U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(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) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
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 20, 2014 06:23 AM UTC
115 Comments
Everything?
Uh… what about alcohol, and marijuana. Is Joshi stupid or was he just looking for an excuse.
Somebody wants to get some tobacco lobby money?
I think stupid works.
The argument used to be at 18 they were old enough to go die for their country so they ought to be able to do ________ . Our policy on tobacco should be an outright ban and certainly not to subsidize the growning of tobacco. A reasonable first step would be to raise the age to 21.
This, like the legalization of drugs, is not really a partisan issue. Seems to me it is about drawing the line for permitting self-destructive behaviors that impose an external cost on society as a whole. I may have libertarian instincts, but they have exceptions both internally and on foreign policy matters. I find Ron Paul a bit of a bridge too far.
…add The True Cost of Coal and regulating methane emissions to that list, please.
Michael, both Coal and Methane gas impose external costs. If we stop using either they still get produced, used elsewhere and we still pay the cost. Drawing the line where you draw it is not wrong, just not where I would draw it. If not using either really solved the problem, I might draw it differently, but as I see it sending the coal to burn in China and India still creates the cost to the environment, it just takes longer to get here.
Andrew – I have a hunch the boys harvesting whales for oil before the advent of kerosene said the same thing. Ditto for the farmers who thought tractors were a passing fad a century ago. We don't actually need coal at all anymore (and I'd suggest we find a way to make our coal industry whole and transition away from using dinosaur poop and pre-historic plant matter for our 21st century economy). Natural gas will be used to accelerate the short-term transition; it's a bridge – and a reasonable one only if it's extraction is done properly. Here's a great proposal for where we could start – it makes tremendous economic sense. Like the buggy whip makers of Henry Ford's day – this transtion, too, will be met with violent opposition.
I am skeptical about the numbers, but if they were as represented, it would make sense.
My problem with the we will not burn it here but you can mine it and ship it there to be burned approach, is you still create the pollution and actually probably more when you add in transportation. If there was a reasonable cost effective solution that took it out of the chain of commerce and there were currently available reasonable alternatives, it might make sense.
That's why I'm convinced that we need to find a "buy out" solution. Make the owners/shareholders whole, protect the pensions of the life-long miners who have sacrificed their health to work in the mines (I'm not dismissing coal's role in building our economy – but we simply don't need it anymore).
Think of it this way: We (USA) is the parent. (I realize this is a stretch given the make-up of Congress). China and Asia are the kids. We have a cabinet full of resources that we know are bad for them. We aren't going to be irresponsible parents; we know the consumption of the products is detrimental to their future health (and societal costs). Like a loving parent, our choice is to destroy, rather than consume, them. We are the world's largest economy – we set the pace. We can say "no". It's all about political will.
Some of the costs that need to be covered are the mineral property rights that are affected. It would seem by making it illegal to extract coal you have an unlawful taking that needs to be compensated, and I don't know if those were factored in the numbers and if not what those numbers may be.
A good share of the coal is on federal land. That one should be easy (I say that tongue and cheek, given it would take an act of Congress to stop the leasing). The balance of the reserves would be easy to prove (and then pay for under some construed matrix). The execs (more importantly their shareholders) are smart enough to know that a bird in hand….) While arguably the resistance to coal was almost exclusively environmental in the beginning – today, it's increasingly about geology, physics and economics.
A Cowardly troll knows not what he bleats about. Gee, who ever saw that coming. Not subsidizing coal extraction (primarily federal–public–minerals being leased below market currently on the backs of the US taxpayers), coal transport (look up railroad grants and subsidies, talk about some socialism! hoo boy, thanks 'honest' abe!) , coal export, and coal power generation that then results in a business decision to leave coal in the ground in not a 'takings' even in the case of private minerals. Its the wonderful all-knowing Free Market, Adam's invisible finger flipping off the 19th century.
The end result for foreign buyers will be the same. Cost will factor in for them. Coal is becoming a dinosaur.
That was corny, but it is past time to move on. There is still money to be made. Otherwise, I can find a buggy whip factory to sell you.
However, you are making cogent points. I knew you could.
then…don't do that.
What a concept, Duke!
