ProgressNow Colorado | Evergreen Progressives

Sign the Petition calling for Prosecution of those who Tortured in our name.

By Kennedy John - Dec 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pm EST

Just a reminder that the Impeach Colorado Coalition morphed into the
ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

We believe that in order to pass on the full measure of our Constitutional freedoms to our children and grandchildren,
we voters Must insist that our Congress and Justice Department
Enforce Our Federal Anti-Torture Laws against those in the
Bush-Cheney Administration that appear to have violated these laws.
Bush, Cheney and their Torture Memo Lawyers have admitted working to get around our Anti-Torture Laws. Their WMD Lies to Congress sent over 4,200 US Soldiers to their deaths and caused over 30,000 to be maimed.
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION Today: ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0)

As Usual, It's about oil

By Doc Martin - Nov 22nd, 2009 at 2:51 am EST

Also listed in: Evergreen Progressives

Here’s a peek into a bit of geopolitical news that is not making much noise in the US press – Azerbaijan and Armenia are meeting in Munich to discuss settlement of their territorial dispute in Nagorno-Kharabagh, a piece of mountainous desolation occupied in the early 1990s by Armeni after a war when Armenia interceded when the mostly Armenian population of N-K sought to secede from Azerbaijan a couple of decades ago. (Think Kosovo.)

Who cares, you say? Outside of the Armenians and Azeris, that is?

Well, you should. And Russia, Turkey, Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and most of Europe care. Here’s why.

First, some geography: Armenia is a landlocked Christian country that sits between by Muslim Azerbaijan on its east, and Muslim Turkey on its west. Importantly, it is bounded to the south by Iran and to the north by Christian Georgia.

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that Russia and Georgia fought a war a while back, supposedly over some Russian-populated Georgian provinces that were being oppressed by Georgia.

You may even remember that there are some important oil and gas pipelines that run across Georgia, right through that combat zone, that carry important energy supplies to Europe. The Russians were very careful that their extensive bombing raids all around it did not damage that pipeline, in effect saying, “We can cut this thing any time we want, and there is nothing you can do about it.” You may also remember that a dispute between Russia and Ukraine over a natural gas pipeline resulted in a Russian cutoff that left much of Europe freezing.

So suddenly the spotlight shines on the need to get an alternative pipeline to carry oil and gas from fields around the Caspian Sea to Europe. Such a pipeline is planned – the Nabucco pipeline. And who produces a lot of that energy? Azerbaijan!

The straightest shot from Azerbaijan to Turkey is across Armenia, but the N-K dispute has closed that border since the war. And in solidarity with their Muslim brethren, Turkey also closed its border on the western side of Armenia. Here is the map: Caucasus-political_en.svg‎

But now Turkey and Armenia have re-opened their border leaving the Azeris with a lukewarm ally. Armenia has had traditionally good relations with Russia as well as warm relations with the US. And Armenia finally has an American ambassador after years of a vacancy left unfilled by Bush. So it has a neutral and semi-trusted straight shot route.

So all that is needed to get that pipeline plan moving is to get the Azeris to open their border with Armenia, and the gas (and money) will flow. And Iran also has a lot of gas and oil, as if you didn’t know. So that is what these obscure talks in Munich are about. They portend a major geo-political shift in an important and volatile region. Watch that space!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0)

Dobson, Spock and Dick Deadeye

By Doc Martin - Sep 9th, 2009 at 3:03 am EDT

Also listed in: Evergreen Progressives

For deliberate silliness, the behavior of the wing nuts around President Obama’s speech to school kids has no parallel since Gilbert and Sullivan wrote the immortal lines of Dick Deadeye in HMS Pinafore –The crew has been threatening him and objecting to his sensible and realistic observations about the reality of life in the British navy, and he says “From such a face and form as mine, the noblest sentiments ring forth like the mad utterances of a depraved imagination. It’s human nature; I’m resigned.” Once again, nature imitates art.

The whole reaction of the right wing strikes me as such childish and irrational tantrums, like you would see from a toddler in a grocery store, I think back to what I might once have said before child abuse became nothing to joke about – “Where you dropped on your head as a baby?” It now turns out that this may actually have some merit.

In his book Dare to Discipline, James Dobson advocated the spanking of children of up to eight years old when they misbehave and that the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely."[35]

In contrast, Dr. Spock influenced several generations of parents to be more flexible and affectionate with their children, and to treat them as individuals, and that it would not spoil babies by picking them up when they cried. Dobson pushed the “strict father” model, in contrast to Spock’s “nurturing family” model. Researchers have linked authoritarian “strict father” childrearing with children who withdraw, lack spontaneity, and have lesser evidence of conscience (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Corporal punishment has been found to be consistently related to poor mental health; including depression, unhappiness, anxiety, and feelings of hopelessness in children and youth. Corporal punishment is a risk factor for relationship problems, including impairment of parent-child relationships, increased levels of aggression and anti-social behaviour in children, raised thresholds for defining an act as violent, and perpetration of violence as an adult, including abuse of one's family members. (Hart, Stuart N. et al, Eliminating Corporal Punishment. UNESCO Publishing).[3]

It’s probably true that many of the kids raised by Dobson’s principles probably had their brains rattled a few times, and it sure looks like some fell out. Certainly his views gave an “expert’s” permission for increased levels of physical violence against children.

I don’t know whether any of this would hold empirical water, but it sure explains a lot to me. Pathological deference to authority, refusal to negotiate, equation of tolerance with deviance, condemnation of alternative religious practices or lifestyles, willingness to kill to enforce “morality”, strict party discipline, unthinking acceptance of myths and lies emanating from authority figures, obdurate resistance to reasoned argument…these all seem to fit the model of children raised by the Dobson method.

