President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

60%

40%

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 06, 2010 04:14 PM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 123 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world,

and the worst of it is that half of them are true.”

–Winston Churchill

Tweet
Share

Comments

123 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

  1. “The Republican Party is not leadership. The Republican Party are the 900,000 Republicans in the state,” Maes said. “They’re going to do their homework. And they’re going to vote Republican because that’s what they’ve done for years, and that’s the system they trust.”

    http://www.denverpost.com/elec…

        1. “A closer look at moderate voters, who comprise the majority of independents in Colorado, shows a lot of trouble for Buck. They see him negatively by greater than a 2:1 margin, 27/57. They’re not real high on Bennet, giving him only a +7 approval rating at 43/36. But when it comes to the horse race they give the incumbent a 24 point lead despite their tepid feelings toward him personally because of their greater animosity toward Buck.” – PPP

          Bennet had a slight party unity advantage previously, but the candidates have now

          equally locked up their bases. What is keeping Bennet treading water, though, despite

          the negative trends in the partisan makeup of the electorate, is that he has taken a 48-38

          lead among independents, versus a 39-40 deficit two months ago. Undecided independents seem to be moving the Democrat’s way. – PPP

          “Given Barack Obama’s poor approval numbers in the state and his own unpopularity

          Michael Bennet should be in really bad shape,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public

          Policy Polling. “But Republicans really helped his cause by nominating a candidate with

          limited appeal to moderates.” – PPP

    2. Ralphie is right; the article is about a malaise that impacts incumbents of both parties. At the moment, the incumbents are Democrats. (I suppose that correction makes me another Goebbels, in the view of some.)

      I take it that the other comment is from someone who didn’t read the article, and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion–except, perhaps, to the observation about the decline (disappearance) of civility in American society.

      One other line of Bai’s struck me–how strategists of both parties tear out their hair to craft a message that will appeal to voters, especially “unaffiliateds.” That’s the language of marketing, and candidates have long been “sold” as “products” to be presented in some pleasing manner–father of cute children, for example, or people who wear outdoorsey clothing while standing in front of the wilderness, etc. Per a discussion yesterday about 30 vs. 60-second commercials. The idea that the two dominant parties stand on different sides of a philosophical divide on the question of what the role of government ought to be (and how to carry out that role) is never mentioned.

      1. I say this all the time, but elections are won in the middle.  I say it all the time because it’s true.

        You need your base, of course.  But there simply aren’t enough numbers in any candidate’s base to win with the base alone.

        Selling a candidate to the masses is not unlike selling soap flakes to the masses.  Some people will buy your product out of brand loyalty–they’ll buy what they’ve always bought; others will read Consumer Reports to see which product gives the best results; others will buy on the basis of price alone; others will buy because they like the scent of the product or the the face of the model in the ad.  Some people won’t buy your product at all.

        Every consumer/voter is different.  Every consumer/voter has a different “button” that needs to be pushed if you’re going to make the sale.  Finding that “button” in unaffiliated voters is challenging.  

        Some people are unaffiliated because they are disaffected.  Others are unaffiliated because they don’t care.  Some care, but simply don’t have time to pay attention.  Mom and dad both work, they have to provide for their families.  They’re dead tired when they get home. Just getting the kids to little league or soccer practice is a chore.  None of these people deserve condemnation or ridicule, they simply are what they are. In any case, if you want the votes of these people, you have to find and press each one’s magic button.

        Apologies to the ideologues here, but it really doesn’t matter what you believe if you can’t get elected.  Getting elected means getting the people in the middle to vote for you.  That takes pragmatism, not ideology.

        It’s precisely why you hear the language of marketing in that article.  Electoral politics is marketing.

        2. Not denying what you say, exactly, but there is this:

          People elect governments every two years, essentially, and of late The People have gotten disgusted and tended to vote out the incumbents, whoever they are. The People are increasingly not affiliated with either party, even though those parties are responsible for putting up the only candidates with a chance of winning (some exceptions, such as the CO gubernatorial race this year). The goal of party honchos is get elected, full stop.

          I can’t recall a product marketing campaign along the lines of, “Our product is more expensive and leaves your glasses not quite as shiny, but you ought to buy our brand anyway because it’s better for society at large.” There are exceptions, of course.

          Of course, politics is slightly different. Candidates go to DC, or Denver, and enact legislation based on — what? ideology? personal self-interest? — that were never highlighted in the marketing or even mentioined in the campaign. Sometimes the ideology is sophisticated, sometimes it’s simple-minded. And, more often, there is the issue of personal advancement, accomplished by voting the way you’re told to by the majority/minority leader.