I'm pretty much with you on this point, AC,, with the minor caveat that we don't really subsidie growing tobacco. (We use an allotment system, which limits production of tobacco, ergo keeping the price up. A bit different from the outright subsidy we used to give for wheat, etc.)
V, Apparantly we are still subsidizing them through crop insurance subsidies. http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2013/05/tobacco-subsidies-are-smoking-gun
The fully burdened costs of tobacco to society writ large is $193 billion; , coal comes in at $345 billion. The two industries extract a collective toll on our economy of over one-half trillion dollars.
And yet, we continue to subsidize their existence. My grandmother often said, "None of us can be as dumb as all of us"
Not really, AC. Read my longer piece below. The left never gets this right, partly out of genuine ignorance (expenditures do show up as line items in the budget, but this ignores the fact that the revenue for them, by a law passed in 1982, comes mostly from growers themselves. I suspect the few on the left who actually understand how the system works keep quiet because they won't give up the moral high ground of denouncing subsidies. A similar program operates in wheat. I currently am being asked to authorize 2 cents on every bushel of wheat I sell to promote Colorado wheat. If the referendum passes, the money will show up as a line item expenditure for the state, but the actual price will be paid by producers.
It is true, as I note in the article, that taxpayers do subsidize tobacco by $16 million in administrative costs and $26 million in crop insurance, as you note, but these figures are tiny compared tothe ones usually reported, which reflect the flow-through of industry payments back to growers.
The effect of the allotment program as well as the largely self-financed target price system is to maintain raw tobacco prices higher than the free market would provide. Given that tobacco is a deadly poison, it's probably a good thing to keep the price a bit higher. But actually, the massive taxes on the finished product are much more responsible for decline in smoking than the modest increases in wholesale price caused by the allotment program.
Note, by the way, that when target price subsidies are actually paid on commodities such as wheat or tobacco, they have the effect of lowering the market price and encouraging more sales. That's because if the price of wheat at the market is $4 a bushel and the government target price is $5, the government gives the farmer the extra $1. Because the tobacco subsidy, with the minor exceptions noted above, is financed by the growers themselves, it has the more minor effect of averaging out the prices. It's the allotment system itself which keeps those average prices so high.
I don't mean to quibble, but that's what happens when you give an old wheat farmer like me an MS degree in economics.
V, Thanks for the education.
Who are you? And what have you done with
Hmanthe other AC?…coupled with that fine, Phillips County Public Schools education! (although inferior when compared to Yuma County!)
The only thing inferior about the phillips County Public Schools was our football team. I still remember tackling Bernie McCall at a goal line stand in Yuma. It was like running into a tree. I held on long enough for two other guys to help bring him down. The next play he paid me the compliment of scoring — on the other side of the line.
Ahh, the life of a defensive tackle.
I have a similar story that involved a basketball game in Haxtun in 1975 (I was the 6'3" center) and their center seemed to be about 7'3" and 300 pounds (and could run like a jack rabbit). His name escapes me…the experience has not.
Sports can teach you humility.
Same time line, mid 70's, I decided to become a kicker on the football team in college, never having played the game in high school, just doing kick offs. I was never short of self-contidence. I was pretty good at kicking a football for 50-60 yards so I beat out everybody else.
Second game of the season I kick off and the returner gets by everybody else. That wasn't supposed to happen. So now what do I do? I do what I have seen done on TV, I angle him to the sideline and I knock the guy out of bounds. The returner was a freshman 6', 215 lbs with a full head of steam.
The guy I knock out of bounds ends up playing in the NFL for five years, two as the blocking back for Franco Harris on the Steelers and wins two super bowls. I end up kind of dizzy.
Moral of the story, learn how to tackle before you have to.
I've thought for a long time there should be one age of majority for everything. Debate what age would be best, but pick one.
+18
I think we should keep the draft but raise the age for selective serviuce to 65. The old men get us into the wars, let them fight them!
Do I get to keep my number? It was in the 300's.
I thought that was your IQ
Good idea and while we're at it we should pick an age under which people aren't tried as adults and stick with it. It makes no sense to have a system that says you're too young to be tried as an adult because you're too young to take full responsibility unless you do something really serious. Then you're apparently old enough to know better and be tried as an adult. There should be an alternative to either letting a dangerous child off easy and endangering the community or trying the child as an adult. Children aren't adults regardless of what they do.