The criticism of Spock’s approach (which began with Norman Vincent Peal and was taken up by such illuminati as Spiro Agnew), is that it led to generations of children who grew up with self-indulgence, moral relativism, and a lack of respect for the norms and institutions of patriotism, religion and even protection of life. The contrast was captured by George Lakoff, in his book Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don't," published by the University of Chicago Press., 1996. Remember "Question Authority?" After Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, child molestation by priests, the Iraq invasion, murders of doctors, that sure seems like good advice to me. Thank you Dr, Spock.

So the next time you see a tea-bagger going into his “Whaaa!” tantrum, give him a hug; that’s what he really wants.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0)

Medicare Buy-In is Best 'Public Option'

By Michele S - Sep 8th, 2009 at 6:20 am EDT

Professor Jacob Hacker originally defined the concept of an ideal 'public option' as part of health care reform a decade ago. He evaluates current health care proposals in his recent report Public Plan Choice in Congressional Health Plans: the Good, the Not-so-good, and the Ugly. On page 20 Hacker includes a chart comparing 4 of the current federal proposals based on 5 criteria against his definition of the ideal public plan.

Hacker writes, "The simplest public option is to let people without employer-provided health insurance to buy into Medicare, or a similar program, at cost."

Democrats started with a compromise position, failing to make the best case for health care reform as key to economic recovery -- a single public-payer model with full choice of private providers (unlike private insurances that limit provider access). Instead, Democrats have promoted a largely undefined 'public option,' and permitted the political right to define the terms of the debate using distortion and distraction.

As Hacker notes, a strong public plan at the very least must be built on Medicare's existing provider network and payment methods, and not weakened by requiring the plan to create a provider network from scratch, or to negotiate rates individually with each provider across the nation. Access to a 'public plan' should not be restricted to only the smallest firms.

The best way for President Obama and Democrats to reclaim the issue is by making their 'public option' an optional Medicare buy-in for anyone. Medicare is known and liked by most people, and not so easily distorted. Medicare has low overhead costs for built-in cost containment, and its structure is in place -- it could be up and running relatively quickly, with no need to create a whole new program at additional cost. Enlarging Medicare's risk pool by permitting younger people to buy in on a sliding scale would improve its financial stability.

Additional improvements to Medicare would encompass eliminating costly high subsidies to privatized Medicare Advantage plans, and permitting negotiation of drug prices as is done in other countries, while improving provider reimbursement. See also: 'Public Option' a Shadow of Its Original Intent - Dr. Marcia Angell Advises Optional Medicare Buy-In

STATE & LOCAL SAVINGS WITH SINGLE PAYER
Share with legislators the 6-page Summary of State and Local Savings of Single Payer in the 2007 Lewin Report as a remedy to strained local and state budgets. Some public policy people are beginning to consider these savings as states become more distressed.

NUMBERS OF UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED IN COLORADO
A Denver Post editorial recently repeated the error of attributing all unpaid medical bills to the uninsured. "If we only insure the uninsured, runs the thinking, cost-shifting in the form of rising premiums for the insured will be ended" -- completely ignoring the link between growing numbers of underinsured and the increased unpaid medical costs over the past decade.

In addition to denial or delay of care, insurance companies make money by shifting more costs to families and individuals by moving them to "catastrophic" or "consumer-driven" health plans with less coverage and high out-of-pocket costs.

A 2008 Study by doctors at the University of Colorado School of Medicine revealed that of those with insurance for a full year, <b>36.3% were underinsured</b> -- that is, they reported the delay or omission of recommended care because of their inability to afford it; half felt that their health suffered because they could not afford recommended care.

A 2009 Study by Families USA reported that <b>32.4% of Coloradans were uninsured</b> - nearly 1 out of 3 people under age 65 had no health insurance all or part of the 2-year period 2007-2008.

Combined, the numbers indicate that at any point in time, as many as 68.5% of Coloradans may be under- or uninsured.

RESOLUTIONS IN SUPPORT OF SINGLE PAYER
Denver Democrats Executive Committee voted 44-4 for a resolution urging our state and federal legislators to support single payer health care reform. Read about it . Other Colorado county Democrats have also expressed support of a single-payer system, including Montrose, Boulder, Costilla, Hinsdale, La Plata, Arapahoe counties, and recently Jeffco. The nation's mayors passed a Resolution in support of single payer, HR 676, at their gathering last summer.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1)

Small Window of Opportunity for Single Payer Debate & Vote in the House - "Public Option" Diluted

By Michele S - Aug 13th, 2009 at 6:03 pm EDT

Another small window of opportunity for a congressional debate and vote on the single payer bill (HR 676) will open next month. In response to Rep. Anthony Wiener's (D-NY) proposed amendment for HR 676 in the House Energy & Commerce Committee, Speaker Pelosi agreed to have a debate and a vote on the single payer bill on the House floor after Congress reconvenes in the Fall. Please urge your representatives to support the single payer proposal - more suggested talking points below. The "public option" has been diluted from its original intent - see piece below.

Fearmongering around "government-controlled" health care has been used to distract from our Wall-St. controlled health care. See The Tyranny of Wall St.-Run Health Care: No CEO Left Behind.

Genesis of the Public Option & Its Dilution
The "public option" has been diluted – testament to the influence of the monied lobbies. It is a rule of negotiation not to start with compromise, and, instead to make the best case for reform upfront. The best case for comprehensive coverage and cost containment is a single public payer model with full free choice of private providers -- from that position, compromise would at least be a stronger "public option."

