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%
June 25, 2009 03:52 PM UTC
57 Comments
I like Obama and I know we need health care reform. We are on Medicare, now. (thanks to all the rest of you..seriously) But, health coverage is a constant worry for everyone else in our household…pre-existing conditions being a major problem.
This is my concern. Obama’s fiscal strategy for health care is the same he uses for the stimulas package. He speculates that the reforms and new approachs will be more efficient, in the long run, and will save money and ultimately put that money back in the Treasury…EXCEPT..what if it doesn’t work?
The thinking is too much like the subprime mortgage….buy a house you can’t afford…but it will keep appreciating, so that you can take the equity out to continue to finance the house. Or, sell it for more than you paid and pocket the profit……in the long run….say twenty or thiry years, I think that still was a good plan..because property ultimately does appreciate sufficiently….but in the short run, that thinking bankrupted families and torpedoed the economy…
I could give a flying fuck about standord, et. al….we need to focus on real issues.
And for god’s sake, SH, short declarative sentences….you are good…when I have the hour or so to read your posting…
Short enough and declarative enough for you? 🙂
Short enough for Twitter even.
for a billboard or bumpersticker, even!
Bravo!
“Steve Harvey, take him or leave him!”
Nah.
No government mandate for everyone to run for fourteen hours? No compulsory membership communities where everyone had to take everyone else’s blood pressure and check their diet?
I am disappointed. Relived, SH, but disappointed.
nothing I’ve ever suggested on this sight bears any resemblance to the caricature you have so recklessly drawn. I happen to be a market-oriented (and economically trained) social theorist, who looks at the ways in which our institutional framework creates combinations of incentives, information flows, infrastructural supports, and frameworks through which individual discretion can function most effectively in a context of mutual interdependence. The goal is individual and collective welfare (including preservation of individual liberty), now and in the future, extended ever-more broadly to ever-more people. As I’ve pointed out to you before, the hypothetical child welfare statute that so offended you (and to which you are now obliquely referring) decreased rather than increased the occasions on which the state would take children away from the parents, decreased rather than increased the range of ways in which the state imposes unnecesary cultural assumptions on individual families, and increased rather than decreased the ability of families to remain intact and healthy while living according to their own beliefs and values.
It contained zero government mandates, zero compulsory membership in any communities (there was an opt-out provision, as I pointed out to you before), and nothing that everyone ever had to do (in fact, no mandates for individual behaviors of any kind: All involvement by community members was voluntary, with provisions for circumstances in which no volunteers were forthcoming).
So, by all means, be “disappointed” that I failed to be something that exists only in your own imagination (or is manifested by other people with no connection to me), but please try to avoid make false attributions in the process.
As I recall, after you gave the link to your paper and I downloaded it, you said that you would not be available to discuss/debate its provisions. Which is fine with me, as I didn’t understand a lot of what was there.
However, since we have not debated your proposal, do not assume that I accept your pronouncement..even when I can understand them. One example, an “opt-out provision” is far different than an “opt-in” provision…
When did you get so damm touchy? I thought I was inviting your comments on health care, which I had mistakenly thought would be interesting…and you have been humorously teasted about your verbosity on this blog before, by those of us who had held you in some regard….what the hell is going on, SH???
RE: My paper. When you brought it up, every time you brought it up, I answered all of your posts, until I finally said as politely as possible, on the third round, after giving some long, comprehensive answers, that I would have to stop participating at some point. The truth of this is made very clear in the actual thread in the following link:
the most recent of a several-installment discussion, at your behest, of my hypothetical statute
You’ll notice that after giving the link to my paper (once again), I gave at least two very extensive responses to the issues you raised, in direct contradiction to your atatement above. (I don’t want to spend time finding the two earlier discussions with you, in which I answered all of your questions just as comprehensively as in the one above, in order to link to them as well.)
RE: Government mandated membership. While an “opt-out” provision is indeed different from an “opt-in” provision, it simply is not government compelled membership in a community, because the right to opt-out unambiguously means that there is no compulsion (compulsion being defined by no such right).