The flexible definition of adult makes me crazy. At 16 you can pilot a 2000 pound machine, unsupervised. At 18 you can be drafted, marry and be held responsible for debt. but not until 21 can you indulge in intoxicating substances. The one I really can't stand is that kids as young as 14 can be tried for serious crimes AS ADULTS. If a person can't be trusted to drive, marry or drink because their brain isn't mature, how on Earth can they be held responsble for what was probably a completely impulsive act that resulted in a death? I'm tired of the deck being stacked against rights and toward responsibility where young people are concerned.
The above is wonderful!!! A discussion on the issues between A/C and others here. Put a smile on my face.
Almost scary, no?
It's amazing to watch a troll turn in to a thinking correspondent. It's too much to hope for the same from Fladen.
It's not fair to label either AC or Fladen a troll, Daft One. They can be monumental pains in the ass — when they disagree with me
But even you have been guilty of that from time to time. Yeah, they have their themes but I've had very substantive talks with both of them. I just wish I could figure out how to Stop Elliot from citing that dumbshit case that he somehow thinks trumps Roe v. Wade.
+1
Obamacare Facts:
By Rick Unger in Forbes.com
Implementation of the Affordable Care Act:
According to Forbes there are less people insured now than there were when the law was passed. What does on track to mean? Using what numbers?
Link please?
Googling found links to a couple of ACA related Forbes articles, both of which complained about various things but neither made thi particular claim. I found a Gallop poll that showed a slight increase from the 2009 percentage of uninsured but it isn't clear from this poll how much the percentage might have gone up since 2009 and whether or not those numbers are now coming down. Since it's based on a poll and not any data base I don't know how close to accurate it might be anyway. Certainly I could have missed some other Forbes article but the ones that popped up for me were just the same old rightie complaints.
Of course, TP-ers don't like this legislation – they were really hoping to promote another recall election, screw up another mail ballot election. Marilyn Marks must be gnashing her teeth and sending out the flying monkeys right about now.
The Forbes article"Real Numbers on the Obamacare Effect are in Now – Let the Crow Eating Begin," by Rick Unger was linked as "Obamacare Facts" in my comment above. Here's the full link:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/03/10/the-real-numbers-on-the-obamacare-effect-are-in-now-let-the-crow-eating-begin/
Well that's interesting, especially from Forbes.
The author is the "token lefty" for Forbes. He wrote a couple of good pieces on Grand Junction's health care set up, maybe a year or so ago.
Ok, now it makes sense that it makes senses.
scrarch the last s.
Oh brioher and make that scratch. Very distracted today.
Wow, Make that brother and I hope I'm not having a stroke or something.
4.7 million had their plans cancelled. That will be about the amount of people who sign up by the end of March, not the number that pay for and get insurance, which will be much less.
"Of the Obamacare sign-ups, only 27 percent had been previously uninsured in 2013. And of the 27 percent, nearly half had yet to pay a premium. (By contrast, among the 73 percent who had been previously insured, 86 percent had paid.)"
"Put all those percentages together, and you get two key stats. Only 19 percent of those who have paid a premium were previously uninsured. Among those that the administration is touting as sign-ups, only 14 percent are previously uninsured enrollees: approximately 472,000 people as of February 1."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/03/08/mckinsey-only-14-of-obamacare-exchange-sign-ups-are-previously-uninsured-enrollees/
Thank you.
Less?
I am sure you meant fewer.
Grammar Moron.
Thanks for saving me the trouble, Dave.
So you're saying that Forbes cherry-picked a date back during the height of the recession, when people were still on their COBRA benefits after having been laid off, and they're blaming Obamacare?
PR Cobra is a continuation of private insurance so it would be counted as insured.
Yes, it would. Hence my point. This graph pretty much says that Forbes is lying through its teeth – that the ACA has not in fact resulted in higher numbers of uninsured.
Unless, that is, you pick a time when lots of people had coverage – like, the beginning of the recession in Q1 2009 when people still had COBRA to make up for their recent loss of insurance through employment.
PR, Here are the numbers going back before 2009. The historical rate has been around 14-15%. We are now at 15.9%.