          What is missing here are leadership and persuasion. What if a Senate candidate were to say, in effect, “We’ve got to change our habits. We’ve got to wean ourselves off driving everywhere. We’ve got to make it possible for one parent of each child to take off a decade to raise that child (children) without feeling the need for a second income to pay for the fancy house, etc. We have got to change, and I have some specific ideas on how to go about that.” Put another way: “Dear voter: your habits are leading to disaster; I’m going to change that.” Or, “Voter! Your understanding of economics is lacking; it isn’t like household finance.” Etc.

          I doubt whether any product marketing maven would suggest such an approach to the would-be customer base. Instead, marketing is based on the notion of, “See that person in the ad using our product? Looks like you are (or would like to see yourself), right? People who are just like you are are buying our products. Buy them and you’ll be like that too!”

          I don’t have a particular problem with that approach for products, partly because (environmental aspects aside) I don’t have, and I don’t think the society has, a stake in one brand of soap flakes versus another.

          Politics is different. Politics isn’t soap flakes. It is about ideology, like it or not, mentioned in the campaign or saved until later. The fact is that for at least 30-40 years, perhaps longer, the product approach to politics has resulted in one crisis after another ever-building, going unaddressed. The 30-second ad approach has resulted in a succession of legislatures/legislators unwilling even to address issues lest they be made to appear like soap flakes in an unattractive package (most glaring example that comes to mind: the U.S. Senate over the past two years on immigration and energy).

          AND this approach contains another deadly component: the ME virus. This product is good for ME and good for YOU, fuggedabout “them.” YOU exist as an individual person/family unit. The condition of THEM isn’t YOUR concern! Winos are weak–their fault if they’re addicted. Fuggedabout the fact that taxes on alcohol benefit everyone. Et cetera.

          Of course, we can bemoan this situation, but at the same time, the great majority of people have become passive, for the most part. Voter participation hovers around 50% in some places, some elections. People are wildly uninformed about issues and people–some can’t even name the president! Is democracy feasible in that environment? Has television done to participatory democracy what it did to stage dramas?  Should voting be made mandatory? AND at the same time, should citizens be required to pass some sort of quiz before voting?

          What seems crystal clear to me is this: Narrow interests, organized around economic goals (read: corporations seeking to maximize profits), have taken advantage of the situation with a view that government is one of several factors that need to be controlled in order to maximize profits, and that the way to accomplish this is to buy elections. That’s done either through contributions directly, or through purchasing advertising on behalf of candidates or pushing propositions (in effect, purchasing laws). Nowhere in this system does the long-term “greatest good for the greatest number” have a place. I think there is a strong sense of this among many people; I think the Tea Party movement is one manifestation of this sense; and I think interests such as the Koch Brothers have seen this and moved quickly to pre-empt it.

          Step One in changing the status quo: recognize it, describe it (put words to it–a critica, hugely important aspect, better recognized by the Republican Right than the Democratic Left) and then solicit specific suggestions to change it.

          1. You need to get more familiar with the electorate.  Especially the middle.  They don’t go to Central Committee meetings and argue about what’s right.  You meet them in the grocery store.

            I don’t know too many families who have a couple of kids, live in a starter home with a mortgage, where both parents are working just to keep their heads above water, who have the time, money, or resources to care about “Them.”  No matter how nice they are.

            Democrats used to own this demographic–regular working people.  Somehow, perhaps by pursuing ideology instead of pragmatism, it has gotten away from them.  Or maybe just the messaging has.

            In either case, you need their votes to win.

            1. First one; I don’t disagree with your description of a certain demographic. I think one key phrase was “both parents … working just to keep their heads above water.” Another aspect: value of family home is at, or below, balance on mortgage. May be that one or both parents has become unemployed, or fears becoming unemployed, or feels trapped in an unpleasant job, etc. Democrats appear to have lost touch with these people, for whom a reduction in taxes sounds like less money going out the door, period. Given the difficulties and sacrifices, such families may well look askance at politicians who seem to talk exclusively about the underclass–a group that the middle class you describe fears they may involuntarily join.

              Second, trends over the past three decades have resulted in a system in which 1% at the top has increased its share of both income and wealth and income enormously. A system in which the middle class you describe has stopped making forward progress and fears their children will be worse off. We have a system in which protecting profits comes way, way before looking out for the welfare of employees. We have a system in which minimizing payouts comes at the expense of financing medical care. (On the first two of these, see Robert Reich’s new book and multiple posts on this site.)