The Public Option feature of health care reform was conceived by political science professor Jacob Hacker, whose most recent iteration in 2007 is named the "Health Care for America Plan." Hacker envisioned it as a "Medicare-like" program that would sell health insurance to the non-elderly in competition with the 1,000 to 1,500 health insurance companies that sell insurance today.

Kip Sullivan, member of Minnesota Physicians for a National Health Program, recently evaluated the "public option" features of House and Senate Democratic proposals, and concluded that they are faint shadows of Hacker’s original proposal. Read the full piece about the genesis of the public option & its dilution.

The 5 original criteria that Hacker and the Lewin Group (which evaluated it) said are critical to the success of the "public option":

•• The Public Option had to be pre-populated with tens of millions of people, that is, it had to begin like Medicare did representing a large pool of people the day it commenced operations (Hacker proposed shifting all or most uninsured people as well as Medicaid and SCHIP enrollees into his public program);
•• Subsidies to individuals to buy insurance would be substantial, and only Public Option enrollees could get subsidies (people who chose to buy insurance from insurance companies could not get subsidies);
•• The Public Option and its subsidies had to be available to all nonelderly Americans (not just the uninsured and employees of small employers);
•• The Public Option had to be given authority to use Medicare’s provider reimbursement rates; and
•• The insurance industry had to be required to offer the same minimum level of benefits the Public Option had to offer.

Concluded Sullivan, of Hacker’s five criteria, only one is met by the Democrats’ proposed bills – i.e., both proposals require the insurance industry to cover the same benefits the "public option" must cover. None of the other four criteria are met.

As Robert Kuttner writes (Faint Praise): "...the likelihood is that whatever finally makes it through this session of Congress will reinforce and further bloat the current disaster of a health insurance system rather than fundamentally changing it. And if the decent elements of the plan are blocked, Obama should have the courage to pull the bill and take his case to the people....The satisfaction of a Rose Garden signing ceremony is not worth it, if the plan is more thorn than rose."

Talking Points to take to Legislators

Legislators need to hear from constituents in order to counter the $1.4 million/day spent by insurance, PHRMA & other special interests steering the health care reform debate to benefit their bottom lines.

Some things we might tell our senators/represenatives:

Eliminate For-Profit Insurances – The U.S. is the only country that continues to build its health insurance system around for-profit insurances. Most other industrialized nations prohibit for-profit insurance for primary health care; private insurance is reserved for supplemental coverage (e.g., private hospital room with TV, cosmetic surgeries, etc.). Underwriting should be eliminated, and true universal coverage provided.

Extend Medicare to All – As Dr. Marcia Angel says, the simplest way to expand health coverage to all (even in stages) is to expand Medicare coverage to all. It can be expanded by decade - lower the qualifying age to 50, then 40, etc. The infrastructure for Medicare billing, etc. is in place; it only needs to be improved, e.g., to permit negotiation of bulk drug and medical equipment costs; and the more costly privatized Medicare plans eliminated.

Support the amendment offered by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), which would effectively replace the entire existing health plan with the text of H.R. 676, Rep. John Conyers' single-payer legislation. Speaker Pelosi has agreed to permit debate and a vote on Weiner's Single Payer Amendment sometime after the House reconvenes in September.

A True Public Option – must include the 5 main criteria listed by Hacker above. The "Public Option" won’t save much money, but it may provide the competition to keep private insurances "more honest."

CBO Report of Single Payer Savings – The Congressional Budget Office should report the cost savings of the single-payer proposals (HR676 & SB703) side-by-side with the cost analysis of every other proposal. Over 20 federal and state studies since 1990 show considerable cost savings with the single-payer model. If the Blue Dog Democrats are serious about cost containment, they should demand the full CBO Report – see Blue Dogs Should Demand CBO Report of Single Payer Savings

Means-testing for subsidies adds a high "non-benefit" cost. It is less costly to simply cover everyone (like Medicare) instead of making folks jump through hoops to prove eligibility (for subsidies, etc). Read the comments of Merton C. Bernstein, leading health insurance expert and law professor emeritus at Washington University, who notes that private health insurance non-benefit costs range from about 12% to as much as 30% of outlays – compared to Medicare overhead of 3%.

Kucinich Amendment in Support of State Single Payer – Urge our senators and representatives to assure that the Kucinich Amendment is part of any health bill that passes, to help states pass single payer reform without federal ERISA challenges. At least 10 states have written single payer proposals thus far.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (4)

Health Care Reform?

By Doc Martin - Jul 12th, 2009 at 7:25 pm EDT

Also listed in: Evergreen Progressives

Proponents of the status quo in the health care system, i.e. those entities that are capturing the billions of excess dollars that Americans are paying for ever-diminishing availability and declining quality, are portraying the proposed fixes as a typical tax and spend approach by liberals. The claim is that health care delivery will suffer and Americans will be worse off.

This argument is a gigantic red herring. America does not have a health care delivery problem – it has a health care insurance problem. The insurance industry, which is not regulated at the Federal level and is lightly regulated by most states, (especially Arizona, Connecticut, and Nebraska, where many of them are headquartered) is a succubus that has its fangs sunk into every food chain in the American economy. A good portion of the current economic crisis is traceable to the unregulated insurance industry – AIG being the poster child. But that is another discussion.

There are two core principles of insurance:
1. Spread the risk of losses.
2. Prevent adverse selection.

