U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 27, 2009 07:08 PM UTC
110 Comments
My head hurts.
The spin is typical of Colorado Pols. It’s trying to distance Dems from the nut, but the nut worked for Dem and left wing groups and probably voted for Obama, if at all.
I wonder whether C Pols realizes how silly its post looks?
under your rock?
Penis, no penis or daily genderbender Schwenkler is a felon committing dirtbag who targets political activities.
Schwenkler was a paid political field operative for the Democrat Party during the 2006-08 cycle.
Schwenkler was arrested in MN during a political convention in 2008.
Schwenkler was caught in a felon act with another individual who has yet to be named. What ties the other person has to the Democrat Party remain unclear.
Chairman Waak wrongly accused the other Parties of inciting and or committing the violence when the perp was actually a False Flag operative out of control.
but his obsession with penises must mean something.
That was kind of funny, “the 2006-08 cycle.” That’s not how election seasons work in America.
Lib, you’ve outed yourself and your Double Secret Reverse False Flag operation. How much is Pat Stryker paying you to make conservatives look like drooling morons? Not enough, I say! Because it’s working beyond her wildest dreams.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you.
He worked for a 527.
I have often rued the day that 527 were allowed to operate in political campaigns.
They make message control impossible.
And their employees aren’t loyalists. Far from it. They’re paid lit-droppers with attention spans too short to work at Burger King.
Point well taken, although with respect to the Denver Police, I’m not sure they have latitude to use something other than one’s legal name, at least in official reports, etc. I’m not an expert, but I’d imagine they either pulled the initial name used from a valid photo i.d. or from the suspect herself.
Attack identified herself by her birth name, and her supporters were concerned she not be “outed” as transgender while in jail, so it’s likely DPD wasn’t misidentifying her but just going on the information it had.
And we certainly don’t think it was intentional, or even necessarily avoidable on the DPD’s part. But once the correction is out there we are all obligated to acknowledge it.
We notice very few right-leaning sources are correcting similarly, and the reasons for that should also be pretty clear.
the Sentinel headline:
‘Inside Job’ implies that the Dem Party did it to itself, with full knowledge, for nafarious reasons (i.e. to ‘blame the GOP’ or for insurance fraud). Dishonest spin at it’s ‘best’
is that better?
Hi everyone. I heard about this site from a buddy, and love it.
Ok, I read about this in the news and ColoradoPols seems like the only place I’ve seen that has done some real investigating, and seems interested in letting people know what really happened here. Good job.
A rational person can review the facts, and verify that this is not the story it’s being spun to be. No Democratic powers that be organized an attack using an agent provacateur here. That’s clear.
But is this an issue that maybe has a little bit of old fashion karma built into it? What I mean is that Democrats, Progressives, liberals, etc will stop at no measures of decency from linking every single extremist and evil group out there with Democrats. When that abortion doctor was murdered, Republicans were “sympathetic”, of course they weren’t. There is a never ending desire to link Republicans with the KKK, the Nazis, and whatever other fringe extremists are out there.
Is it any different that Democrats be “accountable” for their loonies too?
You really miss the point. Attack is actively opposed to the Democratic Party, and for good reason — her politics are not the politics of Democrats. So what you say makes no sense, but then, you knew that.
That murdering an abortion doctor is actively against what Republicans advocate. How does murder fit within the scope of a pro-life ideology.
My point is that there is a clear double standard here. Liberals and progressives can talk out of one side of their mouth with quasi-sincerity when they suggest that any MSM reporting that attempts to discredit them is part of some conspiracy or has no basis in reality, while out of the other side of their mouth are hypocritically perpetuating the problem.
attack the RNC headquarters for not doing enough to limit choice, I will concede your point.
However the facts do remain that Maurice Schwenkler was paid by a 527 to canvass on behalf of democrat candidates.
He can’t be that opposed to them that he refused to take their money.
Denver Broncos… Still Suck!
that she took a temporary job that lasted less than a week after answering an ad on Craigslist. If she’d mowed Tom Tancredo’s lawn once, would that make her a Republican operative? Stop insulting your own intelligence.
between mowing someone’s lawn, and doing political canvassing as part of a GOTV effort.
Denver Broncos… Still Suck!
They’re both relatively unskilled jobs that don’t require any experience, good for itinerant work.
If you remember what was going on last November, there weren’t a lot of temporary, quick-cash jobs being advertised on Craigslist except door-to-door canvassing (which mostly amounts to dropping fliers or leaving door-hangers, not anything more sophisticated than that).
