Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Universal health care in the deep south?
Check out this editorial. Coming as it does from The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, it's quite a strong statement in favor of universal, guaranteed health care:
Neither the Senate nor House bills gets to the heart of the health care insurance issue: a national plan providing universal coverage within the context of a private-sector health-care economy.
The experience of other advanced industrial democracies with nationalized, single-payer health-care programs isn't compelling - except in the provision of a guaranteed level of insurance for all.
It's got the obligatory Europe-bashing, but in essence it's a call for a government-guaranteed floor of health care. That's pretty radical for a state that's got Haley Barbour in the governor's mansion. But maybe that should be no surprise. Mississippi has a 17.9% uninsured rate, 11th highest in the country. As the editorial notes, insurance is becoming an increasingly middle-class woe, with reduced coverage by employers leaving even the moderately well-off without an affordable pool to enter.
When local papers in deep red states cry out for comprehensive reform, that's a warning sign we're reaching a tipping point where the concerns of the poor become the anxieties of the middle class. And once that trend matures, it'll reflect itself in vote totals. If something in this equation doesn't change, the red states may soon prove themselves red in a very different sense of the word. But, don't worry, they'll still hate Europe.
Neither the Senate nor House bills gets to the heart of the health care insurance issue: a national plan providing universal coverage within the context of a private-sector health-care economy.
The experience of other advanced industrial democracies with nationalized, single-payer health-care programs isn't compelling - except in the provision of a guaranteed level of insurance for all.
It's got the obligatory Europe-bashing, but in essence it's a call for a government-guaranteed floor of health care. That's pretty radical for a state that's got Haley Barbour in the governor's mansion. But maybe that should be no surprise. Mississippi has a 17.9% uninsured rate, 11th highest in the country. As the editorial notes, insurance is becoming an increasingly middle-class woe, with reduced coverage by employers leaving even the moderately well-off without an affordable pool to enter.
When local papers in deep red states cry out for comprehensive reform, that's a warning sign we're reaching a tipping point where the concerns of the poor become the anxieties of the middle class. And once that trend matures, it'll reflect itself in vote totals. If something in this equation doesn't change, the red states may soon prove themselves red in a very different sense of the word. But, don't worry, they'll still hate Europe.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Wisconsin's culture of corruption continues
As reported by our friends at the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign: The report on Illinois donors in trouble with the law who've contributed to the campaigns of the three Wisconsin candidates for governor that the Democracy Campaign released yesterday is the top story in the metro section of today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
The Democracy Campaign is calling on Governor Jim Doyle and his Republican opponents, Congressman Mark Green and Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, to immediately return the contributions and disassociate themselves from the individuals in question and the interests they represent.
So far, the candidates appear intent on keeping the tainted money. The Journal Sentinel article mentions only two of the questionable donations Green accepted, large contributions from indicted former Tommy Thompson aide Nick Hurtgen and Chicago wheeler-dealer Stuart Levine, who has been charged with 41 crimes. The newspaper asked Green's campaign manager Mark Graul if those donations would be returned, and Graul said the campaign will consider refunding the donations or giving them to charities or other organizations "if either of these gentlemen is convicted."
The article makes no mention of other donations to Green, such as one made by Joseph Cari, former finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who already has pleaded guilty to attempted extortion in a 2004 kickback scheme he participated in with Levine.
Walker's campaign manager said his candidate also is "going to wait for a final outcome in each of these cases" before deciding whether to refund any of the contributions. The chairman of Doyle's reelection bid said the campaign would look into the donations the governor accepted, adding: "We've returned contributions before."
To hear Ethics Board director Roth Judd tell it, record lobbying at the Capitol is a healthy sign. Judd told the Appleton Post-Crescent that when "you have more people involved, the more groups involved, you don't have one loud voice dominating the conversation" in response to the newspaper's finding that Fox Valley businesses and industry groups spent nearly $800,000 peddling influence at the Capitol.
Judd's comments demonstrate a woeful ignorance of the stranglehold a few big-money interests have on policy making in Wisconsin. Out of the more than 700 groups registered to lobby state government, just 14 account for one-quarter of all spending on lobbying.
His remarks also show how out of touch the Ethics Board has grown with citizen attitudes about the influence of special interest lobby groups and the political corruption that has accompanied their rise to predominance at the Capitol.