Spreading the risk means that coverage should be as broad as possible. Claims are statistically predictable; if one person will get cancer each year (but we don’t know which one), and it costs $100,000 to treat her, then an annual premium of $1000 from one thousand people will suffice. It is true that if the cost were lower, the premium would be lower, and this leads to a discussion of the efficiency of the health care system and the costs of treatment. But if we could spread the risk of one cancer across one million people, the annual premium would be only ten cents a year. Of course, the number of cancers would also go up, but at least for this disease, the overall incidence of cancer per 100,000 people has been falling since about 1992. (Source: http://progressreport.cancer.gov)

“Spreading the risk” inherently requires cross-subsidy. Those who do not get sick pay premiums that then pay for the treatment of those who do get sick; the premiums of those whose houses do not catch fire pay for the losses of those which do.

Like all cross-subsidy arrangements, an incentive exists for those who think they can beat the odds to drop out of the insurance pool. Men don’t want to pay for pregnancy coverage; the young don’t want to pay for Alzheimer’s treatment, New Yorkers don’t want to pay for earthquake damage in California. It also creates an incentive for profit-maximizing insurance companies to cover those who are less likely than average to place claims. The result is that those who remain in the insurance pool face higher and higher proportions of claims and higher and higher insurance premiums. This cycle creates an incentive for further “opting out” and the vicious cycle proceeds. This is the essence of “adverse selection” where the pool of insured individuals becomes increasingly riskier.

The policy implications are obvious:
1. To spread the risk as widely as possible, get the entire population into a single pool. That means “single payer.”
2. To avoid adverse selection, either make membership in the pool mandatory or require “Pay or Play” so that drop outs cannot avoid their contribution to the pool.

Note that this says nothing at all about the provision of health care services. While the current system of insurance creates distortions in the provision of health services, the insurance problem is separable from them. But the health care providers that live on those distortions have teamed up with the insurance companies to drag those smelly red herrings into the discussion. Watch out when they start waving their hands and turn up the volume.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0)

National Day of Action for Single Payer Health Care - 250 attend rally in Denver

By Michele S - Jun 1st, 2009 at 8:48 am EDT

Two-hundred and fifty people gathered on the steps of the Colorado Capitol Saturday, May 30 as part of a "National Day of Action" to advocate for a single-payer model of health care reform. People came from Colorado Springs, Buena Vista and Ft. Collins as well as metro Denver to share stories and data about the utter failure of U.S. health care, which has become a profit-center for multi-payer insurances and hospitals at the expense of health care access for the people of Colorado.

Roya, a rally organizer from Health Care for All Colorado, related the story of a friend, repeatedly denied health care due to a "pre-existing" condition of cancer, until she died. Mike, a leader of ArapaHope Community Team, another rally organizer, told of continuous denial of health care coverage since he had a mild heart attack 14 years ago.

Fort Collins physician, Dr. Cory Carroll expressed the frustration of primary care providers whose care for patients is often complicated or obstructed by for-profit private insurances that assume the right to deny or delay claims.

Sen. Morgan Carroll observed that insurance companies make their profit by over-charging premiums, which rose 98% from 2000-2007, and by denying necessary health care. In Colorado, unlicensed and unqualified insurance industry folks deny necessary medical treatment. Asking "Where are our priorities?" Sen. Carroll noted that we have spent billions more on wall street bailouts than it would cost to provide health care to every single American for decades. Read more of Sen. Carroll's remarks.

Single-Payer has been declared "off the table" by Sen. Baucus and others in Washington. When Gov. Howard Dean visited Denver last week to promote a parallel public health care option, he drew gasps from his progressive audience when he suggested that Medicare Part D was "good" reform --perhaps a mark of the insularity of Washington culture, and a disconnect on the part of some of our leaders.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0)

Rapping themselves in the flag

By Doc Martin - Apr 17th, 2009 at 7:07 pm EDT

Also listed in: Evergreen Progressives

The DHS report that cited the dangers of right wing hate groups recruiting returning military veterans has got the slef-appointed defenders of the honor of the military in a lather. O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and the others froth that the report is a sklght to the patriotism of veterans. This is the usual BS from these guys - oppose the war and you don't support the troops; worry about recruitment of combat-trained veterans into neo-Nazi and white supremacy groups and you are questioning the patriotism of all veterans.

I am not sure how these guys became defenders of the honor of the military; maybe it is guilt that none of them actually served themselves:
David Brooks, NY Times columnist
No military service.

Pat Buchanan, MSNBC commentator
No military service.

Ann Coulter, writer & commentator
No military service.

Lou Dobbs, CNN News anchor
No military service.

Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal editor
No military service.

Sean Hannity, Hannity & Colmes host
No military service.

Brit Hume, Fox News anchor
No military service.

Rush Limbaugh, Radio talk show host
No military service.

Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly Factor host
No military service.

Michael Savage, Radio talk show host
No military service.

William Safire, NY Times columnist
U.S. Army journalist.

George Will, Washington Post columnist
No military service.

Glenn Beck, Fox News Commentator
No military service

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0)

Brief Window for Debate about Single Payer Health Care

By Michele S - Apr 12th, 2009 at 6:47 pm EDT

Rep. John Kefalas has done a stellar job of shepherding the Colorado Guaranteed Health Care Act (HB 1273) through two committees - Business Affairs & Labor and Appropriations - and a second reading in the House. The bill is scheduled for 3rd reading and final vote in the House on Monday, April 13, where it now has 32 votes. One more vote is needed or it will die.

Six Democrats have yet to indicate they will vote affirmatively.

Please call and email each of the following representatives before 9 a.m. on Monday morning.