Who knows? Maybe Attack was trying to heighten the contradictions and suck some money off the more hypocritical of the two parties, or she wasn’t well dressed enough to get a gig canvassing for Republicans.
But it doesn’t matter — from the Heritage release to Michelle Malkin’s hysterics, she’s a major player in Democratic politics, no doubt funded with bags of cash from Tim Gill’s room full of money. And the facts be damned.
Oh- wait they remodeled his basement, not mowed his lawn.
that all the young folks canvassing for them pass a litmus test of political views and party affiliation? You might want to check that out with some candidates. Maybe Ali Hasan would fill us in on the screening process he used last year.
My campaign staff consisted of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents – they all supported me deeply, and that’s what mattered most, IMO
However – if I was running the RNC for example, I would want an all-Republican staff, as you’re representing many Republican campaigns
As for running statewide, I would prefer a Republican-staffed campaign, as well, due to the high amount of work between other statewide campaigns
but for State Senate and House, a non-partisan staff is fine, in my opinion
As far as a screening process goes… For statewide, most eligible staffers should have at least one Republican campaign under their belt – that’s usually the best sign of Party loyalty
otherwise, people don’t go to work for a candidate that they don’t believe in – the fact that they show up passes most litmus tests, in regard to State House and State Senate campaigns
This is a scenario where two (2+) or more out of control operatives decided at some level to conduct a false flag operation.
Its clear that Schwenkler was a paid political field operative of the Democrat Party. It’s clear that Chairman Waak did not direct Schwenkler and team, but did accuse the GOP of direct involvement.
The adults are trying have a serious conversation.
Schenkler is a dude who ID’d as a chick to gain the DAs tacit agreement to go easy.
This story is going to live for months in the Denver media. The mass media audiences don’t understand the AA name or issue … we need it simple like … 2 Dem operatives attack Party HQ, caught felon is s/he.
I’d say “You’re just making shit up now,” except that you’re always making shit up. But that’s insane. She has self-identified as Ariel Attack for a long time.
Sure, you “need it simple like,” and all those times you identified yourself “as a chick” to get out of speeding tickets saved you some money, but projecting your own gender insecurities is no answer now, is it?
It is beyond logic.
As to the GOP and the right wing. I have been begging for the responsible elements of the GOP to stand up and forcefully denounce the extreme and crazy ideas pouring out of the extreme right wing, the problem is …it is the base of the GOP.
I would never conflate the KKK or the white power movement with GOP (except for the occasional anti immigrant congressmen who seems to get his information from white supremist web sites), but questions about Obama’s birth are coming straight out of congressmen’s mouths.
This is not linking to Republicans, this is Republicans. While not violence, it is crazy extremism.
As to violence.
I do not think the GOP sanctioned the murder of Dr. Teller, or any of the other murder committed recently by right wing extremists, but most of the condemnations of the conduct always carried a caveat that almost expressed a “he got what he deserved” sentiment.
What Dick Wadhams is trying to say is that an radical transgender woman who opposes both Democrats and Republicans and who has never registered to vote is a Democratic operative? Please.
I clearly stated that. I do however suggest that the “tactics”, the misinformation, the selective reporting of the facts, the “spin” of this story to lead people to believe otherwise doesn’t exist in a vaccuum.
This person identifies as a female.
This person is still a dude, regardless of what he wants to call himself.
This person identifies as female, interacts in society as female, and may have biologically transitioned to being female. Despite any initial genetic condition, this person is a female, and respect for the individual demands that we treat her as such.
You may argue, “but she (or you might still use he) didn’t show respect for the Dems or their office.” And that is correct, but that is why we have a criminal justice system. In that system all of the facts will be presented, she will be judged by a jury of her peers, and a sentence will be issued. None of that requires you or others disrespecting her and not recognizing her self-identification.
I see you like to drink. I wonder what it is you are running from.
She is the correct pronoun.
Under Colorado law s/he may enter the woman’s shitter for a crap or to wash her hands. Should he choose to enter the man’s shitter for a crap, etc. she’d need to declare as a dude.
Also under Colorado law he is required (he he chooses to) to be ID’d as a male for state ID or Drivers license purposes. Once he legally converts to a she, then she would be required to be ID’d as a female for these licenses.
for your fruit roll-up and juice box? Libby get cranky when he miss his afternoon snackie?
I was reallly trying to hold off posting for a day or month, but I just can’t help myself when I read the crap you all post here day in and day out.