              Are any politicians addressing any of these points? If so, not very effectively. Ergo: throw out the incumbents, whoever they are.

              1. who needs a middle class when we can have a 3rd world style sefdom.  The top 1 % can own 99 % of US wealth through well placed political buyouts thereby rigging the system.

                Turns out we actually need a healthy and vibrant middle class to fuel demand, which I think is one of Reich’s main points in his new book.

                1. Fidel’s dirt nap mentions “…have a 3rd world style sefdom.”

                  Given what’s known about credit-card debt and/or underwater mortgages, I wonder how much of the seeming concern about the national debt and deficit spending is  sublimation (if that’s the word I want) of worries about personal/household debt. Cf. “debts for our children and grandchildren to pay.” Economists, or at least Keynesians, would explain the differences, defend deficit spending to stimulate demand, etc., but they’re not at the kitchen table at bill-paying time.

                  Okay, off to the grocery store to meet some middle class folks. In the dairy aisle? Produce section? Guess I’ll start at the meet counter.

                    1. The dominant role of fear in Republican campaign strategy for the past decade or more:

                      –terrorists

                      –deficits

                      –sharia in the courtroom

                      –others?

                      Any positive ideas or visions? I can’t think of any either. A major issue in understanding our national paralysis.

  5. Great unbiased source.

    “Keep your government hands off of my Medicare!”

    Only 7 months and 16 days to go until I can get on that terrible socialist gummint health care program.

      1. 3M Co. said it will soon stop offering its company health insurance plan to retirees, giving them a sum of money to shop and buy insurance on the open market instead.

        The Maplewood-based maker of Post-it Notes and Scotch Tape said it is making the change in response to the new health reform law.

        “Health care options in the market under the health care reform law became better,” said spokeswoman Jackie Berry, adding that taking retirees off the 3M group plan would save money for both 3M and retirees

        http://www.startribune.com/bus…

    2. and it’s hell, I tell you, sheer hell.  Waking up in the morning knowing that I am assured of health care regardless of my employment status.

      My wife has ten months to go, but I covered that with part of my severance package in my old employer plan.

      So we’re both assured of treatment if we get sick.  From the same provider, Kaiser Permanente, we’ve had for 38 years.

      Like I said, socialized medicine is a living hell.

      1. I had no idea how HORRIBLE this is. What kind of sick commie wants a system where you can’t be rejected by your insurance company? LB, Beej, Lib, I’m on YOUR side now!!!1! ВЎViva Tancredo!

          1. It’s much better if the free market throws you out on your ass than if the HCR, which prohibits what marilou says, does it, which it won’t… uh… SOCIALISM! LIBS! FOUR LEGS GOOD TWO LEGS BAD BETTER!!

                2. Not going to waste my time on a heritage blog.

                  If you are talking Medicare used for certain indigents under 65, there is a matter of qualifying, which sometimes can be subjective.

                  If you are talking Medicare Part B and D for those 65 and older, you do have to pay premiums, so if one doesn’t want to participate, one doesn’t have to.  But you are never kicked off if you pay your premiums (usually done through S.S. as a withholding.)

                  Medicare Part A, which pays for hospitalization, is an entitlement, and again, you can’t be kicked off because of lack of premium payment.  There is none.  This pays for 80% of hospital costs.

                  So, please stop those mind shrinking drugs.

                    1. You said Medicare kicks participants out.  Now you say they ration.

                      Some rationing by not being able to afford insurance. I, for one of 40 million, get rationed out because I don’t have coverage.

                      Some rationing is done by having some procedures covered and others not.

                      If you’ve not noticed, private insurers ration care, too.

                      And wouldn’t you be happy if Medicare was paying for face lifts and boob jobs?  No, they don’t, hence it’s rationing in the literal sense.

                      Say, you aren’t married or related to The Beejster, are you?  Totally illogical, denies well document facts, and changes the tune when challenged.  Twins?  

                    2. (and unfortunately for the rest of us) ignorance is infinite, so she will never be rationed for that.

                    3. You say “they don’t throw you out” just a couple of comments after you say they throw out more on their asses than any other health insurer. Get your talking points straight, and then explain why it’s okay for kids not to be insured.

        2. Why am I surprised.

          Kaiser can’t get rid of me, I can get rid of it.  It’s called a contract. It also won’t want to get rid of me, because Medicare covers those expensive treatments.  And, of course, I expect to end in a hospice, if I’m lucky and not sliced to ribbons by a Samarai sword-wielding JO enraged because I corrected another of his blunders.  It’s by far the best way to go out, rather than tied up to a bunch of painful and useless machines.  