Speaker Terrence Carroll 303-866-2909 terrance.carroll.house@state.co.us

Rep. Kathleen Curry 303-866-2945 kathleencurry@montrose.net

Rep. Wesley McKinley 303-866-2398 mckinley@cowboywes.com

Rep. Karen Middleton 303-866-3911 karen@karenmiddleton.com

Rep. Jim Riesberg 303-866-2929 jim.riesberg.house@state.co.us

Rep. Christine Scanlan 303-866-2952 christine.scanlan.house@state.co.us

The Board of Directors of the Health District of Northern Larimer County wrote a 6-page objective analysis of HB 1273, and voted unaminously to endorse the bill - one of more than 60 group endorsers. Read their Analysis.

The Northern Colorado Business Report, which has remained out in front in reporting on health care reform, on March 13 printed an editorial endorsement of HB 1273. Read their Endorsement.

Opponents of HB 1273 have predictably focused on "free market" arguments invoking "competition" and "choice", though, honestly, people want a choice of health care providers, not minimum-benefit insurances that leave them at risk. Rep. Kefalas has consistently maintained that to move to a quality-centered health care system, competition should occur among providers, not among for-profit insurances. Kefalas rightly notes that we need a new health care paradigm that also permits greater transparency in order to facilitate determination of best practices and health care outcomes. Currently, thousands of different insurers each maintain secrecy around their own proprietary data.

One of the oft-used arguments to foreclose debate of HB 1273 - used by Republicans and by the governor’s office - has been the notion that the 208 Commission studied the single payer proposal in depth and rejected it. Nevertheless, we who were present at most of the 208 Commission meetings witnessed the almost immediate dismissal of any consideration of the Single Payer model. There was true disbelief expressed by Commission Chair Bill Lindsay (among others) - "That can’t be!" - when the Lewin Group reported the cost savings of single payer. It was the only one of 5 proposals that showed cost savings for providers, businesses, families, hospitals, and a net savings for the state of $1.4 billion, as well as the ability to provide comprehensive coverage for all.

There was never any attempt by the Commission to follow up with study of the Single Payer model - rather, they dismissed it in 4 cursory sentences in their Final Report to the legislature, calling it "politically unfeasible." The Commission devoted most of their time to writing their own proposal of incremental reforms based on the Massachusetts model of a mandate for private insurances.

So, debate around the Single Payer model has been consistently short-circuited at all levels, with an effective media blackout among the large Denver-area print media. It bears repeating that throughout the 208 Commission process, the Denver Post and The Rocky Mountain News rejected pieces related to the Single Payer model, preferring instead pieces by "free-market" advocates. The business editor of the News informed me that he did not want "to confuse his readers" with information about single payer. By comparision, the Ft. Collins and Pueblo newspapers excelled at presenting pros and cons of all aspects of the health care reform debate.

We have yet to have a thorough honest debate of the Single Payer model of health care that has not been distorted by opponents’ framing, too often with capitulation from some of our Democratic leaders. As recently as April 7 when Rep. Diana DeGette gave her signature health care reform speech before the City Club of Denver, she conceded the issue by using opponents’ framing of health care reform. Promising "strong doctor-patient relationships - free from government interference...," DeGette disregarded the fact that only a single-payer model offers full choice of providers; nor did she mention the $20 billion annual interference of private insurance plans that daily breach patient-doctor relationships, gaming the system using "Denial Management" to deny, delay and renege on insurance claims. "...let there be no doubt: ‘socialized medicine’ is not coming to America," promised DeGette. Again, our Democratic leaders too often fail to define issues and inform people, but rather fall into the trap of letting Republicans and corporate interests define the terms of every debate.

For the first time since Rep. Kefalas introduced the Colorado Guaranteed Health Care Act (HB 1273) this legislative session, on Monday April 6 there was a relatively brief (1-1/2 hour) window for debate about the issue of single payer on the House floor. It was a powerful experience to witness Democrats stepping up to present the case for a sytemic health care reform, countering the specious arguments presented by the opposition. I will summarize the April 6 HB 1273 House floor debate in a subsequent post.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0)

GM-Segway fiasco

By Doc Martin - Apr 7th, 2009 at 11:35 pm EDT

Also listed in: Evergreen Progressives

Today I saw the embarrassing exposure of the General Motors "vehicle" offering in partnership with Segway - a cross between a golf cart and a baby carriage. My first reaction was that GM had undertaken such a fiasco with the Hummer that it was now going to the opposite extreme, and it would turn out about the same. The immediate reaction of the networks and those around me watching at the gym was laughter.

But the penny dropped for me when I read that the Obama Administration was going to impose tougher emission standards on the fleets of American auto manufacturers. The GM-Segway vehicles will be flogged off to mall cops and airport security and DoD will buy a bunch for their messengers to get around in the long halls of the Pentagon. A few may get sold in retirement communities instead of golf carts. But the only strategic purpose of this "vehicle" will be to pull down the average fuel consumption of the GM fleet so that it can meet the emissions and fuel economy standards while it continues to make gas guzzlers for fun and profit.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1)

Effective Media Blackout of Single Payer, Even as Support for Comprehensive Health Care Reform Grows

By Michele S - Apr 5th, 2009 at 5:32 pm EDT

Media Blackout on Single-Payer Healthcare, a report by FAIR reveals that proponents of single-payer health care reform have been virtually shut out of the debate, despite polls showing strong public support - 59-to-32 over a privatized system in a New York Times/CBS survey (January 2009). In the week prior to President Obama’s health summit, two of only three mentions of single-payer on TV outlets were by guests who strongly oppose it. Full Report

A May 2005 Pew Poll revealed that 65 percent agreed government should guarantee health coverage for every American "even if it means raising taxes." In a 2009 Lake Research Partners survey, nearly 7 in 10 voters expressed a desire for complete overhaul or major reform of the health care system. The April 2008 Annals of Internal Medicine reported that 59 percent of U.S. doctors supported "government legislation to establish national health insurance," an increase of 10 percent of doctors over 5 years.