You couldn’t “sport fuck” anyone, whatever that means. To win an argument with someone, anyone, regardless of what you might call it instead, requires some actual intelligence.
You weren’t born with it, and you didn’t develop it through hard work. You simply don’t have it.
Now go sit in the corner until you can behave properly, and maybe your mom will give you some dinner. If that involves breastfeeding at your age, so be it.
Sorry I meant:
Democrats, Progressives, liberals, etc will stop at no measures of decency from linking every single extremist and evil group out there with Republicans
If I recall my history correctly, the Indians held out their hands to help the Mayflower folks…
But I digress:
and a birther too!
Apparently, duly elected president=’self-appointed king’ to wingnuts.
Congresman:
using the term ‘intellectual honesty’ is rich.
Unfortunately I’m all out of garlic and holy water.
“Democrat staffer who vandalized their own office and tried to blame Republicans.”
And it’s a real shame too, because Limbaugh listeners who talk like that are normally so enlightened. We were this close to getting them to support government-run health care, too, right after we convinced them that Democrats wouldn’t use their party registration to kill their grandmom.
to people who are stupid.
Same shit, different day.
This person is not a Dem. She is part of a group who opportunistically (in a totally positive way) seeks alliances with other more mainstream groups in the interest of furthering common causes.
Wow, I can see why bovine america is reluctant to understand that concept.
So what do we as Dems do? WE MOVE ON and do the real work.
The right is still reeling from being complicit in the most traumatic eight years this country has EVER SEEN. Malkin’s and, umm… Hannity’s credibility only stays with people like this:
This is what we have always battled against. If we still don’t have the tools to be effective in this battle, then we need to work on that.
when I said the right is still reeling from the most traumatic 8 years this country has ever seen, I meant the most traumatic 8 years the world has ever seen.
Yeah, that whole Civil War thing was a walk in the park compared with the Bush years. Not to mention the tail end of a truly Great Depression, world war and unleashing the atomic bomb. Or assassinations, daily American body counts in the hundreds, bombing Cambodia into the Stone Age and Nixon’s rather quaint approach to the Constitution.
I know we all like to believe no one’s ever felt so authentically as we are now, but c’mon.
not this country. And I stand by that.
The Great Depression, the Civil War, etc., they aren’t as bad as the sum that is “you’re either with us or with the terrorists” combined with global warming doesn’t exist! add a dash of YAY! let’s use white phosphorus on civilians in addition to You’re a PATRIOT if you believe in surveilling dissidents oh, and let’s not forget let’s start a war for oil, call it a war for freedom since all we care about is this bogus economy built on dinosaur guts but let’s not recognize dinosaurs as anything other than a test from Satan and torture, yeah I think we’ll call it interrogation, add in some scientific censorship on climate findings, talking points from the Pentagon funneled into your teevee dinner, Enron, botched elections, the “fourth branch” of government, Katrina, add them all up and it = the most traumatic 8 years humanity has ever seen.
That’s just an incredibly libero-centric view of “the world,” much less humanity. I appreciate what you’re saying, but the “war on terror” has been relatively mild in the scheme of things, as has — seriously, Enron?! The reason we find the Bush administration’s torture policies so abhorrent is because we thought we’d advanced beyond what happened on a regular basis through most of human history. And the reason Katrina shocked us was, in part, because it looked like the kind of storm disasters that happen all the time in the rest of the world. As for some nutjob Kansas Board of Education denying evolution … well, yeah, you’re right, that traumatized the world beyond the Black Death, the Mongol conquest, the Spanish conquest, and in particular the eight years from 1938 to 1945, which don’t hold a candle to warrantless wiretapping.
When an incident like this occurs, it continues to prove that Democrats are virtuistic and honorable and they can do no wrong. But I’m sure you didn’t denounce the intentional spread of misinformation that Dr. Teller’s death was Republican bidding, or that all Republicans are birthers and tea-baggers. You peddle the very tactics, you claim to rally against.
Fact: Barrack Obama was born in Hawaii. He is a citizen of the US. He not only is qualified to be president, he deserves to be president, because the American people overwhelmingly voted for him. Here’s the kicker: wait for it . . . I’m a Republican.
Fact: To position the tea-baggers into the context that they are American patriots who are protesting evil government oppression is disingenuous. They DO HAVE represention in Congress and are taxed under that authority. To suggest that they are righteously bearing the torch of freedom is quite laughable. Although I think it was quite moronic for Axelrod to call their activities “unhealthy”. Could you have imagined if Rove would have called Cindy Sheehan’s protesting “unhealthy”?