I'm going to break a personal policy and reply directly to you, AC. Did you or did you not see the giant letters at the top of the wikipedia site you linked to which said:
This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (July 2013)
Are you or are you not cognizant of the fact that uninsured rates rose, because of the sequester bargains your Republican cohorts bargained for, until Obamacare signups began October 1,2013, so that any article on sign ups would be inaccurate?
Of course, you know those facts. You just choose not to use them because you prefer to deceive, prevaricate, and distort reality to serve your own political agenda.
For anyone who can handle the truth, I recommend ACAsignups.net, run by the aforementioned Charles Gaba, whose job it is to manage and disseminate the real-time ACA signup data.
MJ, I posted a graph with the new info. Someone suggested that the starting point in 2009 was cherry picked, so I posted a graph the goes back to the 80's through 2008. I know the info is dated.
Yes and that graph shows that the number of unisured went up a lot since 2009 until ACA kicked in and has now quickly come back down. Thanks for the graph disproving your point.
Personally, I'm enjoying this one today.
Scott Brown, while courting a Republican NH state rep in the rep's home calls Obamacare a monstrostiy. Hilarity ensues…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/19/scott-brown-obamacare_n_4995671.html
Yeah, but for every million Obamacare success stories, AC can come up with at least one trumped up phony baloney failure which negates everything you say!
…and he's apparently suffering from dyslexia. I don't think he understands that a falling line on a graph that represents "uninsured" is a good thing.
I think you give him too much credit. The condition he suffers from is called …"Stoopid"…(note the capital "S").
I see it's just as I thought. Yes it does show a slightly higher percent than in 2009, the year with which the comparison was made in the Gallup poll article I saw, but in between 2009 and part way through 2013 it sure looks like the rate rose pretty sharply and that it's come down very significantly since ACA sign up opened. Also, it's a poll based on self reporting with a margin of error, probably well within the neighborhood of reflecting reality but not as much as stats from a concrete data base. Even so it shows ACA success rather failure in decreasing the percentage of uninsured.
This is why righties hate providing links to anything other than wacko rightie sites as sources. They know that what you find when you click on links to more legit sources isn't going to be what they want you to see. They want you to just accept things on their say so, like all those forwarded e-mails from all those wacko rightie relatives.
Michael, The line should fall during the sign up period and then go back up if it works as I project. Others will lose insurance after April 1st when group plans get cancelled and employers drop coverage and when the prices go up because of adverse selection, the rates assumed about 40% would be the young and health, but the experience is about 25%, people will not be able to afford the newly priced policies.
Colorado Needs a Recall Election Fix
Op Ed in yesterday's Denver Post, by Pueblo County Clerk Gilbert "Bo" Ortiz – great summary for this important legislation.
This is just great news. As I posted earlier: Congratulations to the Democrats!
The Colorado constituion conflicts with a piece of legislation so the answer is another piece of legislation? I understood that Constitutions need to amended through a process that is different than a piece of legislation. Silly me.
Silly you indeed. Its spelled ammmended, but we already went through that.
I guess I'm the one that's confused. We frequently end up with statutes that either conflict with the state constitution or end up being interpreted in ways not anticipated because of the state constitution once the courts take a look at them. Often the result is that we change the statute to either better conform or better meet the intent of the original. How is this notion novel?
It isn't a novel notion. Happens all the time.
Article IX, section 7.
Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian society, or for any sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatsoever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money or other personal property, ever be made by the state, or any such public corporation to any church, or for any sectarian purpose.
It sounds cold to say this, but a cancer on our society has been excised…
May God have mercy on his soul.
Fred Phelps — the founding pastor of a Kansas church known for its virulently anti-gay protests at public events, including military funerals — has died, the church said Thursday.
The 84-year-old died Wednesday, according to the church's statement.
Phelps founded Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, in 1955 and molded it in his fire-and-brimstone image. Many members of the small congregation are related to Phelps through blood or marriage.
According to the church's website, it has picketed more than 53,000 events, ranging from Lady Gaga concerts to funerals for slain U.S. soldiers. Typically, a dozen or so church members — including small children — will brandish signs that say "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."
Under Phelps' leadership, Westboro members have preached that every calamity, from natural disasters to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, is God's punishment for the country's acceptance of homosexuality. Phelps had advocated for gays and lesbians to be put to death.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/us/westboro-church-founder-dead/index.html
He has a minor replacement.