The debate continues to be short-circuited, an effective blackout in some media markets since the convening of the Colorado 208 Commission on Health Care Reform. Though the CHS single-payer proposal was the only 1 of 5 proposals demonstrating state cost savings of $1.4 billion and comprehensive coverage for all, it was buried in the Commission’s final report and dismissed as ‘politically unfeasible.’

Throughout the 208 Commission process, the Denver Post and The Rocky Mountain News printed only health care reform pieces by ‘free-market’ advocates. The News business editor, Rob Reuteman backed out of his promise to give equal time to single-payer, saying that it is "pie-in-the-sky" and "I don’t want to confuse the readers." Media marginalization continues.

The Colorado Guaranteed Health Care Act (HB 1273) moved out of the Business Affairs Committee on March 18, with at least 100 supporters, many providers and small business owners testifying about the need to address the declining primary care infrastructure and the rising cost that make coverage prohibitive. It was noted that Massachusetts reform is a trainwreck, marked by taxpayer-subsidized private insurance and growing numbers on Medicaid rolls, doubliing Massachusetts health spending, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion in 2009.

HCPF director and the governor’s spokesperson, Joan Henneberry spoke against HB 1273, calling it a "a new bureaucracy." In fact, the bill intends to address the unsustainable private and public health care bureaucracies. Multi-payer insurances are paper-intensive with high overhead costs; and the Colorado Medicaid bureaucracy maintains about 20 different categories of Medicaid, each with different means testing and annual reauthorizations that erect barriers to health care access and exponentially increase administrative costs.

On March 27 Colorado State of Mind (ch 6) invited panelists to speak about Colorado health care reform, but failed to include anyone who could speak to the specious arguments raised against HB 1273. Pediatrician Larry Wolk asserted that single payer denies ‘choice,’ and that it represents ‘one-size-fits-all’ -- variations on the ‘free-market’ theme holding that people want a choice of insurances, rather than a choice of health care providers. A choice of minimum-benefit and catastrophic coverage is no choice at all - something employees are discovering as costs rise and more are moved into reduced-benefit policies with high out-of-pocket costs.

Pediatric cardiologist Dr. Reginald Washington noted that even if more people have public or private insurance, there are not enough primary care providers in Colorado to care for everybody. In fact, more primary care providers are leaving private practice, overwhelmed by the burden of dealing with multi-payer networks, copious paperwork, preauthorizations and claims denials that take away valuable time from patients, and require them to hire extra staff.

The Colorado Guaranteed Health Care Act (HB1273) provides the structure for a long-term, systemic solution – simplified billing, quality-centered health care, and full choice of providers and hospitals. It addresses our degraded primary care system with investment in education to address provider shortages; and requires transparency for determining best practices, and incentives for improved health outcomes and costs containment.

The bill passed out of Appropriatiions April 3 and will probably be heard in the full House the week of April 6. All of our legislators and the governor need to hear that there is grassroots support for HB1273. Appropriations members are below. Identify your legislators at www.vote-smart.org . Write an email to the governor at http://www.chcpf.state.co.us/governor/contact.html.

To those who ask why we do this at the state level, there have been federal bills (which may be re-introduced this session) to fund state pilot projects for health care reform. At least one of our congressional delegation is willing to help us at the federal level, and we need to be ready. If you think comprehensive health care reform will happen quickly at the federal level, please read the following piece I wrote for Huffington Post: Dems & Repubs on Health Care: 'Love a Lobbyist' - we need to urge our federal senators and representatives to work for meaningful reform.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0)

Help get a Special Prosecutor for Bush, Cheney & appointee Lawyers, to Indict for Sec 18 violations-Torture & Conspiracy to...

By Kennedy John - Apr 2nd, 2009 at 11:45 am EDT

There are national Petitions in process to ask Obama to appoint a Special Prosecutor to lead US Department Of Justice enforcement actions against the Bush appointee Lawyers that advocated felony violations of our Federal Laws on Torture, and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Who have addmitted Ordering felony

Click on the Image to Sign it Today.

This website is a quick way to sign the Petition to have them Indicted and to ask Obama to appoint a Special Prosecutor Thanks for your assistance.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2)

The GOP Betrayal of Vets Goes On

By Ralph T - Mar 29th, 2009 at 10:56 pm EDT

This latest posting in the "Lamborn Files" comes via the esteemed Colorado Independent (see the Extended Post Text). Where we learn that the lesser Congressman from Colorado Springs has pronounced his policy for providing Veterans Administration (VA) benefits only to deserving (according to his confused definition) veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and standing against his delusional tide of undeserving vets suffering from PTSD.

Wendy Norris lays it out pretty clean and to the point reporting this story. But, there's the rest of the story to consider. Lamborn's conduct is an indictment both of his inadequacy to represent the people of the heavily military 5th CD, but also of his Party's penchant to picking, choosing (discriminating) and ultimately denying the right of Americans to adequate healthcare.

Perhaps in earlier decades a Congressman could get away with making such statements. In the age of C-SPAN such an allowance and forgiveness for being horrifically wrong cannot go unanswered and without penalty. While it is shocking that Lamborn would disregard the pleas of the supporting Veterans organizations, the silence of those groups in response to Lamborn’s offense is an even greater indictment of their often brazen Conservative posturing.

It is fortunate that America is not facing a Republican controlled US House. With the likes of Lamborn in charge such a deserving and important piece of legislation could very well have been defeated. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the national vets groups to thank the Democratic Congress, or criticize a Republican.