Anyway, I don’t associate with fringies, and I don’t posit that genuine Democrats or liberals, who I may profoundly disagree with, do so either. But to suggest that this is a singular Republican tactic, or that this is business as usual on the part of only one side of the spectrum is quite delusional. Anytime you’ve suggested that Republicans are racists or murderers or in cahoots with some fringe organization, then it’s hard to sympathize with you when the shoe is on the other foot.
Poll results show this quite unambiguously. Only about 35% of Republicans agree with you that Obama is unambiguously a natural-born citizen.
And plenty of people on Fox News called Cindy Sheehan dangerous and claimed she put soldiers’ lives at risk…somehow. Maybe it wasn’t Rove (who called her a “clown”), and maybe it wasn’t the word “unhealthy,” but yes, it’s pretty easy to imagine since it happened.
that liberals are so obsessed about? It’s not the Republican National Committee Channel is it? It’s a privately owned news channel. It’s got a right leaning editorial slant, in the same vane that MSNBC has a left leaning slant. Why is there this misconception that if Fox says it, then all Republicans believe it? They repeat Republican talking points on their Commentary shows (O’reilly, Hannity, etc), but those are commentaries not the news. o’reilly is to olbermann as hannity is to schulz. Big deal.
What’s that got to do with Republicans? I don’t even have cable, but I’m just saying it’s such a sophmoric obsession. Give it a rest already.
I wrote one sentence about it, and you flipped out.
And of course Fox is an arm of the RNC. You can clap your hands really hard and wish that it will stop being true, but everyone knows it is.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6487
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/2…
and then blithely knocking them down.
As sxp says above, two-thirds of Republicans in Colorado are either full-out birthers or partial birthers. You really think two-thirds of Colorado Democrats believe Obama is waging a war against transgendered youth?
Republican politicians regularly embrace, appear on stage with and mimic the vitriol of Tea Partiers, though I’ll grant you some of the TPers claim to be equally offended by both parties. Where are the Democrats urging young anarchists to smash windows? They don’t exist.
I can sympathize with your frustration — the GOP has been taken over by its fringe. But wishing the same fate on Democrats doesn’t make it so.
and that is what it is–the base, not the fringe–then you may have a point.
But when the chair of the RNC says on TV that Democrats want to euthanize vets, then I think your argument rings hollow.
ever, who:
1.) Considers Sarah Palin a complete f-ing moron, who I wouldn’t want anywhere near one heartbeat away from being president. Anything she says, including the death panel non-sense, and all of it’s reverberations, is failry embarassing for my party. But let’s face it, the effect was tangible. The Republicans are in a hopeless minority with no ability to influence legislation, so it made sense to stoke public anger. But it’s retarded, I agree.
2.) Thinks that the death panel talking points are below the belt.
What I do believe is that our politicians on the both sides of the aisle are extremely nervous. They know that fairly soon, Social Security and Medicare will no longer be self-sustaining government programs. They both have buffered the deficit by using receipts in excess of payments to buy Treasuries. The creative accounting of the late 90s, which handed Clinton a political victory of balancing the budget, did not consider these Treasury purchases to be debt. Why not? Our tax dollars absolutely have to pay them back with interest. Soon the budget will need to pay money toward these programs instead of the other way around do to our “aging” problem. So I believe that the public option and cap and trade are disingenuous because they serve only to fill those gaps. I don’t believe the public option is so we can kill grandma. I think it’s so grandma’s premiums can pay grandpa’s social security check.
Seriously. No joke. That’s how bad your party has gotten.
I agree that entitlements and demographics are an issue and need to be discussed based on facts.
I disagree with your conclusions (the 90’s budget wasn’t a “trick” but rather a reflection of taxes, spending and demographics).
Social Security is actually pretty healthy and could be fixed easily by lifting the cap on taxable wages.
Medicare big problem, but that’s why healthcare reform is so critical.
But I take issue with the notion that if one government program is such a failure (ie Medicare), that we need a bigger government program to fix it. Obama himself used the Post Office as an example of a government program that is always in trouble. He has indicated time and time again that it can’t add to the deficit and it has to be self-sustaining. But will the public option be able to sell bonds that are backed with the full faith and credit of the US government? Will Democratic leaders in Congress vow that under no circumstances will public taxes will not be used to subsidize this program? It isn’t realistic to assume these things. It will become a right for a patient who has paid his or her premiums to receive care, even if the public option were to become broke due to mismanagement. And frankly that is a likely possibility.
is actually one of the least expensive aspects of the health care bill. It’s deficit neutral because it’s funded by premiums paid by the people who are covered by it. It won’t be subsidized by the government, and it will serve as a marker by which private insurers can offer similar plans.