Finally, I don’t mind being teased about verbosity, but I do mind being specifically misrepresented. That shouldn’t be difficult to understand: If, for instance, you, or anyone else, posted that I am in favor of establishing a command economy (a complete falsehood), I would object to that, since it misrepresents my actual position in a fundamental and personally damaging way. So please accept my assurance that I have no hard feelings toward you: I just wanted to make a pointed clarification of my actual positions, all of which I can verify with documentary evidence.
The part of the post that I thought was directed particularly at me was the “short declarative sentences” refrain, which I have responded to a zillion times already. I thought that my response was good natured, but I understand that it’s not always easy to tell in this medium (thus the smiley-face icon, as an indication of the intended tone).
I didn’t respond on health care because, and this is important: I didn’t have anything to say on the subject! Guess what, I only post when I believe I have something that I consider new or interesting to add to the discussion. On health care reform, I can summarize the debate and represent the competing arguments, but really have nothing new or constructive to add beyond that. Others can make the case, and have made the case, for single payer health care as eloquently as or more eloquently than I can, so why make noise? My verbosity generally is, as I’ve often said, dense with fairly novel information. That’s why I have no shame about it.
If you had posted, “Steve Harvey, I’d be particularly interested in hearing what you have to say on this topic,” I would have given an answer (though probably not a long one, for the reasons described above). I didn’t connect the first part of your post (asking the all participants to address health care) to the second (reiterating your criticism of my writing style).
(Unless there’s some other truly entertaining bit that’s still buried…)
The Democrats (and the Obama administration in particular as the holder of the bully pulpit) need to paint a clearer picture of the current healthcare situation.
Add up all the expenses and give the public a single dollar figure representing the average per-person medical cost per year. How much does a person and/or their employer pay per year for coverage? How much is spent/charged per insured person per year in uncovered expenses? How much per uninsured person is spent/charged per year in medical expenses? What is the estimated amount of money lost in the economy from people delaying treatment due to monetary issues?
If the Democrats can present a clear “bill” of health to the people, they can more clearly demonstrate the advantages of various plans. The public wants change, but they don’t trust the government fiscally. To gain that trust, it must be clear what various reforms might do for the individual citizen.
Plus. the way medicare works, a senior gets Part A free..it is hospitalization; then part B is for doctors and services…and there is a generic government one-the cheapest…..or you can buy a private insurance supplement which varies in cost and services; ditto for the Part D..which is prescription.
Everyone 65 and over gets the same Part A and the same right to choose from all the other options.
There are problems: reimbursement for Medicare is evidently only at 80% of charges (or cost..I am not sure) and there are many doctors who will not take any new Medicare patients..
Now then, following up on your idea, the government should now present what plans/choices all citizens are going to have.
I think the ‘end of life” care which came up in the “town hall” meeting and which Obama really did not answer in terms of his own family…is an example. Perhaps an individual would want to buy a separate policy which would cover “extraordinary means” if presented with a terminal diagnosis.
I think, also, PR, it is hard to calculate “unintended costs.”
For example, people receiving some kind of disability payment based on low income, who deliberately restrict their earnings so as not to lose their eligibility for mediaid, that happens, but it would be hard to quantify.
However, I appreciate your serious response. I think you are asking the right questions. Let me hasten to add, I don’t have any answers.
Just got this on Facebook and it seems like a great idea:
🙂
Haley Barbour yesterday:
” Whyy is Hillaruh Clintons twittuh account set to Teyrahns time zone ? Ah find this development rathuh disturbin “
If so, idiotic. Actually it was a super leftie buddy that sent it to me.
I kid, I kid. I’m not serious. Gotcha though, and good to see you back.
when y’all type “twittuh.”
Witty brevity could become a habit.
and I am liking it.
that says Youtube is reporting a big drop in video uploads from Iran in the past 15 hours. Sounds like they’ve figured out how to block them…
Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
the way he has stuck by Farrah Fawcett through her toughest days and the sad sweetness of their remarriage speak very well of him.
Forgot they never actually were married in the first place but that’s just a technicality. O’Neill has still behaved in the most admirable way.
http://www.gjsentinel.com/opin…
Watch the June 25th edition. Bob nails it.
Over the Top is always the bright spot in my day. Sort of like the orignial episodes of “The Office”. A huge cringe factor.