The vast majority of Wisconsin residents do not feel represented by either elected officials or the special interest lobbyists. Ordinary citizens have been given plenty of good reasons to feel alienated from the political process, which has sadly led to a retreat from public life by many. This withdrawal creates a vacuum in the political arena that special interests and their $200-an-hour lobbyists are willing, able and happy to fill. That, Mr. Judd, is not a healthy sign.
The Democracy Campaign is calling on Governor Jim Doyle and his Republican opponents, Congressman Mark Green and Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, to immediately return the contributions and disassociate themselves from the individuals in question and the interests they represent.
So far, the candidates appear intent on keeping the tainted money. The Journal Sentinel article mentions only two of the questionable donations Green accepted, large contributions from indicted former Tommy Thompson aide Nick Hurtgen and Chicago wheeler-dealer Stuart Levine, who has been charged with 41 crimes. The newspaper asked Green's campaign manager Mark Graul if those donations would be returned, and Graul said the campaign will consider refunding the donations or giving them to charities or other organizations "if either of these gentlemen is convicted."
The article makes no mention of other donations to Green, such as one made by Joseph Cari, former finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who already has pleaded guilty to attempted extortion in a 2004 kickback scheme he participated in with Levine.
Walker's campaign manager said his candidate also is "going to wait for a final outcome in each of these cases" before deciding whether to refund any of the contributions. The chairman of Doyle's reelection bid said the campaign would look into the donations the governor accepted, adding: "We've returned contributions before."
To hear Ethics Board director Roth Judd tell it, record lobbying at the Capitol is a healthy sign. Judd told the Appleton Post-Crescent that when "you have more people involved, the more groups involved, you don't have one loud voice dominating the conversation" in response to the newspaper's finding that Fox Valley businesses and industry groups spent nearly $800,000 peddling influence at the Capitol.
Judd's comments demonstrate a woeful ignorance of the stranglehold a few big-money interests have on policy making in Wisconsin. Out of the more than 700 groups registered to lobby state government, just 14 account for one-quarter of all spending on lobbying.
His remarks also show how out of touch the Ethics Board has grown with citizen attitudes about the influence of special interest lobby groups and the political corruption that has accompanied their rise to predominance at the Capitol.
The vast majority of Wisconsin residents do not feel represented by either elected officials or the special interest lobbyists. Ordinary citizens have been given plenty of good reasons to feel alienated from the political process, which has sadly led to a retreat from public life by many. This withdrawal creates a vacuum in the political arena that special interests and their $200-an-hour lobbyists are willing, able and happy to fill. That, Mr. Judd, is not a healthy sign.
Monday, November 28, 2005
The Medicare monster turns on its creators
When the Medicare prescription drug coverage bill was being passed in 2003, I railed against both the process (chin-deep in deception, corruption and political gamesmanship) and the ugly creature it spawned (politically motivated, unnecessarily expensive and unwieldy and a windfall for drug and insurance companies). Now that the behemoth has emerged from its den and stands before, we find it’s even more grotesque, more misshapen, more dangerous than we’d thought.
Few dare mention it, but the Medicare drug coverage makes the baby boomer’s golden years a lot more expensive – and paying that tab is already one of our biggest budget problems. From 2005 to 2015, the drug benefit will cost $858 billion, estimates the Congressional Budget Office. But let’s back up: The uglier truth is that this never had to happen.
The goal of the drug plan was never improving health care, it was luring senior citizen votes in an election. The bill was boldly, blatantly political. President Bush embraced congressional demands for a big drug benefit from, that wouldn't apply just to poorer seniors, because Medicare has always applied to all seniors and seniors are people who vote. (To be fair, Democrats groveled with equal abandon, and their drug plans were generally costlier.)
The drug plan's features confirm its political nature. First, Republicans declined to pay for it; most costs (literally trillions of dollars) must be covered by borrowing or future tax increases. Second, there's the "doughnut hole" -- the standard benefit provides coverage up to $2,250 of drug costs and then no coverage for the next $2,850. Of course, this makes no sense as health or social policy. The purpose was political: to provide benefits for lots of people while limiting total costs.
Bush and Congressional Republicans rejected a simple add-on of drug coverage to Medicare. Instead, they preferred a so-called "market-based" system that has private insurance companies offer plans that are, in turn, subsidized by Medicare. Congress set a minimum benefit (including a $250 deductible and 25 percent premiums on coverage up to $2,250) and invited insurers to provide that plan or something "actuarially equivalent." The result: many plans -- and much confusion.