          1. just watch – or better yet, talk to a medical malpractice attorney.  They sue Kaiser all the time. With tort reform in Colorado, those suits better be good because they are not lucrative.

            My friend’s relative is on Medicare in Kaiser.  She needs a feeding tube because of esophageal problems.  Kaiser wanted to pull the tube and send her to hospice to starve in relative comfort. The poor woman is not very old and insists she wants to live.  An attorney had to be called in to prevent Kaiser from “getting rid of her.”  

            BTW, if you’re on Medicare and in Kaiser, don’t ever expect any home health care.  While it is paid for through regular Medicare, it doesn’t happen for most Kaiser victims.  And don’t count on Medicare covering “all those expensive treatments.” You’ll get what Kaiser is willing to give.  When you let an HMO have you, you give the HMO your freedom. I cannot imagine why anyone who has to be on Medicare would compound the problem by choosing an HMO.  I have to assume that you do not understand Medicare and HMOs very well.

            Kaiser is a perfect example of totally socialized medicine – no way out for people unless they are rich and can go elsewhere.  Why do you think Canadian prime ministers come to the U.S. for their heart surgeries?

            Eventually, under Obamacare, the value of your life – your relative worth – will be calculated and that will determine how much gets spent on you.  That’s what death panels do.

            http://www.investors.com/NewsA…

            1. Kaiser gets paid for those treatments, by Medicaire, and has no incentive to stop them.  Both my in-laws had endless and very expensive end of life treatment by Kaiser.

               But you’re back with your death panel fantasties, urging me to throw myself on the mercy of United Health Care or some other mercenary.  

               No wonder you like the for profit insurance companies.  Anyone as stupid as you are qualifies as their lawful prey.  Oh, they’ll treat you until they have taken the last penny of your estate.  Then, they will boot you faster than you can say “death panel.”

            2. Marilou (idiotically) wrote:

              Kaiser is a perfect example of totally socialized medicine – no way out for people unless they are rich and can go elsewhere.  Why do you think Canadian prime ministers  come to the U.S….

              Um… Kaiser isn’t a gov’t entity; it’s a private entity, so:

              1) When you complain about Kaiser, you’re complaining about private insurance, not gov’t insurance. When you complain that Kaiser unfairly denies care, that’s not the conservative talking point against “Canadian”-style “socialized” medicine; you’re making the lefty talking point about private insurance unfairly denies care.

              2) When you note, “An attorney had to be called in to prevent Kaiser from ‘getting rid of her,'” you’re not blasting “Obamacare… death panels” — you’re saying, thank god plaintiff’s lawyers can sue to enforce federal regulations of private insurance companies that bar certain unfair practices!

              In your ignorance-addled stupor, you’ve stumbled across the ideological divide onto our side, bashing private insurance companies and praising plaintitfs’ lawyers who sue them.  Welcome aboard!

              What’s next, following marilou’s (brain-)death-bed conversion: H-Man and BJ come out in favor of cap-and-trade? Libertad supports ending the Bush tax cuts?

        3. He’s on Medicare; they can’t dump him.

          If he was younger and had a private plan, they could have dumped him (hey – I thought below you said they couldn’t because it was illegal…), but the healthcare reform law won’t let them do so now – no more rescissions.  See cartoon above (“No, that’s GREAT!”)

    2. Sometimes the guv’mit can write some pretty out-standing apps.

      I wish that instead of putting aside gobs of money for Electronic Medical Record in the Health Care Law, they just made VistA open-source code software, and gave it away for free thru Mozilla.  

      1. We just restarted some in home rehab for Mom, courtesy of Medicare.  It’s a contract company, of course.  Everything had to start from scratch, over two hours of intake with 95% of the information the same as it was last time.

        Granted, this reflects decisions made by this particular company, but I’m sure it’s far from unique in the field.  

  7. Original scoop at themudflats.net seems to be down, probably due to high traffic, but HuffPo has the story too. Apparently Alaska’s GOP nominee for the Senate, teabagger and Palin endorsee Joe Miller, failed to return the favor when he was asked who he liked for president in 2012, prompting this livid email from Todd:

    Joe and Tim,

    >

    >

    > Hold off on any letter for Joe. Sarah put her ass on the line for Joe

    > and yet he can’t answer a simple question ” is Sarah Palin Qualified

    > to be President”. I DON’T KNOW IF SHE IS.

    >

    > Joe, please explain how this endorsement stuff works, is it to be

    > completely one sided.

    >

    > Sarah spent all morning working on a Face book post for Joe, she won’t

    > use it, not now.

