U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
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*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
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) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 16, 2010 03:49 PM UTC
54 Comments
We’ll settle for the public option. Um, Mr. President, didn’t you support that in your campaign?
Imagine if we could harness the negative energy of every critic of the President and convert it to forward-thinking action — convincing others one by one that we need to reform health care! We would actually have all 59 votes, I’m sure. David Sirota’s energy alone would probably be worth two.
As you know, I’ve supported an effort to examine single payer. Every business owner would likely be forced to accept this as a solution because it lays-off all their healthcare costs and lets them focus on thier business.
The line of questioning would be … do we as Americans want a single payer process, are we willing to buyout the health insurance companies, are we willing to face the “rationing” debate, and are we willing to have an honest discussion on growing the government at 330 million X some cost/person?
‘tad, every single thing you post doesn’t even meet the threshold of delusional rants. Every single thing you “propose” is so much talking point drivel I’m amazed you don;t have you own radio talk show on KOA.
I just wanted to lay them out – they are valid issues the opposition would raise.
I find it sad that you don’t you want to have a discussion about the merits of single payer.
The answers to these questions are easy:
1. Are we willing to buyout insurance cos – hey everything is for sale.
2. Rationing debate – the point is moot, Medicare/Caid has not faced these issues and that is the model, right?
3. Taxpayer cost – lets say buying out the insurance companies is a $200 billion nut. Look at the synergies of increasing the insurance pool to all 330 mill Americans. That’s gotta drive the cost down to $4-5k/family of four. We simply need to debate who pays and what taxes will be used to fund it.
Why do you oppose building on the Medicare/Caid model to expand coverage? Why do you support paying off the insurance companies by turning this thing into some kind of utility?
1. Why buy insurance companies out? It’s called the market place, you know, capitalist heaven. People would switch pronto, first because of the lower rates, then as they hear about neighbors not being denied coverage.
2. Many, many progressives have said we just need to expand Medicare to everone, or call it Part E for “Everyone.” Done deal. Three percent administrative overhead vs. thirty three percent. Two hundred thousand dollar a year government directors vs. 700 million dollars a year CEO’s.
I think you want to insurance companies for their systems, customer base, etc.
Of course as you point out the government could just set up the rules so that the private health insurance biz dries up and frankly that would set a precident for other industries that you could slowly take over.
I doubt you want to be seen as creating even more unemployment though, you’ve done enough damage already.
Using a carrot would show your policy is not hollow, although nationalistic, it rewards investors in the spirit of capitalism. Call it a transitional private to public move for economic and health security.
iI think if the govt DID offer single payer at a reasonable premium it would force private insurers to compete on the same basis. IF the private insurers quit the health care biz there are still lots of things to insure against. OTHER insurance would also likely be less expensve as Blue Cross moved into auto, casualty, etc. Then there are always the health supplemental insurances.
Insurance companies have quit on communities really fast when there are too many claims. Every time there is a hurricane season with large losses there are companies that leave FL and TX with no apparent concern for their employees.
After fucking the American public for decades, without KY, fuck ’em.
We owe them nothing. They owe us.
Customer lists, base? Ha ha ha….. A phone book will do.
Sure, no one loves insurance co’s until you need them to cover your back. Hey I get it you hate paying premiums like you hate paying taxes.
So yeah I hear you “Fuck ’em”, what’s another 16% of the economy in the unemployment line.
or are you contractually bound to spew propaganda? No matter how easily it is to be proven wrong?
They are simply asking for the debate to be heard; I’m asking for the Single Payer to be explored.
What CFO-CEO-GC-Board wouldn’t go along with ouotsourcing the healthcare benfit to the government? Maybe the insurance co’s and wall street financiers, but that is what the government merger and acquisition of the health insirance businesses is all about.
If you are worried they’ll call it nationalization then just say so.
Glenn Greenwald takes a look at the case:
http://www.salon.com/news/opin…
Good luck everyone. B R E A T H E.
I’m looking forward to the results from both parties tonight.
OH no! Decisions made by Majority vote. only republicans can do that!
/sarcasm
Steve Benen fingers the latest Republican hysteria over Democrats using rules Republicans thought were just fine when they ran things:
Republican hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds.
“It’s a familiar pattern — Republicans open doors, and then whine incessantly when Democrats walk through them.”
Imagine the Republican angst if a Dem President decided they liked the unitary Presidency concept so adored by the Bush Administration. Or how about the John Yoo theory of Presidential power: If the President does it/wants it, then by definition it’s right.
about the fine print in John Yoo’s theory:
[if the president is white and a “he,” and by the way, a Republican]
on the Senate floor right now. His convenient amnesia about the widespread use Republicans made of this rule is shocking.
go set up an acct at the new squarestate and tell me why I’m wrong on the caucus open thread.
Thanks. I’ll pass. But it is sweet to see you front page every pro Romanoff diary. Every candidate needs a blog that loves him, right? 🙂
Bennet has Pols.
Romanoff has you.
and I think I only fpd one which was from the campaign.
Not unless and until he produces video of him knocking out The Greatest, Muhammed Ali.
Now, Ali is still alive. But knocking him down now would just be mean. Though I’m still not sure AR is able even if AR was willing. So unless you are suggesting Andrew had some secret life experiences when he was younger (and, really, who hasn’t wink wink ) you owe Muhammed Ali an apology.
Stings like a bee,
The one and the… #cough#,
Andrew Romanoff!”
Again, we have two great candidates, and I look forward to supporting whichever one becomes our Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate.