In 46 states, Medicare beneficiaries can choose from at least 40 plans, reports the Kaiser Family Foundation. People feel overwhelmed. It's hard to compare plans, which often cover different drugs and have varying deductibles and premiums. One monthly premium is $1.87, another $99.90. A survey by Kaiser confirms the bafflement: Only 35 percent of Medicare beneficiaries say they understand the drug benefit "somewhat well" or "very well"; a dismal 61 percent say they understand it "not too well" or "not well at all."
That’s not going to translate so well at the polls -- and that’s poetic justice.
Few dare mention it, but the Medicare drug coverage makes the baby boomer’s golden years a lot more expensive – and paying that tab is already one of our biggest budget problems. From 2005 to 2015, the drug benefit will cost $858 billion, estimates the Congressional Budget Office. But let’s back up: The uglier truth is that this never had to happen.
The goal of the drug plan was never improving health care, it was luring senior citizen votes in an election. The bill was boldly, blatantly political. President Bush embraced congressional demands for a big drug benefit from, that wouldn't apply just to poorer seniors, because Medicare has always applied to all seniors and seniors are people who vote. (To be fair, Democrats groveled with equal abandon, and their drug plans were generally costlier.)
The drug plan's features confirm its political nature. First, Republicans declined to pay for it; most costs (literally trillions of dollars) must be covered by borrowing or future tax increases. Second, there's the "doughnut hole" -- the standard benefit provides coverage up to $2,250 of drug costs and then no coverage for the next $2,850. Of course, this makes no sense as health or social policy. The purpose was political: to provide benefits for lots of people while limiting total costs.
Bush and Congressional Republicans rejected a simple add-on of drug coverage to Medicare. Instead, they preferred a so-called "market-based" system that has private insurance companies offer plans that are, in turn, subsidized by Medicare. Congress set a minimum benefit (including a $250 deductible and 25 percent premiums on coverage up to $2,250) and invited insurers to provide that plan or something "actuarially equivalent." The result: many plans -- and much confusion.
In 46 states, Medicare beneficiaries can choose from at least 40 plans, reports the Kaiser Family Foundation. People feel overwhelmed. It's hard to compare plans, which often cover different drugs and have varying deductibles and premiums. One monthly premium is $1.87, another $99.90. A survey by Kaiser confirms the bafflement: Only 35 percent of Medicare beneficiaries say they understand the drug benefit "somewhat well" or "very well"; a dismal 61 percent say they understand it "not too well" or "not well at all."
That’s not going to translate so well at the polls -- and that’s poetic justice.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Just in time for Thanksgiving: No food on the table
The U.S. House of Representatives voted to cut $700 million dollars from the food stamp program cutting off 235,000 people who will now go hungry. But more shocking is that the $700 million is less than the tax cut that Bush gave Bill Gates. So, 235,000 people are going to go hungry so that a single individual can keep billions. So where are our priorities, our values?
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Conservatives in Congress to potential avian flu victims: Drop dead
On November 1, 2005, George W. Bush gave a speech outlining the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza. Here's an excerpt from his speech: "Now, all the steps I've outlined today require immediate resources. Because a pandemic could strike at any time, we can't waste time in preparing. So to meet all our goals, I'm requesting a total of $7.1 billion in emergency funding from the United States Congress. By making critical investments today, we'll strengthen our ability to safeguard the American people in the awful event of a devastating global pandemic..."
We've been waiting for the final plan (i.e. non-draft version) for over a year, so this was a case of better late than never.
Country by country, bird flu is spreading. Despite Bush's request, however, here's how Congress voted: "The World Health Organization has urged all countries to come up with plans for tackling a pandemic of bird flu, but U.S. efforts stalled on Thursday when Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives refused to approve funding for Bush's $7.1 billion plan."
After days of intensive talks between the House and Senate, negotiators dropped a plan for $8 billion in funds that Democrats pushed through the Senate last month.
Conservative Republicans in the House insisted that an emergency U.S. effort to stockpile vaccines and anti-viral drugs that could be effective against the deadly flu would have to be paid for by cutting other government programs.
