment, yes it will predominately impact the poor (as does the Hyde amendment). But it will not be a step backward, it will be keeping things as they are.

      1. and then gets an abortion, is that also the federal government paying for abortion? This seems to be moving the goalposts on what exactly “paying for abortion” means. The Stupak amendment really is quite a strict and unprecedented reading of the Hyde amendment, from what I’ve seen.

          1. The Senate bill contains most of the Stupak stupidity, but pushes it down to a state level.  How that’s supposed to work, I have no idea.

            There are a few things I’d like to see out of the conference bill:

            1. Return the abortion provisions to Hyde levels.  This is something Obama has actually been vocal about during the debate, and it’s something I hope he’ll be involved with during the conference committee.  The fact that the provision from the Senate and that from the House are different gives the conference the leeway to change this.

            2. Up the insurance -> health care percentage up to at least 85%.  We’re the only country in the industrialized world that doesn’t meet that target.  If Medicare can do it in 95%, and many countries can do it in 90%, even a compromise bill should be able to get us to 85%.

            3. Restore the public option or provide a strong alternative.

            4. Remove the mandate and accelerate the community rating system (no rescission and no denial of insurance for pre-existing conditions for anyone).  Allow insurers to deny coverage claims related to pre-existing conditions for a period of one year following their initial insurance; this exemption does not hold for those who have been insured and are just switching insurance.

            CongressMatters.org (a sister site to Daily Kos, focused on Congressional actions) notes that current Senate rules limit debate time on conference reports, so the Senate only needs 50 (plus Biden) votes to pass a stronger bill than will emerge from the Senate on Christmas Eve.

      2. Certainly conjures an image doesn’t it?  What you are leaving out are the many successful coat hanger abortions.  I mean really, you can’t say there haven’t been botched abortions in a doctor’s office, now can you?

        1. ever performed by a physician or surgeon, can’t you? After all, isn’t that what your entire Party is riding on–the tort reform that will save our entire system as we know it?

          Did you actually have a point? Because I find your comment disgusting and distasteful beyond belief.  

  6. Madco did a good job of covering it.

    Sen Bennet sounded quite tired.

    He has been fighting for the best bill that we can get, contrary to those that think a single Senator has  control of Lieberman, or Sen. Nelson.

  7. some person that calls his or herself droll.

    I suppose that their position is sensitive that if their identity (meaning their name) was known then the world would come to an end

      1. Other than some anonymous slug named droll.

        I could over  this again, but cowards like you aren’t worth the time. Nevertheless, so you will get the point as your mind is obviously droll.

        I send one invite. So you could be anyone of some 400 not returned out of 2000.

        People like you wear the anonymity here like the klansman wears the sheet.

        Your views’ have more in common than just  style.

        1. I should note droll, that you are obviusly a recent sock puppet, and that you may just expsoe yourself if you keep posting.

          So please do repond.  Colorado deserves to know who hides behind the sheet.  

            1. It’s pusedonym for someone that cliams I requested a FB friendship several times.That’s a ;ie. I don’t do that.

              Perhaps it’s a complete lie

              It’s not delusional to think that the anonymyity here can fairly easily be broken.

              It should be, as most folks here post hostility which they never would in person.

              They say things which would destroy their public persona.

              Really, all the anonymous names are sock puppets. I’ll grant about the time frame and should have checked the profile.That’s not delusional, it;s just poor opposition research on my part

              The  latest droll attack aginst Norton is sexist and wouldn’t be acceptable in normal politics (the leg and cleavage reference.)

              It would definitely destroy a public persona.

              Nevertheless, I believe that this person probably has multiple accounts. ColoraoPols doesn’t care about this, as it’s the only way to maintian you folks’ precious anonymity.

               

                  1. Too much leg, not enough cleavage?

                    “Gilpin Guy,” still the best reason to lock the stable doors.

                    ——————————————————————————–

                    by: droll @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 16:17:20 PM MST

                    [ Parent | Reply ]

                    ——————————————————————————–

                    by: you @ soon

                    To post this comment click here:  

                    Otherwise click cancel.

                    You must enter a subject for your comment

                    1. Oh and one more thing

                      CHECK OUT THOSE STEMS…Eat your heart out Liddy Dole there’s a new babe headed for the U.S. Senate!

                      by: onebigrepublican @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 15:40:17 PM MST

                      [ Parent | Reply ]

                      ewww

                      Please can you keep it in your pants?