"Susanne Atanus, who believes gay rights cause tornadoes and autism is a punishment from God, wins Illinois primary"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/susanne-atanus-who-believes-gay-rights-cause-tornadoes-and-autism-is-a-punishment-from-god-wins-illinois-republican-primary-9204598.html
Whoa…what a scary looking woman. And the shit she says is even scarier.
Uh, thanks, Duke – your reply reminded me – I just can't get past her last name . . .
I have one better: Billy Graham's daughter thinks she's solved the mystery of Flight 370: it's a glimpse of what Christians will experience in the Rapture. Apparently God is sacrificing a plane load of Taoists and Islamists to show those God-fearing Christians what's coming if they don't stop legalizing gay marriage and weed. And sending her Daddy money.
And we'd be willing to give any one of them the code to "the bomb"??
Idiots.
I like what George Takei had to say, forwarded from Jarred and Dave's FB page:
You really gotta love George Takei.
George, you're a better far person than I am.
a better far person? That was funny.
I guess BC is like me, AC. Most people figure the further I am from them, the better they like it
OK You got me. Far better person, OK?
I'll go with:
Cheney's should be a gas.
My reaction to Cheney or Phelps' passing would be "relief".
Sorry about the loss of your relative, BC.
Thanks.
If anyonein the world has cause to hate that man, it would be Judy Shepherd. Here's what she had to say "Regarding the passing of Fred Phelps, [husband] Dennis and I know how solemn these moments are for anyone who loses a loved one," Shepard said. "Out of respect for all people and our desire to erase hate, we’ve decided not to comment further."
Picked up on LBGTQNation
"any one in"
I'm glad the evil, poisonous, hate-mongering old bastard is dead and don't mind saying so without apology. As it happens my Aunt died a day and a half ago after a long cruel illness.
Everybody who knew her says the same thing: If there was a more completely good person on the planet none of us ever met that person. She never had a mean word to say about anybody and nobody ever had a mean word to say about her. And this in a family where conflicts have never been exactly unknown.
And I don't mean good in the sense of being pious but in being a completely generous hearted warm, sunny, kind, endlessly patient person with a great laugh and a serenity that communicated itself so that when you were with her, all was right with the world. She was also absolutely honorable in every way, strong, loyal, dependable, smart, accomplished, level headed.
I always thought of her as the polar opposite of the stereotypical neurotic Jewish mom. Not a neurotic bone in her body, always completely comfortable in her own skin and why not? She could always look in the mirror and see a person who did the right thing, the kind thing, the loving thing. Even so I'm sure she it never occurred to her to think of herself as anything like the as perfect as humanly possible person the rest of us saw her as.
So I'm glad that horrible old man has left the world, too. The loss of that completely worthless turd helps make up, albeit in a very small way, for the loss of my aunt in keeping the balance between good and evil here on earth.
I didn't know this until I read an article after his death, but Phelps was a Dem. Seems the media generally omits this because it plays against their go to story line.
We all know the story of pre-civil rights, pre-southern strategy southern Dems, conservatives who left the party decades ago when the GOP decided to expand into the south via racism. Just like we all know that the reforming, progressive GOP of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Eisenhower bears no resemblance to today's GOTP. You really may as well give that tired old tactic of pointing to what the party's were up to in the distant past to make any kind of point.What counts is what they stand for now. Yeah, I've decided that responding to you once in while is OK.
To the Powers that Be: you might want to update the Big Line on CD4; I believe Frank McNulty has decided not to go after that seat.
Cory must have offered him a job after he is elected. Frank normally follows the path of least resistance.
And if he's not elected, he'll have a seven figure lobbyist job for Koch, Inc. and Frank can still get on their payroll. (they take very good care of their own). He'd be a great hand-maiden for the close-to-the-heart Koch issues.
The Big Line is running two different dated sets of information. One only has current information and the other has current information piled onto old data.
I do not know why this can not be fixed.
Wow. Never thought of ColPols as the powers that be. Does that make us all members of a powerful cabal. Cool!
Why taxpayers don't really subsidize tobacco.
I'm sure the tobacco executives will burn in hell, but it will be for the mortal sin of killing millions of people out of pure greed, not the venial sin of taking taxpayer subsidies. The old subsidy program ended In 1982, after Congress required that the program run at no net cost to taxpayers.