This is a clear example of the long-running self-destructive practices of the veterans and military advocacy groups. Regardless of the truth and obvious merits of Democratic introduced policies and legislation it is all too often the reaction of the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign War and others to side with the Republicans who have inexplicably sided not with soldiers and veterans, but with off-shore defense contractors and mercenaries.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (5)

Life is Just a Western Movie

By Doc Martin - Mar 11th, 2009 at 4:36 pm EDT

Also listed in: Evergreen Progressives

A hoary old plot in many Westerns has the good, hardworking and upstanding townspeople under the tyrannical thumb of the villainous and rapacious rancher/miner/oilman along with his henchman and behind-the-scenes strategist. There is usually also a smart accountant type who never actually does anything bad, but who undertakes to make the politics work out to the economic benefit of the power elite. They have in their pocket the mayor, town council and most important to the plot, the town sheriff. Often in these plots, the first corrupt sheriff has to be replaced when he fhas an attack of conscience and finally draws a principled line because he thinks the bad guys have gone too far. There is also usually on call a stable of cruel but stupid private gunslingers and thugs who shut down dissent by extra-legal beatings, murders and threats. In various versions of this plot, the newspaper publisher is either a co-conspirator or a fearless defender of the truth who gets trashed for his honesty.

The laws are made and enforced for the benefit of the power structure. The town council consists of prominent local business men who find it in their economic interest to go along in order to collect whatever crumbs are thrown their way - they go along so that they can get along. It is only when the virtuous and idealistic lawyer from back east comes along and stands up to the terror that the people rise up and dethrone the bad guys; the peace-loving and idealistic lawyer wins over the girl who was initially a passive participant in the system.

It shouldn't take long to populate this plot with the actors in our current political drama. George W. Bush is the rancher/miner/oilman, Dick Cheney is his henchman, the Club for Growth, the oil industry, the financial/insurance sector and the American Chamber of Commerce are the local business men who get the economic benefits of going along. The smart accountant is played by Phil Gramm who arranges for the laws to be written to allow the exploitation to happen. The first sheriff is played by John Ashcroft and his replacement is played by Alberto Gonzalez. The thugs and gunslingers are played by Coulter, Limbaugh, and Hannity, and the evil manipulator of public opinion is Rupert Murdock.

Along comes the virtuous and idealistic lawyer from back East - Barack Obama, the consummate outsider, who ultimately defeats the forces of evil by using the power of his ideals and example to galvanize the average people, reinstate the rule of law, and run the bad guys out of town, and in the end, he even wins over Hillary Clinton. The people then chip in their resources and hard work to rebuild the destruction that the bad guys have caused to the town.

The big question is whether our national spaghetti western is over, or whether there remain further acts, in which there is a shootout in the main street/town square with the remnants of the old regime. Will the crooked holdover judges let the bad guys off and undermine the rule of law? Will the prominent local businessmen try to flex their economic muscles to establish a new corrupt elite? Will the rancher/miner/oilman hold his workers hostage and seek a buyout as a condition of leaving town? Will the hostile newspaperman rally the losers from reform to overturn them and reinstate the old corrupt ways?

Tune in next week.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0)

Letter to Editor in Support of HB 1273, CO Guaranteed Health Care Act

By Michele S - Mar 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 pm EST

Following is a draft letter to the editor in support of HB09-1273, Colorado Guaranteed Health Care Act -- hearing scheduled for March 18 at 1:30pm. Adapt it to write your own letter.

Editor:

A large contributor to the U.S. crisis of health care financing and delivery is the administrative bureaucrcacy of profit-first multi-payer insurances that siphon 31% of our health care dollars to profits and excessive administrative costs. The Wall St. Journal (2-14-07) has reported that insurance middlemen in the $20 billion annual business of 'Denial Management' are employed solely to search for reasons to delay, deny or renege on health claims. The Journal reports that one-third of U.S. claims are initially denied, further contributing to inflationary administrative costs.

Journalist T.R. Reid contrasts U.S. health care with that in 5 other industrialized nations in his documentary 'Sick Around the World.' None of the 5 countries he visited - Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Taiwan and Great Britain - utilizes for-profit insurance; all pay on average half as much per capita for health care as the U.S., and all have better health care outcomes, longer lives, etc.

Rather than a quality-centered health care system, the U.S. profit-centered model of health care has compromised our primary care infrastructure. At least one-hundred overburdened U.S. emergency rooms have closed their doors over the past decade. It was recently reported that University Hospital became the 8th area facility to close its psychiatric unit; at the same time, it maintains a new 6-story building on the Fitzsimmons campus dedicated solely to billing, processing more than 1,000 different forms for over 1,000 different insurers.

Over 20 federal and state studies, including the Lewin Group study of Colorado proposals in 2007, have demonstrated billions of dollars of savings in health care spending, as well as the ability to provide comprehensive health care for all, utilizing a single-risk-pool publicly financed and privately delivered health care system.

The Colorado Guaranteed Health Care Act, HB09-1273, has been introduced to create the structure for comprehensive reform that guarantees health care for all Coloradans. In addition to streamlining administrative health costs, HB09-1273 stipulates annual negotiation of fair reimbursement to all providers; negotiation of prescription drug and medical equipment costs; support for education to address primary care, nursing and other provider shortages; and provision of retraining for displaced workers.