The most expensive aspects of the bill are the tax breaks, and they’re not even that bad. The bill will be $1 trillion over ten years, which is about half of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Besides, in the long run it will end up saving people money because they won’t be paying as much for premiums to their employer-based health insurance plans. The consumer protections that it offers should be more than enough to be supported by someone who’s concerned about fiscal responsibility.
By the way, welcome to Pols. It’s quite refreshing to talk to someone who obviously wants to have a real discussion about the issues.
It’s nice to be chatting with you all.
Anyway, I don’t have any problem with the notion that supporters of the public option truly believe that the public option will be completely self-sustaining. But that doesn’t make it so. What I am getting at is that come the day that benefits paid exceed premiums, what will happen? In the private market, the insurance company would go under, the bond holders would get paid, whatever claims that could be paid would be, and the place would get liquidated as sanctioned by a bankruptcy court.
What happens if the Congress passes the public option, and it essentially goes bankrupt. I’m not suggesting that Congress to slap together a bill destined to fail, but similarly no business is started with the intention of it failing. So on that day where the public option is broke, does the Congress bail them out?
Really? It’s not like insurance companies are sending out the money they receive each day to pay for that day’s benefits. What would really happen is what happens in the private market — premiums would go up.
I couldn’t think of any.
A public option will have to price insurance at a market level the same way private insurers do since they will be competing with the private market, but as long premiums reflect loss rates (which are easy to predict) there will never be a draw on general revenues. The savings will come from no marketing, no profit and lower legal/admin costs of trying to rerate and bump people out of their coverage.
As RSB points out the budget impact is on tax breaks (I thought Republicans liked those) and subsidies (I know you Republicans those if they go to individuals–if it makes you feel any better maybe you could call them tax breaks for the working poor).
I don’t believe that the Congress should have the authority to spend what it doesn’t tax from its people. The only time it should be allowed to borrow is for war. And no, I don’t mean the Iraq war. I mean for national DEFENSE. Not because some two-bit dictator is not playing nice, and America’s oilmen are running and crying to daddy government in a whiny Cartmanesque voice that it’s not fair.
No I mean a real war where we are fighting to defend ourselves.
Otherwise we can have anything and everything we want as long as we pay for it today. No borrowing. We want a public health care system, fine, then we need to tax all Americans for the $1 trillion that we need. No borrowing.
I tend to believe in paygo myself, however I think it should role over a multi year (4?) period so the government can act counter cyclically to the business cycle, but I don’t think your position is a bad one.
I really believe there are 3 questions when it comes to most legislation.
1. is it within the scope of government to provide or limit. (sub questions a) is the government allowed to do/limit b) should the government do/limit)
2. How much will it cost to do
3. How do we fairly allocate the cost to do
Unfortunately we are having trouble getting by the death panels and birther stuff. I hope you hang around Schnack, and I hope you encourage more in your party to engage on the real issues.
This is the first thread on this issue I can remember in a long time that hasn’t either broken Godwin’s Law, been based on talking points, or devolved into angry ad hominems. I’ve been guilty of it just as much as anyone else, but the lack of those three things is a breath of fresh air.
What is Godwin’s Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G…
There are many corollaries, but I find that it remains one of the most reliable adages in internet message boards–especially political ones.
I’m a realist in the sense that a government can borrow in order to manage its cash flow properly. Taxes are due on April 15th, but if a program needs funding in November, then the government should be able to borrow in the short term (3 month, 6 month) market. But the Congress is under a perpetual cycle whereby, they have not the stomach to raise taxes because their constituents won’t vote for them, and they are encouraged to create government programs and cut taxes to entice voters. So there is no responsibility in Congress. So they do both and pat themsleves on the back for only increasing the debt service by a couple of hundred million dollars. Good job.
Paygo is ok, but it offers no incentive to pay down the debt, in fact in order to pay down the debt.
Debt level (as % of GDP), growth and servicing on the other hand, I do worry about.
Most large companies carry some debt, even ones that could pay off all their debt.
Corporations manage their capital structure to get the best return on investment capital (ROIC) which sometimes means carrying a debt load.
It is actually important to have some debt to manage currency flows and interest rates.
That said.