There is a minor exception to this rule, in that Taxpayers put up only $16 million in administration costs, and $26 million in marketing promotion, crop insurance, and miscellany. In return, the country benefits from billions of dollars of tobacco revenues and ''economic stability in many poor counties'' in the rural South, says Charles Hatcher, program administrator at the US Department of Agriculture.
Under the tobacco program, farmers vote every three years to limit their production. They pay into a cooperative association that makes federal loans available. If the market price plummets below the government supported price, the grower's coop will borrow money from the US Department of Agriculture to buy the farmer's surplus.
Critics of the program lodge two complaints.
Some free-marketeers say tobacco growers will be better off in the long run by surviving on their own. Tobacco supports are a relic of the New Deal, they say, and were never intended to be permanent.
Other opponents argue the moral and health side. As Rep. Richard Durbin (D) of Illinois points out, the government spends some $50 billion in smoking-related health costs and loses billions of dollars more if lost productivity is included in the tally.
Here is a link to Congressional Budget Office's latest analysis of the ACA:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45159
I think that one of the consequences of the Obama's administration failure to adequately explain how the ACA would work, is that the administration lost credibility.
CBO does have credibility, I think. But, it's statistical analysis is hard to read and it deals with macrostatistics. So there is always the exemption or the example that can "prove" or "disprove" the point of view of the propagandist.
Back in the 60s, during the time of great civil unrest, on the problems that local governments had to address was to establish a source of dependentable information to combat rumors. Rumors can be dangerous during a time of civil uncetainity. The great thing that Guiliana did during 9/11 was he was TV almost immediately and he told people what he knew and what he did not know, even down to what local trains were still running. People trusted him and he was available.
Obama has failed to establish himself or anyone in his administration as the "go to" source for information of what is a major change in the lives of many citizens.
Dwyer – at what point do adults have to take responsiblity and educate themselves on the program? I, for one, am tiring of this litany. All it takes today is a call to a Navigator or a visit to the website. I'm no blind follower of our Commander-in-Chief, nor would you find me a harsh critic. It's time for all of us to put our big boy pants on and get with the program. This private-insurance-program-that-must-comply-with-federal-standards-policy is an upgrade to what we use to have. I'm not interested in going back – I am interested in tweaks that make it better. We have a go to source. It's called "us".
@MB
There are three kinds of information to which I refer.
1) As a citizen, I will be voting in November and I need to know as much as possible about ACA. Is it really enrolling the uninsured in insurance plans or is it just increasing the number of people who are now eligible for medicaid? What will its impact be on the deficit? From how I read the CBO report, it will increase the deficit through 2024. Will premiums be increasing for 2015 as a result of a recalculation of the insurance cost by the insurance companies or will there be an increase because the demographic mix of young healty people to older and presumely sicker people is topheavy with the latter? These are the kind of policy questions that citizens will be looking at in terms of voting.
2) The second kind of information has to do with the consequences of this major change. Are small business reducing the number of employees to under 50 in order to avoid the ACA mandate? Are employers reducing the number of hours to under 30 for some or all employees in order to avoid the
ACA mandate? As a cancer survivor, I am well aware small business employers were reluctant to hire cancer survivors for more than 20 hours because if they did and were to offer the same benefits that they were already offering to employees, their health costs would skyrocket. Are employers still concerned about the financial impact of covering employees with pre-existing conditions? There may be many more impacts of this law, I simply don't know about them.
3) The final type of information is the personal kind that you are addressing in your comments. I, right now, am not impacted by ACA. I anticipate that will come next year. Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals are going to be reduced and how and if that will affect us, right now, I don't know.
I can only judge how others that I know are reacting to "getting with the program." I have limited experience and it is not positive.
I have family members who do not want nor need the upgrades and are angry at having to pay more and not being informed earlier, they argue, by Obama about this change. It would have impacted how they voted. I also have friends who are really angry about the changes in the Medicare Advantage program.
If there had been an education program starting back in 2010 preparing people for ACA, it would have been the roll out easier. The political assumption evidently was that if that happened, the democrats might have lost in 2012. I don't believe that.
As far as adults "educating" themselves, I find that comment patronizing and non-productive.The problem I identified is that there are myrid sources of information. It is not clear to me which are accurate and which are politically promotional.