    >

    > Put yourself in her shoe’s Joe for one day.

    >

    > Todd

    > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

    Sounds like I was wrong when I speculated just yesterday that Sarah would remain in the better paying and less stressful world of the outside complainer and cheerleader for hard right causes. Should be entertaining to see how this plays out, as her complete ineptitude probably cost McCain as many votes as she attracted.

    HT to SLOG.

      1. Trying to figure out how to be independent while being the most dependent state in the union takes a lot of time, especially when you lack the English skills of a high school dropout.

    1. Because they could make the model work if they were willing to cut profit margins down a bit and be what they’re supposed to be – a low-profit service, not a high-profit entrepreneurship.

      This underscores the immorality of your position, marilou – you’d rather that children be uninsured than pay higher rates. Which of course is tied in to the irony of most anti-choicers like yourself – so concerned about a soulless zygote, but not a living and breathing child.

      2. all poor children have been covered for a long time under SCHIP.  A family can include children and be covered.  Employer group plans can include children.  What companies are terminating is policies on children only without covering the family.

        Profits?  You think your free prostate exam is free?  Insurance companies make 3 – 4% profit.  What’s wrong with that?

        1. … because their profit figures exclude the millions they pay in excessive CEO and other executive compensation. In corp-math, those count as expenses that decrease profits, when in reality they’re exactly the sort of excess we’re all complaining about.

          1. “In fact, data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that insurance companies spend at least 50% less on administration than government does on its health programs. (The Congressional Budget Office Reports: Comparing health care admin cost: who’s less costly?)”

            http://www.takebackmedicine.co…

            1. and then throw them off the rolls when they get really sick, my administrative expenses would be a lot less too.

              In fact, under your definition, if I just deny every single claim that comes my way, I’m all good.

              Nothing really to administer, plus 100 percent efficiency ! What a wonderful system !

              “take back” your meds.  You need them today.

              1. it has been illegal since 1997 to throw someone off insurance because they get sick.

                Remember, Medicare, the socialized system for seniors, denies more claims than any other insurance provider.

                1. ” it has been illegal since 1997 to throw someone off insurance because they get sick ”

                  Show me the relevant law, or just shut the fuck up.

                  ” Remember, Medicare, the socializes system for seniors, denies more claims than any other insurance provider ”

                  Really ?  You have ANY proof of that, whatsoever ?  

                    1. Do you EVER consider the source of your information ?  

                      Insurance industry says they never drop the sick because its illegal, so therefore it never happens. Marilou is satisfied. No need to further research.

                      Do you even know what the fuck recission is ?  Here let me help you:

                      Definition:

                      Health insurance companies, in an effort to contain costs, may decide to drop coverage for an insured patient whose care is more expensive than they want to pay. That is called health insurance policy rescission.

                      I mean Kaiser was bad enough, but the Heritage Foundation ?  You think they might have a vested interest in what kind of (dis)information they put out to protect the industries that writes their checks ? Are you really that gullible ?

                      If it is illegal, why isn’t every officeholder of every major us health insurer in jail.

                      Hmmm ?

                      Hmmm ?

                    2. do you have any idea how often rescission occurs, and why?  Go the fuck find out you idiot.  You libs won’t be happy until you confiscate everything.  Then, who will pay your bills?

                       

                    3. I pay all my bills just fine, including private health insurance for 4 people.

                      Yes, we libs are out to confiscate everything.  

                      Paranoia is one of the hallmarks of low information, fearful, excitable people.

            2. I’ll keep this simple and brief.

              Private insurers use 25-35% of your premium money for sales, underwriting, to turn down procedures you need, lawyers, lobbyists, and mega-million dollar CEO salaries.

              Medicare spends 3% of service for…….boring $200K top level bureaucrats. And, BTW, the claims and payments for Medicare is done by private enterprise, TRW, IIRC.

              1. “In fact, data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that insurance companies spend at least 50% less on administration than government does on its health programs. (The Congressional Budget Office Reports: Comparing health care admin cost: who’s less costly?)”

                Read the article.

                1. It is some carefully worded statement by a non-objective person cherry picking some data.  I don’t need to look because I’ve learned how the conservapubs manipulate facts to their desires.

                  And that doesn’t even touch on Making Shit Up. A.k.a., lies.  (See: Goebbels.)

                  What I told you is true. It’s been well known, well documented for decades.

                  You may choose to believe your alien overlords as I’m sure you will.  

                  1. The supposed CBO document they reference is

                    Comparing_HealthCare_Admin_Costs.pdf – which is not a CBO document. Rather, it is a a 2 page document from the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, which lobbies for the insurance industry.