In the place of inadequate private insurances that have seen premium increases of more than 100% since 2000, the single public-payer model of health insurance separates health coverage from employment, establishes a sliding-scale premium based on income, and permits full choice of health care providers. Read more about the proposed bill at Health Care for All Colorado. We must begin a dialogue with our legislators about meaningful health care reform.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2)

HB 09-1273 - Colorado Guaranteed Health Care for All - now scheduled for hearing March 18 @ 1:30pm

By Michele S - Feb 27th, 2009 at 11:16 pm EST

HB 09-1273 - the Colorado Guaranteed Health Care Act - defines the structure for meaningful health care reform. It is the only current proposed systemic health care reform that addresses the crisis of health care financing and delivery. Read Bill Description & Summary.

It is popular to say that single, public-payer health insurance with full choice of providers is the solution, but it is "not politically feasible" - which has become an expression of the lack of political will to do the right thing. Fifty-nine percent of doctors (historically conservative) in a recent poll supported the single-payer model of health care reform.

A friend's doctor is one who no longer processes health insurance claims - he requires payment from his patients, whom he advises to file their own claims with their insurance companies. Similarly, some hospitals have been reported to require up-front payment from patients who have "catastrophic" insurances with high-out-of-pocket expenses (underinsurance), which notoriously result in unpaid medical bills.

Thus far, HB 09-1273 has 15 House and 3 Senate cosponsors. Urge your legislators to sign on as cosponsor. HB 09-1273 could become a significant contributor to economic recovery.

The Following Groups have endorsed the the Colorado Guaranteed Health Care Act. If your group would like to endorse, contact info@healthcareforallcolorado.org.

Colorado Nurses Association
Colorado Medical Society
National Association of Social Workers, Colorado Chapter
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union
Colorado Education Association
League of Women Voters (Colorado)
Junior League of Denver
Colorado Cross Disability Coalition
Autism Society of Colorado
Colorado Social Legislation Committee
Hunger for Justice Lutheran Advocacy Ministry of Colorado
The Rocky Mountain Conference of The United Methodist Church
Balanced Choice Health Care, Inc.
Colorado Alliance for Retired Americans
Be the Change USA
Justice and Peace Ministry Team of the Rocky Mountain Conference of the United Church of Christ
Arapahope Community Team
LARASA (Latin American Research And Service Agency)

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0)

CO Guaranteed Health Care Bill - Hearing moved to March 18 1:30pm

By Michele S - Feb 24th, 2009 at 1:39 am EST

Attend the hearing for HR 1273 currently scheduled on March 18 at 1:30 pm in the Capitol Old Supreme Court Chambers, 2nd floor.

A large contributor to the U.S. crisis of health care financing and delivery is the administrative bureaucrcacy of profit-first multi-payer insurances that siphon 31% of our health care dollars to profits and excessive overhead costs. The Wall St. Journal (2-14-07) has reported that insurance middlemen in the $20 billion annual business of ‘Denial Management’ are employed solely to search for reasons to delay, deny or renege on health claims. The Journal reports that one-third of U.S. claims are initially denied, further contributing to inflationary administrative costs.

Journalist T.R. Reid contrasts U.S. health care with that in 5 other industrialized nations in his documentary ‘Sick Around the World.’ None of the 5 countries he visited – Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Taiwan and Great Britain – utilizes for-profit insurance; all pay on average half as much per capita for health care as the U.S., and all have better health care outcomes, longer lives, etc.

Rather than a quality-centered health care system, the U.S. profit-centered model of health care has compromised our primary care infrastructure. At least one hundred overburdened U.S. emergency rooms have closed their doors over the past decade. It was recently reported that University Hospital became the 8th area facility to close its psychiatric unit; at the same time, it maintains a new 6-story building on the Fitzsimmons campus dedicated solely to billing, processing more than 1,000 different forms for over 1,000 different insurers.

Over 20 federal and state studies, including the Colorado Lewin Group study in 2007, have demonstrated billions of dollars of savings in health care spending, as well as the ability to provide comprehensive health care for all, utilizing a single-risk-pool publicly financed and privately delivered health care system.

The Colorado Guaranteed Health Care Act, HB09-1273, has been introduced to create the structure for comprehensive reform that guarantees health care for all Coloradans. In addition to streamlining administrative health costs, HB09-1273 stipulates annual negotiation of fair reimbursement to all providers; negotiation of prescription drug and medical equipment costs; support for education to address primary care, nursing and other provider shortages; and prioritization of retraining for displaced workers.

In the place of inadequate private insurances that have seen premium increases of more than 100% since 2000, the single public-payer model of health insurance separates health coverage from employment, establishes a sliding-scale premium based on income, and permits full choice of health care providers. Read more about the proposed bill at www.HealthCareforAllColorado.org, then urge your legislators to support HB09-1273, comprehensive health care for all Coloradans.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1)

Colorado Guaranteed Health Care Act - HB 09-1273

By Michele S - Feb 10th, 2009 at 12:24 am EST

Following is a summary of the Colorado Guaranteed Health Care Act, setting up the framework for true universal health care in Colorado. It has been assigned to the House Business Affairs & Labor Committee, which meets on Tuesdays and Wednesdays (members listed below). Rep. Kefalas introduced HB09-1273 with fifteen House cosponsors (Representatives Gwen Green, Jerry Frangas, Lois Court, Randy Fischer, Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, Jeanne Labuda, Claire Levy, Joe Miklosi, Sal Pace, Edward Vigil, Dennis Apuan, Beth McCann, Anne McGihon, Su Ryden, and Sue Schafer). Senator Joyce Foster will introduce the bill in the Senate; presently, there are two cosponsors: Senators Morgan Carroll and Bob Bacon. Thank your legislators if they are cosponsoring the bill.

See Summary of Bill HB 09-1273 & Full 13-page Bill