That comment wasn't meant to be patronizing…it was a general statement about the adult populace of this country. And particularly adults in this state – where the program is playing out like it was intended to by Congress: putting the administration in the hands of the state.
Had the Red States played ball, as opposed to putting the onus on the federal website, then perhaps the experience would have been better for everyone. In fact, we can almost be assured it would have been.
Given the nutzo's, who simply wouldn't be happy with anything, continue even today their carpet bombing campaign it's a miracle we've gotten 5 million in to the system already.
Like home insurance, which is increasing dramatically because of our multi-billion weather disasters, health insurance aimed at an aging population isn't going to get cheaper, either. I would have preferred at least the public option as a part of ACA – but we both know the dynamics behind that. Perhaps you would consider this anecdotal, but I know far more people that have benefitted from ACA implementation than those who have been harmed. And by harmed, it's a matter of a slightly higher premiums, not any substantive changes in their care.
@MB.
Your input is good to have. Thank you.
Again a secret ballot is so great……people will be face to face with their real options.
I can assure you that the thought Caribou Barbie would have/could have been one heartbeat away from being the most powerful human on Earth made my 2008 decision easy. Ditto for 2012: as someone who doesn't believe we need the 1%-ers running the country, nor do we need prophets of Ayn Rand within a heartbeat of the same realm of power, that decision easy, too.
Ooh…dwyer finds someone's comment patronizing. Oh, the irony.
False!
Unless you have source. (You don't, and I'll only cite one http://www.medicare.gov)
Fair enough. I will look for the source.
@JBJK16
Earlier, I talked about the need to have a source of information that is credible. Seniors are concerned. Some doctors are pulling out of Medicare. Medicare cuts were part of sequestration. What I don't know is if those cuts were restored or remain.
Here are two links:
http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2013/8/5/cms-to-cut-reimbursement-rates-by-up-to-2-for-about-2k-hospitals
http://www.californiahealthline.org/road-to-reform/2013/more-doctors-are-quitting-medicare-is-obamacare-really-to-blame
Perhaps the sky is not falling. Kaiser's study on the impact of Medicare Advantage plans for seniors showed that:
Still, it may be equivalent to a 6% cut:
For this, sequestration is much more to blame than the ACA. Of course, this is not a GOP talking point – they'd rather force the cuts, and blame Obama (or Udall), of course.
And a tip for the seniors in your life:
For those California articles you cited, dwyer, the second one indicates that hospitals are being penalized for re-hospitalization – if they give shoddy care and the person needs to come back to remediate, the hospital takes the hit. This is more prevalent with hospitals that serve low-income people.
To me, this is similar to how schools that serve high-poverty populations are treated – they come in with worse health, more stress, and fewer resources and skills, but if you don't bring them "up to snuff" in the allotted time, you are penalized.
@mj55,
JBJK16 challenged my statement that medicare payments to doctors and hospitals were going to be cut. JBJK16 posted a statement that said mine was false and asked for a source. I provided two sources and indeed, medicare payments are going to be reduced and have been reduced.
I don't question your analysis. If we were in grad school, you no doubt would get an A. In the real world, where seniors are voting, their anger is a factor and many attribute it to ACA. Some doctors are not accepting new Medicare patients.
Penalizaing hospitals for rehospitalization would appear to make sense. One consequence, is that now some hospitals are admittting patients for observation, only. Then, if the patients are readmitted within the thirty days, the hospitals are not penalized. BUT, medicare will not pay for "observation only" hospitalization. So, seniors are learning that the hard way.
Whatever the rationale, Seniors are upset about the changes to Medicare Advantage.
Now, if the administration had fully informed people about the changes and continued to address the argument that ACA is to blame for everything; perhaps those seniors impacted would still vote for the democrats. But that is not happening.
What I have posted, more than once, is IMHO, ACA will be a critical factor in the 2014 elections. I don't know whether it will be a positive factor for the Democrats or now; it depends on individuals are impacted.
Corrections: "I don't know whether it will be a positive factor for the Democrats or not; it depends on how individuals are impacted."
Dwyer, trust me, it will not be a positive factor for Democrats. How negative it will be is a subject of honest debate, but not that it will hurt.
Does this mean anything to any body? Or is this generated by some sort of Word Press plug in?