                    So pr is right- marilou has no source.

                    1. My father used to work in the industry, and his firm processed Medicare/Medicaid for about 5 states’ worth of claims.  Claims processing is an “overhead” cost (not very lucrative) and is included in the 3% figure.

        2. … is that health care shouldn’t be an insurance item at all.

          Think about what insurance is for – protecting material goods from damage or loss. Your house, your car, even your earnings potential (life insurance isn’t about insuring your life, after all). All quantifiable items that insurance works great for protecting.

          But your health? That’s something to which you can’t affix a dollar value. The insurance model is all wrong for health care, which is why it should have been completely overhauled and replaced. It belongs under a collective system by and for all Americans, not just those who can pay.

          Well, we didn’t get that thanks to the influence of insurance companies who do well under the current system, not to mention a bunch of free market blowhards who think absolutely everything ought to be controlled by companies that are accountable to their shareholders rather than a government accountable to its citizens. At the very least the insurance companies can’t go around throwing sick and hurt people off their plans so they can suffer and rot and not be a drain on their bottom lines.

          And here you are, marilou, saying kids can just get on SCHIP – the program your party (except a few ‘pubs who probably faced tough re-election bids) opposed expanding and which you probably want to eliminate bubeen jacking up for decades, health caret won’t say so in this instance. All so they won’t raise your rates, which they’ve  reform or no. And you don’t have a problem with that, but you blame the law that says insurance companies now have to honor their policies because you think those huge executive bonuses are justified.

          You and your allies have screwed up priorities.

          1. Insurance is to protect against unexpected,  catastrophic events.  It is not only to protect material items.  If you want to take care of everyone, then you are proposing health management.  There is a difference.  

            Quite frankly, I am not a collectivist and I don’t want intrusion in my business unless I have a catastrophic event.

            You and your allies need to pay your own bills and stay out of my business.  

            1. Most of us aren’t.  You good for that?

              You have a bidness???????

              “Unless I have a catastrophic event.”  Oh, NOW THE GUMMINT CAN PICK UP THE TAB.

              Which I have no problem with within a single payer system.  

            2. You’ve revealed too much truth about yourself today, marilou.

              Quite frankly, I am not a collectivist and I don’t want intrusion in my business unless I have a catastrophic event. —marilou

              This is something I’ve always suspected about you “rugged individualists.” You’re ready to “go it alone,” as long as things are going well. But as soon as you encounter difficulties, then you are all over collectivism.

              Privatize profits. Socialize costs.

              Spoken like a true American Patriot, marilou.

            3. Insurance is meant to protect against unexpected, catastrophic events. How does a regular checkup fit into that? Or a mild but irritating illness, like a persistent cough? Or the need to pay for prescription drugs when I have such an illness?

              When health insurance was first invented, it was intended for unexpected, catastrophic events (that is, serious illnesses and injuries requiring hospital stays). But a funny thing happened in the intervening decades: medical care greatly improved, and the number of effective drugs greatly expanded, and the notion that regular checkups help keep a person healthy took hold. All this meant that people were paying a lot more for health care, and of course those costs continue to increase at rates far exceeding the regular rate of inflation. So the paradigm shifted.

              Do I make an insurance claim (minus a copay) when I change my car’s oil? Or paint a bedroom? No. But that’s the situation we have with healthcare today. The insurance model is no longer correct.

              You should think about this deeper. You’ll realized that I’m speaking the truth, and you can start thinking of solutions rather than getting defensive and showing how little you care for everyone.

              1. this is good and we have lots to talk about, but not tonight.  I promise you, I will lay out a cogent plan and then you can tell mere where my logic fails.  But not tonight.  I’m too tired. 🙂  Deal?

                  2. While I hate to ever agree with a Pols liberal, you are hitting the nail on the head when you talk about regular checkups not fitting into the “insurance” model.  That’s why oil changes aren’t a normal part of auto insurance, and why window washes aren’t a routine part of home insurance.

                    The insurance model we have is indeed not correct.

                    How about you spend the first, say, $5,000 and then share with your insurance up to, say, $10,000 out of pocket.  How about you get the insurance company out of considering every little claim, and you spend from your HSA spending account as you choose?  

                    How about consumers knowing the price of things?  If they did, and if insurance companies didn’t get preferential prices, people could start shopping and spending like they had good sense.

                    Think what competition has done for Lasik and plastic surgery. Government and insurance companies aren’t generally involved in either of those markets.  Quality has improved and prices have fallen.  I can remember when Lasik was $2,500/eye.