Your fundamental point is correct the government shouldn’t be able to give out cookies without presenting a bill, whether that means presenting the taxes to support a new program or showing the program cuts to pay for a tax cut.
especially after so many bailouts of private industry that I don’t agree with. But what private companies do is there own business. But that said government tax laws have incentivised businesses to carry debt as preferential to equity. And I said that governments should be able to borrow in order to meet short term obligations, so long as the principle and the interest is met with tax revenues within the cycle (ie., no rolling the debt).
(And I’m not saying that would be impossible) it’s not like there’s not a precedent for bailouts now. Any money for a public program would pale in comparison to TARP I and II, the auto bailouts, AIG, bank bailouts, and potentially the FDIC now too.
As with Medicare, or any other public-run health care, young people who don’t get sick as much would be paying premiums/taxes/whatever, but not receiving nearly as much care as their older counterparts in the program. At the same time, by having affordable access to health care, they are setting themselves up to be healthier, not have as many problems later in life, and therefore be cheaper to cover in the future.
Right now there’s a vicious cycle wherein people are getting crappy health care when they’re younger, but great health care when they’re older. If we can just bring up the quality of care for younger people now, then maybe when they’re 80 or 90 they won’t be suffering from nearly as many preventable diseases as senior citizens do currently.
Either way, public option is just one option. If it fails, then so be it, but the reforms being discussed right now will create long-term cost savings so that if a public option did fail, people would still be able to afford private insurance.
At any rate, I think if what you’re worried about is another expensive entitlement being created, you should take a look at saving costs in the entitlement that sucks the most money out of the tax coffers: Medicare Part D. All but 30 Republicans had no problem voting for that incredibly expensive entitlement when it was being pushed by Bush–and it did nothing to lower costs.
But public outrage just wouldn’t allow it. People are getting tired of it all. They may be indeed tired of the classic bullsh** of big government vs small government and all the other dividing arguments. But they are definitely tired of their tax dollars going towards failure.
As RG and Danny pointed out, they could just raise premiums like private insurers do, but your point about people being tired of bailouts is definitely cogent–though I don’t know if they’ve “failed” per se since most of the companies that we’ve bailed out have managed to stick around through the recession.
But getting back to health care: what do you personally see as the best policy prescription to help fix the health care system? I’ve asked many Republicans or conservatives this before, and I’ve never really gotten an answer. Though most of them haven’t wanted to have as honest a discussion as it appears you’re interested in.
The real problem is that demand exeeds supply. So a natural suppostion by the liberal establishment is that if we strengthen demand and bundle it, then savings will be squeezed from the system and we will make healthcare cheaper and better for all. I don’t subscribe to that.
What I suggest, although quite politically untenable, is removing the tax benefit people receive for buying health insurance. This will remove the subsidies that bolster the demand for healthcare. Then people will make better decisions with their after-tax money.
I also propose that as a society that we move away from desiring all inclusive health care insurance. If you want to go to the doctor for a check up or a physical then you should pay out of pocket. Insurance should be reserved for catastrophic instances.
i don’t practice what I preach here, cause it’s frankly against my self interest, and it would suck to lose some of these benefits, but those incentives are propped up by rules and regulations, not the natural flow of commerce.
But at least you’re honest. I appreciate that.
The Demand already exists and is fairly inelastic (You don’t want knee surgery just for kicks).
Bundling on the other hand decreases paperwork, transaction costs and most importantly to me, boundary battles.
If you have ever read an insurance contract you will see that it is impossible for the average person to be able to assess what their coverage means. Even skilled and specialized attorneys find insurance contracts purposely opaque.
BTW we have a version of what you are talking about they are called HSA’s and IMO they are disasters because they incent people not to seek healthcare. My mother has an HSA and got sick over the weekend, because the first money comes out of her pocket up to $2500 a year she didn’t go to the ER. She waited till Monday when she was diagnosed with Ventricular Tachycardia and severe Dehydration and had to spend several days in the hospital and is at home now on bed rest. If the incentive hadn’t been to delay care I don’t know if there would have been the same result (law, economics and finance are my areas of expertise), but She wouldn’t have been running a risk with her life. So I must respectfully disagree.
that what I’m suggesting has any chance of becoming law. What I’m saying is that people need insurance, but it’s overly used.
Currently insurance is used when people catch a cold and buy penicillin. It’s used for all sorts of low level stuff that drains the system.
People should have health insurance to cover a broken leg, or cancer treatment, and everything major catastrophic event.
HSA’s also have a tax benefit though.
Another recomendation I would say is to have an individual mandate for major catastrophic health insurance coverage. It’s not a very Republican stance I know, but we currently pay out for people who don’t have health insurance. Hospitals have to provide care to people to prevent them from dying even if they don’t have health insurance. Those delinquent accounts and non-payers mean that hospitals charge people with insurance higher rates.