The funding proposal was attached to the health and labor spending bill. Even though Bush himself emphasized the importance of funding avian flu preparedness measures (surveillance, vaccine and anti-viral drug stockpiling, etc.), the Republicans in Congress want to wait. It's not only another GOP dissent from Bush, it could be a critical delay, when time is of the essence.
We've been waiting for the final plan (i.e. non-draft version) for over a year, so this was a case of better late than never.
Country by country, bird flu is spreading. Despite Bush's request, however, here's how Congress voted: "The World Health Organization has urged all countries to come up with plans for tackling a pandemic of bird flu, but U.S. efforts stalled on Thursday when Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives refused to approve funding for Bush's $7.1 billion plan."
After days of intensive talks between the House and Senate, negotiators dropped a plan for $8 billion in funds that Democrats pushed through the Senate last month.
Conservative Republicans in the House insisted that an emergency U.S. effort to stockpile vaccines and anti-viral drugs that could be effective against the deadly flu would have to be paid for by cutting other government programs.
The funding proposal was attached to the health and labor spending bill. Even though Bush himself emphasized the importance of funding avian flu preparedness measures (surveillance, vaccine and anti-viral drug stockpiling, etc.), the Republicans in Congress want to wait. It's not only another GOP dissent from Bush, it could be a critical delay, when time is of the essence.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Health care economics 101
Paul Krugman in a New York Times column, "Health Care Economics 101," aptly points out that free market don't work in health care.
The essential problem is that as a society, we don't let people die in the streets (thank goodness), and we let them have expensive health care even if they can't pay for it. Those costs are shifted to people who do pay for coverage or the government.
Naturally, many healthy people don't try to get health care coverage because they don't need it. As health care costs rise, the problem gets worse because more healthy people are tempted to go without coverage. That means there are fewer healthy people to pay for the sick who do have coverage.
Another problem is that our health insurance industry is based on an actuarial model rather than a social contract model. The health insurers do all they can to keep from covering people who actually need coverage: Demands for profit in a free market require them to limit and deny coverage as much as possible. Were we using a social contract model -- which, I think, most people errantly assume we do -- in which we all pitch in to help each other (and oursleves) when help is needed, there would be no need to limit or deny coverage. That would require, of course, insurers to give up the pursuit of profit. Not likely, heh?
For more information:"'Free Market Health Insurance System 'Doesn't Work,' Op-Ed Says,"Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, November 14, 2005: <http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=33722>
"Fixing America's Health Care System: A Progressive Plan to Cover Everyone and Restrain Costs,"By David B. Kendall, Progressive Policy Institute, September 22, 2005:<http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecid=298&contentid=253538>
The essential problem is that as a society, we don't let people die in the streets (thank goodness), and we let them have expensive health care even if they can't pay for it. Those costs are shifted to people who do pay for coverage or the government.
Naturally, many healthy people don't try to get health care coverage because they don't need it. As health care costs rise, the problem gets worse because more healthy people are tempted to go without coverage. That means there are fewer healthy people to pay for the sick who do have coverage.
Another problem is that our health insurance industry is based on an actuarial model rather than a social contract model. The health insurers do all they can to keep from covering people who actually need coverage: Demands for profit in a free market require them to limit and deny coverage as much as possible. Were we using a social contract model -- which, I think, most people errantly assume we do -- in which we all pitch in to help each other (and oursleves) when help is needed, there would be no need to limit or deny coverage. That would require, of course, insurers to give up the pursuit of profit. Not likely, heh?
For more information:"'Free Market Health Insurance System 'Doesn't Work,' Op-Ed Says,"Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, November 14, 2005: <http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=33722>
"Fixing America's Health Care System: A Progressive Plan to Cover Everyone and Restrain Costs,"By David B. Kendall, Progressive Policy Institute, September 22, 2005:<http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecid=298&contentid=253538>
Tort reform in Washington: The screaming over, let's get back to work
The dust is now settling in Washington State after a tumultuous battle over malpractice reform. More than $14 million was spent by groups of lawyers, doctors, and insurers to encourage the support or opposition of ballot initiatives 330 and 336, which came before Washington voters on November 8. The citizens of Washington acted judiciously when they soundly defeated both of the initiatives.
I-330, sponsored primarily by regional insurance companies, would have imposed caps on jury rewards and limits on lawyers' fees in malpractice cases. The most pernicious of the initiative's provisions would have allowed doctors to have their patients sign away their right to sue before they administered care.