                    How about we let people decide what oil changes and lube jobs they want, and then pay for them out of their own accounts?  

                    How about you provide similar arrangements for those who are, unfortunately, already on government health control?  

                    How about incentives for smart spending?  How about balances being carried forward to apply to future cost sharing or a higher deductible policy?  How about a retirement account incentive?

                    Instead of freeing up the health care market and making it competitive, Obamacontrol seeks to control every intimate aspect of our health.  Did you know Obamacontrol even proposes standardizing recipes in eating establishments? (Sec. 4205)

                    So, Ari, how about a free market (with conditions) instead of Obamacontrol?

                    P.S. There were exactly 60 votes for that Obamacontrol monstrosity.  Our own Mikey Bennet could have stopped it.  He didn’t, and now he will lose his job.

                    1. Because I think it would be great to have many of the things you list here.

                      Unfortunately, things are too far gone now. Health care costs have gone way up for reasons that aren’t easy to discern. Sure, some of it’s just good old fashioned technological advances, which aren’t cheap. Some of it is likely due to the true costs being well hidden from consumers, so doctors, hospitals, drug companies, drug stores, and insurance companies all playing the game to their maximum advantage. Some of it has to do with the fact that we won’t just give up and die rather than pay (or rather, have insurance or government pay) tens or hundreds of thousands to put off the inevitable for another three months. (Not saying we should, BTW, but end-of-life care account for a huge share of insurance payouts.

                      To a large extent, this mess is the creation of the free market. Employers started giving medical insurance as a benefit back when they had to compete for workers; now no one who has the choice would work for a company that pays little or none over the one that is generous in that area. As noted above, the various other players are being good capitalists and vying for their share of the pie. Perhaps most insidious of all, Big Pharma has realized that they make more money from drugs that merely treat diseases rather than cure them, perverting the original intentions of the medical field as a whole.

                      This is why the free market, as of this time, can’t be the ones to seek the solution. There’s no incentive to change things.

                      So what can we do? I’m not nearly enough of a wonk to be able to sort out the best solutions from the other things that were proposed but didn’t make it to the floor. Single payer sounded good to me; nationalizing health care sounded even better. There were other solutions being talked about but the details lost me. And I’m sure all these solutions had their own set of problems to go with them.

                      The final compromised bill was far from satisfactory; I agreed with conservative critics who said it was a giveaway to the insurance companies. But I supported it because the provisions that keep insurance companies from purging sick individuals from their rolls, where they would then be unable to find insurance from another company, HAD to become law. In short, if this bill was the only way the worst abuses were going to be ended, then I support it all the way.

                      I don’t know what the long term solution will be. I really don’t believe this bill will achieve many other important goals such as getting health care costs under control. I don’t believe the scare talk that suddenly everyone is going to be denied procedures because of rations or you won’t be able to exercise your choice of doctors (any more than the insurance companies already do). I don’t know if it will help small businesses be able to provide insurance for their employees. But I do believe that a real overhaul – a revolution, if you will – is required. The whole model has to be razed and rebuilt. I don’t know what the new model should look like, but I don’t think any entity but the federal government will be capable of accomplishing it. I certainly don’t believe the free market has any desire to do it.

                    2. No, this mess is not the result of the free market. It is the result of market disruption caused by wage and price controls. Business found a different way to compensate.

                      A huge incentive to change things would happen if people were shopping, comparing prices and spending their own money. You sound defeated and you should not be.

                      You want socialized medicine? You want your prostate exams at the post office? That’s what you should anticipate.

                      This 2,700-page bill was an absolute giveaway to the insurance companies. They have contributed heavily to Mikey Bennet.  Just look at the insurance PACs that love Bennet:  http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-b…

                      Can you imagine how the insurance companies would scream if we got them out of the oil changes and lube jobs? The abuses you mention could all be stopped by a simple bill of just a few pages. If people were paying their bills from their own accounts, there would be no insurance “networks” and there would be freedom. Are you aware that, right now, Medicare recipients cannot see doctors who are not government-sanctioned unless they are wealthy enough to pay for it themselves? That’s how your socialized medicine dream would play out.

                      I outlined a solution for you that would enhance quality and decrease costs.  Go back and study it before you get too willing to hand your freedom over to a government that neither cares about you nor has any competency to manage your life.

                    3. is that I trust government just a little bit more than I trust big business, because government is, at least on paper, more accountable to me.

                      That’s fine.