Just the same natural, vivaciuos cinematic presence:
This from Huffpost:
That’s posted within the past hour, Reza Aslan in Nico Pitney’s superb blog:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
I am verging on hyperbole, but when the most of the media was only kind of following Iran, Nico made it a real story about real people and helped get the information out
Seriously. Man, the tabloids are going to have a run with this.
Wanted to be with Farrah, I guess.
God, I forgot how great he was and how great his music was before he permanently entered the land of way weird.
Bummer. 3 little kids left behind–that’s rough no matter how you slice it.
I always felt more sorry for him than anything else. Who knows, his family was screwed up enough that even having avoided fame and fortune might not have worked out too well, but, as it is, he had the wrong personality for all that juice.
Ok, there’s a lot more important things out there. But one of our interns just wrote a blog post that he is justifiably very proud of – Bridging The Engineering & Business Gap
Let’s stick to the relevant, please:
http://www.theoildrum.com/
Enjoy
Maybe never. We can have the discussion whether entertainment is relevant. Ask Mao, or anyone starving or losing their home. What feeds the soul and what feeds the body? Which is more relevant? Great discussion!
Revelance will come to dominate our discussions.
The only thing that’s REALLY relevant is the 11 coiled up dimensions of string theory, but we never talk about THAT, do we?! And you don’t see me complaining….
That’ll get a few conversations going.
CERN’s Large Hadron Collider is almost ready to restart. Maybe even creating our own artificial black holes. Exciting stuff!
for anything that fits in the box, if we can ship black holes?
Flat rate USPS box shipping is not by weight. Their commercials say, if it fits in the box, it ships for the same cost no matter what the weight. But they may want to provided a little sturdier box if we are to ship black hole stuff.
I hadn’t known about that new promotion (my rare visits to the post office always entailed watching the clerk weighing my letters).
But, they’d still need to work on their delivery time, as the artificial black holes would vanish from existence in a twinkle of the eye 😉
.
wherever you want to ship that black hole, if its some destination on earth,
even if you can’t actually put it in a box,
that destination will eventually come to the black hole.
.
but look what relevance was spawned!
Look, I don’t care a whit…ok, maybe one whit….about MJ.
But as a social phenomena, he is as noteworthy as anything in our times.
I reread your post, SR.
To imply that as long as there is misery in the world we shouldn’t smile via “entertainment” is absurd. Americans flocked to the movies during the Great Depression and WWII for a bit of escapism.
We are motivated by some entertainment, whether truly noble or rather base.
Believe me, I’m pretty far down the scale as to caring about Hollywood and other mass commercial entertainment. When I lived in Englewood the TV got turned on for election returns and the 9-11 events. Maybe a couple of hours of things, but that’s about it.
But some events are worthy of noting. If we had this blog in 1961 (???) we’d be noting Marilyn Monroe’s death. And, it turns out, that likely had political connections all the way to the White House.
Maybe MJ was killed by the CIA to avoid spilling the beans on plastic surgeons they use to alter identities. 🙂 It’s a strange, strange world.
And there’s always a but….
Part of the challenge of human discourse is to more accurately and usefully identify “relevance.” If we all just “gossip” about whatever tittilates, and prioritize our attentions accordingly, we are less well prepared to govern ourselves well (and, more generally, to expand our consciousness to better appreciate “God’s Creation”). On the other hand, even that which merely tittilates is relevant, since that which we are inclined to pay attention to reveals something essential about who and what we are.
More generally, this is a discussion about inclinations v. discipline, and the fact that even a disciplined life must acknowledge inclinations.
Everything is related: This, in fact, is related to my current “debate” with Libby, who has an ideology of inclinations: He believes blindly rather than thoughtfully, adhering reflexively to an oversimplified view of reality that he finds emotionally gratifying rather than exercising the discipline of examining evidence and applying logic to it.
And finally, this is a testament to my own discipline, since anyone who can turn a discussion of MJ’s death into further evidence of the defects of Libby’s political ideology is clearly as focused as a laser!
Well, similar.
Early August 1962.
Was too lazy to Wiki that.
I was sixteen. My friends and I could not believe such a looker could do that. Of course, we didn’t know squat then. Now I know squat.
I was twenty-one and I remember that summer well….of which her suicide was one benchmark in a timeline of personal memories…both good and bad.