I-336, a retaliatory initiative organized by trial lawyers, would have enforced a three-strikes-and-your-out rule, revoking licenses of doctors who are found liable in three malpractices cases within a 10-year period.Of course, both of these initiatives have their virtues.
They both touch upon the frustrations and high costs associated with medical malpractice. But a responsible solution will not be found via high-intensity statewide ballot initiatives. In fact, Washington state legislators were already working out a good compromise before the November 8 vote, and now that the ballot initiatives have been defeated, the elected officials can go back to the drawing board and to "Plan B," the alternative approach originally proposed in March.
Washington's Plan B would encourage patients who feel they were mistreated to settle their cases through a voluntary system of arbitration. Arbitration would yield quicker and less costly resolutions than the traditional court system permits. Plan B would set a maximum award allotted through arbitration and it would impose limits on the number of expert witnesses allowed in each case. The plan would also encourage better error reporting from hospitals and doctors so that patient injuries can be minimized.While Plan B may not appease the opposing interest groups, it is a step in the right direction.
In particular, specialized judges would serve patients and physicians well, leading to more sensible and consistent verdicts than are likely to be handed down by juries. The proposals in Plan B advocate for a similarly prudent and just resolution. With the election over, it's time to mend hard feelings between opponents and return to constructive, progressive politics and blaze the trail in malpractice reform.
For more information:
"Picking Up Where Voters Left Off,"By Brad Shannon, Olympian, November 13, 2005:<http://www.theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051113/NEWS/511130340/1075>
"Doctors Concede Defeat on Malpractice Caps,"By Angela Galloway, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 9, 2005:<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/247638_medical09.html>
"Democrats offer solution to dueling malpractice initiatives,"Washington House Democrats, March 14, 2005:<http://www.sdc.wa.gov/Releases/Brown/2005/medmal.htm>
"Health Courts: Fair and Reliable Justice for Injured Patients,"By Nancy Udell and David B. Kendall,Progressive Policy Institute, February 17, 2005:<http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecid=138&contentid=253178>
"Alternative Justice for Injured Patients Proposed in Washington State,"PPI Health Policy Wire, March 31, 2005:<http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecID=900033&contentID=253262>
I-330, sponsored primarily by regional insurance companies, would have imposed caps on jury rewards and limits on lawyers' fees in malpractice cases. The most pernicious of the initiative's provisions would have allowed doctors to have their patients sign away their right to sue before they administered care.
I-336, a retaliatory initiative organized by trial lawyers, would have enforced a three-strikes-and-your-out rule, revoking licenses of doctors who are found liable in three malpractices cases within a 10-year period.Of course, both of these initiatives have their virtues.
They both touch upon the frustrations and high costs associated with medical malpractice. But a responsible solution will not be found via high-intensity statewide ballot initiatives. In fact, Washington state legislators were already working out a good compromise before the November 8 vote, and now that the ballot initiatives have been defeated, the elected officials can go back to the drawing board and to "Plan B," the alternative approach originally proposed in March.
Washington's Plan B would encourage patients who feel they were mistreated to settle their cases through a voluntary system of arbitration. Arbitration would yield quicker and less costly resolutions than the traditional court system permits. Plan B would set a maximum award allotted through arbitration and it would impose limits on the number of expert witnesses allowed in each case. The plan would also encourage better error reporting from hospitals and doctors so that patient injuries can be minimized.While Plan B may not appease the opposing interest groups, it is a step in the right direction.
In particular, specialized judges would serve patients and physicians well, leading to more sensible and consistent verdicts than are likely to be handed down by juries. The proposals in Plan B advocate for a similarly prudent and just resolution. With the election over, it's time to mend hard feelings between opponents and return to constructive, progressive politics and blaze the trail in malpractice reform.