It was fun chatting with you all. Talk to you soon.
because prevention will reduce costs more than anything; and that means no pre-existing conditions, yearly doctor visits, and if you do end up getting sick (though it may not be a catastrophic injury or illness say, for example, diabetes or asthma) you have the ability to see a doctor, or more likely a PA, and treatment. Plus it means having affordable access to medical tools necessary for treatment (insulin and inhalers in the cases of the examples I cited.)
But again, thanks for an honest discussion, and please feel free to stop by any time.
is the actual problems with governement programs are
a) the government never defaults and
b) the gov’t can’t fire it’s own citizens.
Medicare is a success but has a demographic problem.
Baby boomers have caused problems for years due to their numbers. In the 50’s they couldn’t build schools fast enough, that didn’t make public education a failure.
You do have to address the demographic bubble. By expanding the risk pool to include healthier people (younger) and eliminating the boundary issues that cause so much waste you could fix MC by moving to a single payor system. Since that is not possible we will need to address it through capitation and lifting the cap on payroll taxes.
But I want to clarify is yours or the Republican position that believes we should get rid of Medicare because it is a failure?
As to your questions about taxes, Likely you pay private taxes right now for your healthcare right now, they come out of your check directly and they are called premiums. I would love to pay my premiums to the government directly if I get a 30% savings (lewin group estimate) for the same service and I don’t care if you call them premiums, taxes or banana splits.
It’s kinda hard to be in favor of abolishing Medicare. My own grandparents need it. I’m not in favor of getting rid of it, especially when such a vast segment of our society is so dependent on it. But the insolvency problems will only increase in magnitude and scope if we continue to kick the can down the road in adressing these problems. The public option can be viewed as a solution to some of the problems facing Medicare’s demographic issues, but what will we need when the Public Option’s problems come to light?
But truthfully the Demographic bubble will peak in about 15 years and then will start to correct itself as the fatter demographic waves start to help the population triangle.
There are many models of healthcare out there some that I like and some that I dislike. Every western country has demographic problems (Italy and Japan are some of the worst) and in fact the US is actually in better shape than the rest of the world if we would just address healthcare across the entire population instead of only having the government pay for the highest users of healthcare.
Is required to deliver the mail to places that no self respecting profit seeking entity would even acknowledge exists.
Alaska, for example, once a upon a time was so remote that even getting the mail there was big flippin deal.
Every try to use Fedex,UPS,DHL or other private carrier to send to some remote heartland location? It costs a fortune, delivery is not guaranteed and yet you walk across the st to the post office and it costs the same as it costs to mail it to NY City.
If we allowed, or better required the Post Office to turn a profit and allowed them to do whatever they had to to the business model to get there, they’d kick everyone’s ass. If for no other reasons than they got the real estate and infrastructure mostly for free and they’d get to kill the federal unions and make all the carriers “contractors”.
Ye, the president used that example but I suspect he got letters explaining the real deal. And I suspect he used that example because people think they understand it.
who believes those things, but you have to admit, your voice of reason and moderation is getting drowned out by the nuts LEADING YOUR PARTY.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (yeah, that’s right, he’s a senator, not a Fox News host) foments a crowd by raising the prospect of revolution last night at a town hall. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…
The truly insane U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann urges constituents to “rise up” http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo… and get “armed and dangerous.” http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…
Either you believe words have consequences or you don’t. Either you take seriously where your party has gone or you can keep looking for false equivalencies. Your choice.
A healthy GOP needs people like you, but I hate to inform you that a significant minority, if not majority of your party disagrees with your 2 posited facts.
As to Axelrod and “unhealthy,” Republicans called Sheehan far worse, traitor was quite common. Many Democrats called her “unproductive” and in fact she threatened to run against Speaker Pelosi for not being aggressive enough by refusing to pull war funding.
Here is the significant difference, while you are reasonable and the GOP was at one time a diverse and reasonable party, it isn’t where it is today. Democrats are routinely attacked from their left for not going far enough and when outside groups go to far the Democratic party tends to censure them (I recall the over reaction to Move On’s Bad taste General Betray us ad). In the GOP when somebody calls themselves a “Right Wing Terrorist” they get a hearty endorsement and a pat on the back. John McCain seems to be the only one in the GOP that is actively slapping down crazy talk.