Remember, folks, be civil tonight! Even if someone else in the room chooses not to be.
it’s those #@$%^^! scumbags supporting some other candidate that will start insulting people! I do, however, reserve the right to poop on Glenn Beck if he shows up at my caucus. Or on anyone who quotes Glenn Beck favorably.
Glen Beck, all bets are off!
Speaking of el Becko, have you seen the MoveOn.org video that plugs your name into a pseudo-news cast about how Beck has identified you as a threat to democracy? It’s hillarious!
It is indeed hilarious.
From the AP
Jackson follows a long list of prematurely deceased performers like Elvis, Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hendrix, Curt Cobain, and others for whom death was a great career move.
This should be welcome news to those who lost their jobs in the Great recession and thought their careers were “dead”. Fear not, even if you die, there’s still hope for your careers.
The Washington Post is reporting today that Speaker Pelosi is contemplating the use of the self-executing rule, which would essentially allow legislation to pass without a vote, for passing health care reform. Check out my blog for the more details and my analysis:
http://ryanpolitics.blogspot.c…
It’s a House rule.
I know that’s the talking point, but I’m more interested in facts.
Always good when your very first post involves blog-whoring your own blog.
I knew there had to be an amusing name for that kind of shilling. Thanks
1. blog whoring
Leaving a comment on a famous weblog, with a reference to one’s own, insignificant, blog to draw attention to it.
I was blog whoring on Joe’s blog last night again.
http://www.urbandictionary.com…
a discussion about Republican hypocrisy on this up above.
Not to mention you’re just flat-out lying. There would be a vote, it would just be a single vote instead of a two-step vote. It’s a technique Republicans pioneered when they ran Congress.
Have you no shame, dawkins?
Does the Washington Post have no shame in making that headline?
Of course there will be a vote. It’s part of the reconciliation bill: “In passing this measure, we accept the Senate amendments to [gutted and replaced with the Senate’s HCR bill] H.R. 3590.”
Vote on the reconciliation package and part of what you’re voting for is the Senate bill.
It’s that dumb blogger. His post doesn’t even clearly link to the Washington Post story, but to some House rule document. Everyone but the Republican gasbags knows how common this procedure was under Republican rule.
I’ll quote again from Steven Benen’s take on it:
Bunch of whiney-ass babies. No offense to actual babies.
RedGreen,
What am I flat out lying about exactly? As the Washington Post reported, which I linked in my article, the House is essentially going to do it vote on a set of popular changes to the Senate version of the bill and then ‘deem’ the whole bill passed. The vote is only on the amendments to the part of the reconciled Senate bill, not the bill itself. Its a procedural sleight of hand.
As I noted in my post, I am a fervent supporter of health care reform. I would just like our elected officials to be accountable for the legislation that they pass. In this case, health care reform passes, but vulnerable Democrats won’t have to explain for their vote on it because there wasn’t one on the actual bill, just the fixes to it.
On the substance of my blog, I stand by it. Although I support the reform package, I believe that process is as important as substance.
With respect to my Washington Post link, I made a mistake linking it. My apologies for that. I have since fixed it.
Also, forgive my ‘Blog Whoring.’I am new to both blogging and this website. If someone would be so kind as to show me proper decorum, it would be appreciated.
Best,
Ryan
I know its Quixotic, but it makes me feel better.
Rush is reporting that the Democrats don’t have the votes.
I called it first last August.
They don’t have the votes committed yet – a few are, I think, still waiting to see what the actual bill will look like.
Seriously?
When we all told you last August that listening to right-wing talk radio was bad for your health, you told us “Pshaw!” Now look what’s happened. You actually used the phrase “Rush is reporting,” instead of “Rush is making shit up.”
http://blogs.westword.com/late…
Lane says:
Recognize that everyone, whether they are popular or not, deserve attorneys.
I have deep respect for them as lawyers and defenders of constitutional rights.
Whilst I disagree with the client’s position on this (sorry Mason), I absolutely support Caldera and Mason getting some of the best civil rights attorney’s around.
A legislature “more comfortable with the idea of representative democracy.”
The legislature damned well better be on the side of representative democracy. It’s what the U.S. Constitution calls for.
Direct democracy allows the loons foist their hair-brained schemes (like TABOR) on the rest of us.
But our state constitution gives every loon the right to propose any change to the constitution. If you think that’s not a good idea (I’d like to see it be a lot harder), then get an initiative on the ballot to change it.
But don’t propose legislative end runs around what is clearly in the constitution – that’s anti-democratic.
creates the context within which interests are pursued via strategic interactions and pacified conflicts, not the context which determines what is and is not fundamentally ethical or unethical (not to say that it doesn’t track, to some extent, what is ethical and unethical). If an interest that one considers fundamentally ethical and in service to the public good can be pursued within that context, though in a way which others can characterize as “and end run around what is clearly in the constitution,” then they are well within their rights, both legally and morally, to do so.
a legal strategy (one that is legal, that is) cannot be an end run around the constitution; it can only be a more or less well-executed play on the field and according to the rules of the game established by the constitution.
Law is the process of precisely defining the rules, not of creating the underlying morality which informs them.
Of course, the fact that others may feel differently, and that a particular strategy may provoke certain reactions with certain consequences, is all part of what determines how well or how poorly conceived the legal strategy actually was.
Legislate them out of existence.
Oh, the REPUBLICANS have trial lawyers too? Never mind.
It really is time that our leaders really think people
Already this has been said a hundred times, but I will not tire of repeating another 300 million times.
I can’t believe only 50 people stop the growth of his own country in health,
We need take the streets to make our voices heard.
What do you think?
Does this cavity look like a cap or a root canal to you?
but you could use more mouthwash!
you should stick to dentistry, and rethink your marketing strategy.