President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 03, 2013 09:39 AM UTC

Amy Stephens' Awkward Dance With "Amycare" Continues

  • 14 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

amycare

The Denver Post's Kurtis Lee reports this weekend:

"In the scenario of the lesser of two evils, this was the best choice," said [Rep. Amy] Stephens, who in 2011 sponsored a bipartisan measure that set up the state's health insurance exchange, now known as Connect for Health Colorado.

"I felt — and still do feel — Colorado knows how to do health care better than the federal government," the Monument lawmaker said.

But as the rollout of Colorado's online health insurance exchange — a key pillar of President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act — enters its second month, the legislator who helped champion creation of the state exchange is in a complicated situation.

Stephens has embarked on a U.S. Senate run next year where her sponsorship of what critics call "Amycare" is certain to be cast into the spotlight by her GOP primary challengers.

Lee does a much better job in this story characterizing the GOP U.S. Senate primary field, perhaps after criticism for his fictional portrayal of Colorado Senate candidates who signed on to the Ted Cruz plan to force the gutting of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. "Obamacare" as "outsiders" during the last month's budget standoff. Both of Stephens' principal opponents, Ken Buck and Owen Hill, proudly signed on to the shutdown effort, only to backpedal (with Lee's careless help) once the tactic was overwhelmingly rejected by the American public.

By contrast, Democrats have cleverly invoked Stephens' name as the "Amycare" insurance exchange in Colorado debuted last month. Warm congratulations from Democrats for Stephens for her role in the legislation creating Connect for Health Colorado complicated local Republican efforts to trash the Colorado exchange in the same manner as the federal exchange website, even though the "Amycare" exchange rollout has not been trouble-free either. And as you can see above, Stephens herself is glad to use the somewhat better functioning Colorado exchange to distance herself, and "Amycare," from the larger specter of Obamacare that could poison her bid to win the GOP's 2014 Senate nomination. Listening to Stephens, you might even forget for a moment that there would be no "Amycare" were it not for Obamacare.

With all of this in mind, Stephens faces two serious problems. First, Stephens' nuanced arguments about Colorado's exchange are not being echoed by other Colorado Republicans. Conservative pundits and online mouthpieces continue to take daily news cycle-based shots at Colorado's exchange, entirely undifferentiated from the uglier national narrative of Obamacare's startup woes. Not only is it an uncomplicated message, but supporters of Stephens' primary opponents have no reason whatsoever to accommodate any exception for Colorado, as it only benefits Stephens.

The other problem, which Lee barely touches on in this story, is that Stephens' "support" for the legislation creating the Colorado exchange was highly erratic. After a robust Tea Party backlash in her district, Stephens buckled in her support for the exchange, attempting a poison pill amendment that would only allow Colorado's exchange to start up after "a full waiver from all terms, restrictions, and requirements in the federal Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act of 2010" was granted to the state of Colorado. Supporters of the exchange from Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper to the National Federation of Independent Business by all reports went ballistic on Stephens, and she ditched her ill-advised poison pill–but continued to offer bills to "opt out" Colorado from the Affordable Care Act to prove her conservative credentials. A weak primary opponent attempted to use the exchange against Rep. Stephens the next year without success.

But what Stephens faces today is no state house primary. Stephens faces a seemingly impossible challenge to separate herself from the health care reform her party has made it a central issue to dismantle, while being inextricably bound to it. In this way, Stephens is a fine example of the contradictions within the Republican coalition on this issue. The last example was Mitt "Romneycare" Romney.

All we can say is, good luck with that.

Comments

14 thoughts on “Amy Stephens’ Awkward Dance With “Amycare” Continues

  1. I think she may do just fine. If she had a single opponent she would be in trouble. But she doesn't. While the rest fight over the votes of the crazies and divide that up, she gets the votes of all the sane Republican primary voters. That may not be 50%, but I'll bet it's more than any of her opponents get when they divide up the crazies.

    And it leaves her the one credible opponent to Udall.

      1. If she dosen't throw the crazies enough red meat, they will bring her down.  Circular firing squad all over again.  Should be fun times.

    1. Credible chance against Udall?  I wouldn't count on it. As for sane Republicans, three couples on my Littleton proper block used to fit that description. Until 2004. Much to my surprise they suddenly all had Kerry signs on their front lawns, hated Cheney/Bush and shortly after that election they all switched to unaffiliated with one couple passing right through unaffiliated and registering Dem in time for 2008. It's not the party for sane people in Colorado anymore.

  2. I really don't see much daylight between Stephens and any primary opponents she may have. She voted against all of the gun legislation, against sex education in schools, and is only considered a "moderate" on abortion because she still supports rape and incest victims being able to obtain abortions.

    She did rescind her support of the health care exchange in Colorado, and it hasn't apparently even done her any good with the crazy base to do so.  They'll never support someone who advocates for, say, less money for insurors and more money in consumer's pockets. Or higher health care standards, and more community health center outreach.

    They truly have painted themselves, and her, into a corner. And it's too bad, because my sense from meeting and talking with Amy when she still supported the health care exchange is that she genuinely cares about her constituents.

      1. There is certainly a sane middle in the United States but not in the Republican Party any more. Bue Cat, as you pointed out in a separate comment above, we've left the Republican Party in droves. The only so called Republicans left in the party are the extremist right wingers. The Republican Party needs to die out and be replaced by a center right party that is willing to build America instead of tearing down all the institutions we've built over the past two centuries.

        1. Agree. The sane middle I was referring to who would be available to a Republican would largely be found among the unaffiliated, a very large chunk of the electorate in much of Colorado. Not an element in primaries but a huge element in statewide elections such as for Senate and Governor which is why I question her appealing enough to either win this GOTP primary on the one hand because of her unforgivable lapse into common sense on the state exchange issue or, in the unlikely event of winning a primary, being anything close to a credible candidate in a run against Udall as David suggested. 

          But since most Dems, very much including the majority of the Senate and President Obama, are now a bit to the right of where self proclaimed liberal Eisenhower was, I'd think you'd feel more comfortable just switching to Dem. 

  3. If you are Amy (and her advisors), you figure out how to "hate the Obama[care]" in the primary and then pivot to "I helped establish the successful Colorado Health Exchange" in the general.

    That is why advisors get paid the big bucks.

    1. Too late for the primary.  On many issues such pivots are doable but not on this one, the one they have chosen as their most sacred, non-negotiable fight to the wasted 24 billion dollar death.  As for the general, a single moment of common sense on something not terribly popular in the first place,  won't be enough to give her statewide viability. The other side has well paid advisers too and tons of cash. Nope. Amy is a non-starter any way you look at it. 

  4. Amy Stephens was and is consistent in her support for the exchange while opposing the mandates of the PPACA. She stayed true to her promises despite intense political pressure, and deserves credit for helping reach across the aisle. Sure the far right will attack her, but she has a story to tell that highlights the Republican desire for real free market health care reform instead of top down Obamacare coercion. She will be proven correct.

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

156 readers online now

Newsletter

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