There are crazies both right and left, but the GOP seems intent on incorporating them in to their base, further alienating moderates and shrinking the echo chamber down to a tin foil chapue’d few.
Not so much.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c…
Waak owes Wadhams an apology.
To assure the security of paid political employees DPD must conduct a complete investigation of Schenkler and teams activities.
I wasn’t sure about them. Now I am a believer.
What I’m not so keen on though are the tactics. What tactics am I using that I rail against?
So many of you armchair quarterbacks throwing out opinions of your own as if they are facts. Sigh…stick to what you know, not what you heard or read – otherwise your not doing anyone any favors by spreading half-truths.
I do not remember this person personally BUT I can say that this person was hired through a referral, not because of a Craigslist ad.
I recall that all of the Derailer volunteers I spoke with over the phone to try to build staffing for the field campaign efforts leading up to the final four days of the election had previous campaign canvassing experience. Each Derailer volunteer that was hired also successfuly passed a verbal Q&A interview on their backgrounds, political beliefs, and experience working with campaigns.
The CCC made every reasonable effort to hire experienced, enthusiastic, friendly people from all walks of life who wanted to earn some extra money canvassing for four days prior to the election helping the democrats.
Let me emphasize what I just wrote: These people were hired for four days of campaign door to door work so don’t get all bent outta shape that FBI background checks and thorough interviews weren’t done.
—-
Before you go thinking that the CCC just wanted any old Tom Dick or Harry to hand out campaign literature with no vetting whatsoever, let me point out another fact: a number of people hired were dismissed and not invited back to work the 2nd day including people who showed up late, stoned, drunk or who were dressed poorly or demonstrated poor attitudes.
Also, the contract canvassing staffers work was doublechecked by field directors at the various campaign locations. If canvassers were found not doing their job they were immediately dismissed as well.
So I think reasonable checks and balances were in place by the CCC to weed out rogue campaign workers.
Since this particular staffer was paid $500 then their attitude, dress, and work was considered acceptable and they worked the entire contracted 4 days before the November elections.
—-
Now if this person is found guilty, I hope they face the appropriate criminal punishment. I think it goes without saying that the misguided criminal acts allegedly commited by this person will do more harm to their anarchist political goals than good.
…suggesting (before they had any clue what the facts were) that this could be nothing more or less than a prime example of the hate spewing from the “far-right” “domestic terrorists” who oppose Obama’s awful plan for health care reform.
You guys got caught with your pants down, and trying to avoid looking like the biggest sheep in the flock, you keep talking out of your asses about how other people have misconstrued the facts. And suggesting that anyone could be much further to the left than ColoradoPols is just hilarious…
Than anyone else who reported on it.
It allows for immediate suppostion to be posted, and for immediate correction when it is found to be wrong. It is not the NY Times or CBS News where weeks of checking go by before anything is posted.
This has both it’s good & bad points. But immediacy is one of the major attributes of the web. And so people will get it wrong at first.
But, and this is key, as soon as they found more info – they posted it.
We didn’t even write the original diary, we updated it with the facts as they developed–including the facts that are problematic for Democrats.
We are routinely accused of, well, basically everything when news breaks; sometimes the accusation is obviously ridiculous. Like this time.
That pretty much nails it from my perspective.
That was not a story about the GOP election effort, but about a person with serious mental health issues. And this is not a story about the Dem election effort, but about a person who’s got major problems.
This will drop off in the next day or two as most people realize this.
What possible basis do you have for saying that? Perfectly sane people smash windows when they’re frustrated or angry. It doesn’t mean it’s particularly wise, but there’s nothing to suggest Attack is anything but an angry young person.
It’s the Dems. That’s how they roll.
we’ll have single-payer mental health care, then.
But let’s just pretend that all the left wing crazies are Democrats, and all of the right wing crazies are Republicans.
Even by that logic, “Democrats” smash windows and light shit on fire. “Republicans” shoot abortion doctors and people at the holocaust museum.
See how crazy that sounds? Is murder how Republicans roll? I don’t think so. But using your logic in that comment, they do.
I was joking. It was supposed to sound crazy.
There’s just been so much crazy going around lately, I couldn’t tell.
and is a common expression of anger and feelings of powerlessness. It’s not wise, and it’s not right, but absent any other evidence, it’s also not a sign of mental illness. Unless you subscribe to the Bill Frist-Terry Schiavo school of long-distance diagnosis.
I don’t think you can describe them as sane. It may not be mental illness, but it’s not the actions of someone who is operating in a sane manner.
A moment of anger is not insanity. Sane people get angry and do stupid things.