For more information:
"Picking Up Where Voters Left Off,"By Brad Shannon, Olympian, November 13, 2005:<http://www.theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051113/NEWS/511130340/1075>
"Doctors Concede Defeat on Malpractice Caps,"By Angela Galloway, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 9, 2005:<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/247638_medical09.html>
"Democrats offer solution to dueling malpractice initiatives,"Washington House Democrats, March 14, 2005:<http://www.sdc.wa.gov/Releases/Brown/2005/medmal.htm>
"Health Courts: Fair and Reliable Justice for Injured Patients,"By Nancy Udell and David B. Kendall,Progressive Policy Institute, February 17, 2005:<http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecid=138&contentid=253178>
"Alternative Justice for Injured Patients Proposed in Washington State,"PPI Health Policy Wire, March 31, 2005:<http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecID=900033&contentID=253262>
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Score: sick and poor -- zero; big biz -- millions
Ed Garvey posted this on his blog this morning:
"I can't wait. I'm going over to St.Mary's hospital emergency room tonight to give out the good news to the folks who can't afford health insurance so they use the ER as their family doctor. What good news? Are we getting Medicare for all children? National Health Care? No, not exactly. The Republicans in the Lobbyist's Legislature are proposing to eliminate all capital gains taxes and to provide all sorts of other tax incentives for business. The JS reports the package will be expensive, but, hey, when WMC and the banks hand down marching orders, John Gard and the GOP are ready to march.Think how happy the folks in the ER will be when I tell them that there will be a tax credit up to $50,000 for brokers who raise equity for new businesses and $2.5 million tax credit for the manufacturers of small engines. This is hot news that will give hope to the minimum wage insurance-less people in the ER. As Herbblock said years ago in a famous cartoon, 'Why don't these people go out and inherit a department store?'"
I'm certain that this will be .... ahem .... "welcome" news to our already under-funded home care providers and the frail elderly and low-income disabled folks they serve, especially in light of the $10 million in cuts the Legislature and governor hit us with a few weeks ago.
"I can't wait. I'm going over to St.Mary's hospital emergency room tonight to give out the good news to the folks who can't afford health insurance so they use the ER as their family doctor. What good news? Are we getting Medicare for all children? National Health Care? No, not exactly. The Republicans in the Lobbyist's Legislature are proposing to eliminate all capital gains taxes and to provide all sorts of other tax incentives for business. The JS reports the package will be expensive, but, hey, when WMC and the banks hand down marching orders, John Gard and the GOP are ready to march.Think how happy the folks in the ER will be when I tell them that there will be a tax credit up to $50,000 for brokers who raise equity for new businesses and $2.5 million tax credit for the manufacturers of small engines. This is hot news that will give hope to the minimum wage insurance-less people in the ER. As Herbblock said years ago in a famous cartoon, 'Why don't these people go out and inherit a department store?'"
I'm certain that this will be .... ahem .... "welcome" news to our already under-funded home care providers and the frail elderly and low-income disabled folks they serve, especially in light of the $10 million in cuts the Legislature and governor hit us with a few weeks ago.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
The reincarnation of Tommy?
A new Strategic Vision (R) poll shows Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) barely edging former Gov. Tommy Thompson, 42% to 44%, in a race for U.S. Senate. (Given the polling source, it's probably safe to bet the spread is a little wider than that.) Anyway, Thompson has not yet indicated he'll run for U.S. Senate.
Interestingly, there seems to be considerable support among Wisconin voters for presidential bids by either Thompson (48%) or Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) (51%). Link
Ten years ago, I wrote an op-ed piece explaining why Thompson could never be president of the United States. Shortly afterward, he walked up to the man who had recently been my employer and said "Why is Russell King still working for you?" (It was more of a threat than a question.) I love the story, because it let me know I did the right thing.
After the op-ed piece ran in the Wisconsin State Journal, a member of the paper's editorial board called me up to ask "How'd you get that into print?" Beyond the obvious --- that the newspaper was a consistent cheerleader for Thompson -- the question was pointed at my specific comment in the op-ed to the effect that Thompson's personal life would not withstand the scrutiny it would be given by the national media (even if the local media look the other way). The caller said the newspaper staff could make a list of the governor's personal indiscretions, but that the publisher would not allow them to even hint about them. Personally, I'm concerned with the public, not private, "sins" of elected officials, so I don't care -- but there are many out there who do and who delight in using them to make thin-skinned officials uncomfortable.
Thompson's public transgressions, however, are of major concern to me. When governor, he tried to kill the personal care services for our disabled citizens with a frontal assault and tried to kill home health care services for our frail elderly via long-term financial starvation and regulatory strangulation. One of his top health administrators reportedly told a room for of home care providers that they were all crooks and that he considered it his mission to put them all out of business. The policies that flowed from the Thompson adminstration fit that mission quite nicely. And, as I've mentioned in an earlier post, the questionable relationship between nursing home contributions to Thompson's campaigns and nursing home funding and policies coming from Thompson's government made for an important series of stories in the state's largest newspaper, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
Then there's the neglect, dishonesty, incompetence and corruption of his adminstration when he headed the federal Health and Human Services....