                      If we’re going to be honest with one another, we’ll have to admit that this mess has plenty of blame to spread around. I’m sure liberal policies have their hand in this. But I damn well know that the profit motive does, too, and the profit motive doesn’t give a shit about my health, just how much money it can separate from me.

                      I’m sorry if “defeated” is how I come across. I’ve had a rough day (death in the family), so maybe that played a role in it. Honestly, I’m an optimist and believe that we can come to a better solution than what’s been presented to us.

                      However, I am skeptical of market solutions for one reason – I don’t believe most of our captains of industry, regardless of their field, really believe in the free market either. Government has always had a big hand in economics, regardless of the system or the historic period you analyze.

                      More on this later – baby just woke up. Gotta go.

                    4. My condolences to you for the death in your family.

                      Government and insurance companies have no function in the Lasik markets, other than for government to require some level of competence and quality with the doctor. Technological advances in that market have een impressive, and prices have plummeted.

                      By contrast, look at what the cost of Medicare has done over the years.  Do you realize the federal government now spends $12,000 on every Medicare recipient, and the recipient of this socialized medicine spends another $3,500 – $7,500?  

                      Ari, socialism is not inexpensive because government is not efficient.

                      The profit motive is golden because it means increased quality and decreased cost.  We have beautiful examples of it if you would just look.  

    2. …because now I can go to a private podiatrist for my crushed feet. Before this law passed, my private health insurance routinely denied any coverage for my “pre-existing condition covered by other available resources.”

      I’d go to the VA hospital in Denver for this, but compared to the slew of OIF and OEF vets with real serious polytrauma and IED flash burns needing immediate care, my whiney-butt self deserves to be moved to the back of the line….

        2. I paid for my medical care in blood and tears. I buried too many friends, and watch too many politicians and pundits take credit for my toil.

          I’m truly sorry you think that taking care of us who were willing give our lives for our country is such a horrible burden on your tax bill.

          I know MOTR and Gray asked for some profanity-free commentary for a while, but in light of this comment, I’ll pull back and kindly invite you to kiss my ass until it’s white as a soda cracker.

          1. of your sacrifice, SSG_Dan, and I am sorry you have not been cared for adequately in the VA system.  By your own admission, the Denver VA is swamped with more serious conditions.

            We cannot ever expect government to adequately provide health care.  Are you aware of the $60 billion in annual Medicare fraud and waste?   Unfortunately, veterans are too often the victims of a terrible system.  We have all heard the horror stories.

            Show me your butt and I’ll be happy to kiss it.

      2. As a combat related injury, you should definitely be eligible for VA care, and fairly high priority.  The issues you mention are vital for other men, of course, but since VA does have podiatrists, they can hardly be switched to the burn unit.

           God knows, you earned your benefits.  And use them soon.  We need your feet fixed so you can go back to kicking marilou’s veteran-hating butt;-)  

        1. …yes, I can go to the Denver VA tomorrow, and within 6 weeks probably get a date for surgery. This will be for the hat trick on my left foot, and will involve me being laid up and sorry for about 6 weeks, since it will involved putting in more metal and screws than what Wolverine has in his hands.

          But a LOT of IED injuries are inflicted on the lower extremities, esp those guys in under-armored Hummers cruising around with RINO units attached to the front. Shrapel flying thru feet and lower legs needs some serious work.

          They need to be in the front of the line, and I’m more than willing to use that as an excuse to prevent having my feet hacked up and put back together again.

          The point was this – prior to last month, if I wanted to use my painfully expensive health care plan to go to a private doc, my insurer would say “Look preexisting condition! Sorry, but we’re gonna have to deny it AND cancel your coverage! Bu-bye now!”

  9. From xkcd:

    Well, ColoradoPols doesn’t (yet?) rate it’s own demarcated territory, but as you can see on the west shores of the Sea of Opinions, the larger peninsula on the north shore of the Bay of Flame is home of the Liberal Blogs.

    Can you find your way home?

    2. Best trivia I learned while working on this: “Man, Farmville is so huge! Do you realize it’s the second-biggest browser-based social-networking-centered farming game in the WORLD? Then you wait for the listener to do a double-take.”

  10. With new polling in West Virginia, the Senate is now evenly divided in Rasmussen’s projection: 48 Dem, 48 Repub, 4 toss up. The four to watch are now California, Washington, Nevada, and Illinois. Unfortunately if they are split, Dems retain control due to the VP, unless of course Lieberman flips.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.co…

    politicselections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/election_2010_senate_balance_of_power

  11. waving a Bennet sign out of your car and yelling “you’re ignorant! you’re ignorant!” at people is probably not a good campaign strategy.

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

40 readers online now

Newsletter

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