                      Type with two hands  

                      by: MADCO @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 15:45:04 PM MST

                      [ Parent | Reply ]

                      NEW PHRASE COINED

                      Colorado Independent

                      “Janey Baby Got Da Stems”

                      by: onebigrepublican @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 15:54:44 PM MST

                      [ Parent | Reply ]

                      Look at the timestamps.  Unless you just want to keep digging the hole in which you find yourself deeper, in which case, go right ahead.

                      By the way, when you say that someone “probably has multiple accounts,” do you just pull that stuff out of your ass or what?

                    2. I didn’t say that they both weren’t bad. You did. That shows your own political insensitivity to sexual harassment.

                      You are the one digging the hole.

                      As to the other issue, why don’t you take it up with Coloradopols. You could ask for an inepdendent audit.

                      It simply doesn’t matter, other than apparently people have been sued in the past for the content. They should be accountable.

                    1. Truly, if people here  would own their own  comments then they wouldn’t be either a coward or a perp.

                      They would be  responsible human beings.

                      Unfortunately, there aren’t very many of those on ths site.  

                    2. And I’m sure most others here do as well.

                      I doubt even those you think are fruit loopy here on this site are much different in person.  I’ve met a number of people from this blog, and I can’t say that any of them are much different from their online persona.

                      And, frankly, posting under your real name hasn’t made you any more responsible…

                  1. And while you’re at it, look up the definition of “sock puppet.”

                    Not all of us can be as charming as you.  From your facebook page:

                    Sex:

                       Male

                    Relationship Status:

                       Single

                    Interested In:

                       Women

                    Looking For:

                       Friendship

                       Dating

                       A Relationship

                       Networking

                    So do you post here just to meet chicks, or what?

                    1. There you go hitting on me Ralphie, I’m heterosuxual. I ave met people from FB. That’s one purpose of social netoworking.

                      FB is a  social netoworking page. Coloradopols isn’t.

                      Now you are trying to attack me like the Republicans’ attacked Harold Ford.

                  2. As preached by someone who obviously doesn’t know when to stop defending himself and say he might be wrong; from someone who doesn’t know the meaning of common blog terms like “sock puppet”; who can’t tell the difference between a snarky follow-up and sexual harassment.

                    And, though I missed it before, I’ll note it now: it’s against site policy to out an anonymous account here, and is at the least walking on thin ice to threaten such.

                    1. account to talk to themselves. It’s used to throw off the true identity of the individual. Every anonymous name fits that definition.

                      You are the one threatening to out droll.

                      Sexual harassment is a crime in some places.

                      Frankly, Coloradopols permits whatever it thinks it can get away with.  

                    2. Thank you for playing.

                      A sock puppet is a secondary account created by a site user to generate the appearance of support for themselves.  See Wikipedia.  A pseudonym does not have this connotation and has never been considered to be “sock puppet” behavior.

                      I have said nothing about droll other than that I know droll, at least a bit – and that the idea of the comment in question being sexual harassment coming from droll is ludicrous.

                    1. What you quoted from Ray’s Facebook page is exactly what every single heterosexual person puts on his/her Facebook page. It’s a pretty ridiculous criticism.

                    6. I posted it, didn’t I?

                      It’s really hard to find a “Ray Springfield” located in this area who’s politically involved on Facebook.  And Ray doesn’t want it to be hard to find him – after all, he’s railing on about you me and droll all having anonymous “sock puppet” accounts and he’d rather not uphold the fine tradition of anonymous political commentary in this country.

                      If Ralphie’s worst abuse is taking a simple Facebook preference checkmark and turning it into something it wasn’t, then all I can say is – it completely fits the nature of the original discussion re: droll.  Ray got nothing more than he dished out; in fact, it was significantly kinder than that.

                    7. She can take care of herself. I honestly don’t care about this thread, I just thought it was piling on, but since you seem to have the situation under control, please carry on.

                    8. and look what I missed.

                      Ray’s new sig says it all, “Some posters on COPols use the anonymity like a Klansman uses the sheet.”  I think everyone gets the message.

                      By the way, you look really cute today.  I don’t know why your hair is cooperating, but it’s lovely. 🙂

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

288 readers online now

Newsletter

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