If Tommy Thompson runs for anything other than dog catcher, expect me to spill tons of ink.
Interestingly, there seems to be considerable support among Wisconin voters for presidential bids by either Thompson (48%) or Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) (51%). Link
Ten years ago, I wrote an op-ed piece explaining why Thompson could never be president of the United States. Shortly afterward, he walked up to the man who had recently been my employer and said "Why is Russell King still working for you?" (It was more of a threat than a question.) I love the story, because it let me know I did the right thing.
After the op-ed piece ran in the Wisconsin State Journal, a member of the paper's editorial board called me up to ask "How'd you get that into print?" Beyond the obvious --- that the newspaper was a consistent cheerleader for Thompson -- the question was pointed at my specific comment in the op-ed to the effect that Thompson's personal life would not withstand the scrutiny it would be given by the national media (even if the local media look the other way). The caller said the newspaper staff could make a list of the governor's personal indiscretions, but that the publisher would not allow them to even hint about them. Personally, I'm concerned with the public, not private, "sins" of elected officials, so I don't care -- but there are many out there who do and who delight in using them to make thin-skinned officials uncomfortable.
Thompson's public transgressions, however, are of major concern to me. When governor, he tried to kill the personal care services for our disabled citizens with a frontal assault and tried to kill home health care services for our frail elderly via long-term financial starvation and regulatory strangulation. One of his top health administrators reportedly told a room for of home care providers that they were all crooks and that he considered it his mission to put them all out of business. The policies that flowed from the Thompson adminstration fit that mission quite nicely. And, as I've mentioned in an earlier post, the questionable relationship between nursing home contributions to Thompson's campaigns and nursing home funding and policies coming from Thompson's government made for an important series of stories in the state's largest newspaper, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
Then there's the neglect, dishonesty, incompetence and corruption of his adminstration when he headed the federal Health and Human Services....
If Tommy Thompson runs for anything other than dog catcher, expect me to spill tons of ink.
Doyle still leads challengers in polls
For the second time in five weeks, a poll shows Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D) with a double-digit lead over his Republican rivals. If the election were held now, voters would pick Doyle over Rep. Mark Green (R-WI), 45% to 32%, according to a Wisconsin Public Radio/St. Norbert College poll. Against Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker (R), Doyle leads 46% to 31%.However, a new Strategic Vision (R) poll shows Doyle with smaller leads. He's ahead of Green, 47% to 44%, and tops Walker, 46% to 40%. Link
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Popping the pill bubble? Don't bet on it.
Big pharmaceutical companies have been taking a bit of a financial hit lately as a few bad pills have hurt the outlook for the whole medicine cabinet.
Not to worry. They’ll be fine.
The one thing we are best at in this country is setting aside any misdeeds in the name of potential benefit. That’s what the whole torture debate is about after all. We all know it’s insane to legalize torture. And most of us know that there is no evidence that torture will actually lead to accurate evidence. But in the back of our collective mind we really don’t want to think about the details out there, we’re worried about the results back here.
And so it’s always been with the drug companies. We all know a lawyer or journalist who has worked on a case or a story involving a multi-global pharmaceutical company and we all know some of the behavior they exhibit is unthinkable even by normal anything-goes public markets standards.
But we all also know people who have something they need healed. And we put aside the bad behavior in the name of what we convince ourselves is the greater good.
The problems arise because no one keeps track of that moving line between what’s OK and what’s not OK. We’ve decided to look away altogether. Someone tells us about an innocent dude who’s been squatting in Gitmo for four years, or some bad blood or untested medicine that was sent to a village in Africa and we either plug our ears or write that person off as an extremist nutcase. We do that even when the source is someone who we’re pretty sure is smart and who’s work or opinion or brand we’ve trusted in the past.
This behavioral trend is understood and well manipulated by the Bush marketing team. Someone brings up a countering opinion or a fact that doesn’t fit and that person is attacked and slammed as being a liar or a kook. It feels good when they do that. It keeps the lid on a can none of us really likes to open.
Not to worry. They’ll be fine.
The one thing we are best at in this country is setting aside any misdeeds in the name of potential benefit. That’s what the whole torture debate is about after all. We all know it’s insane to legalize torture. And most of us know that there is no evidence that torture will actually lead to accurate evidence. But in the back of our collective mind we really don’t want to think about the details out there, we’re worried about the results back here.
And so it’s always been with the drug companies. We all know a lawyer or journalist who has worked on a case or a story involving a multi-global pharmaceutical company and we all know some of the behavior they exhibit is unthinkable even by normal anything-goes public markets standards.
But we all also know people who have something they need healed. And we put aside the bad behavior in the name of what we convince ourselves is the greater good.
The problems arise because no one keeps track of that moving line between what’s OK and what’s not OK. We’ve decided to look away altogether. Someone tells us about an innocent dude who’s been squatting in Gitmo for four years, or some bad blood or untested medicine that was sent to a village in Africa and we either plug our ears or write that person off as an extremist nutcase. We do that even when the source is someone who we’re pretty sure is smart and who’s work or opinion or brand we’ve trusted in the past.
This behavioral trend is understood and well manipulated by the Bush marketing team. Someone brings up a countering opinion or a fact that doesn’t fit and that person is attacked and slammed as being a liar or a kook. It feels good when they do that. It keeps the lid on a can none of us really likes to open.
Medicare RX: I hate to say I told you so....
The AP writes, "It's been a long wait for Medicare beneficiaries, but about two years after Congress approved a new prescription drug benefit, senior citizens and the disabled finally get to enroll, beginning Tuesday." Seniors, however, are not overjoyed about their new options. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health found that "most older Americans do not understand Medicare's new prescription drug benefit and only one in five of them intend to sign up for the plan." A primary concern of most seniors is determining whether the prescription drug plan will save them any money, and trying to determine that has been very difficult. The government set up a "Prescription Drug Plan Finder" on its Medicare website to ostensibly help seniors pick their coverage plan, but due to the complexity of the plan itself, seniors have encountered difficulty understanding the plan's formulary. Another concern for 6.3 million impoverished older and disabled Americans who are dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid is that they could find their eligibility cut off. "Eight advocacy groups from Maine to California" are filing suit to protect this vulnerable class of seniors. (And this doesn't even mention the corruption behind it all...)
Monday, November 14, 2005
Recommended reading: The Good Death
The Good Death
By Kristina Robb-Dover
A hospice chaplain reflects on the similarities between dying well and living well.
By Kristina Robb-Dover
A hospice chaplain reflects on the similarities between dying well and living well.
Can we love our disabled?
Friday, November 11, 2005
Conservatives on the health care crisis
Over at the Weekly Standard, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam offer up a grand new vision of big government conservatism, and one of the planks in their platform is a new conservative approach to health care. They start off by noting that the commonly cited figure of 45 million uninsured in America actually understates the problem. If you look at any given 2-year period (instead of taking a single snapshot in time), there are 80 million people who are normally insured but lack insurance for at least a few months during that period. Then they get to their sales pitch:
Instead of approaching health care reform as the left does, as a problem for the uninsured — a matter of charity for those less fortunate — conservatives should cast the health care crisis as what it really is: a problem for the insured, for people whose insurance plans will lapse if they lose or shift jobs, whose plans don't cover expensive crises, and who must pay extra, in the form of higher premiums, to cover the medical bills of the permanently uninsured.....All these reforms would have salutary effects on family life. If your coverage were portable, you'd feel more secure in moving your family to a community with a lower cost of living, or where you're more likely to find remunerative employment. At the same time, making health care more universal and affordable would reduce the costs of child rearing, encouraging family formation and offering a sense of security to parents debating whether to have a second (or third, or fourth) child.
This is right. Unfortunately, because they're conservatives, Ross and Reihan are unwilling to take the obvious next step and endorse some kind of sensible national health care plan. In fact, I was unable to discern any real plan at all.
They apparently feel that the answer is to somehow increase competition in the health care market, which will drive costs down so much that it will be feasible to simply mandate that everyone in America purchase their own private insurance. That is a fantasy.
Still, their PR idea is spot on. If liberals want to sell the idea of national health care, they should quit marketing it as a welfare plan for the uninsured. Instead, they should be focused on the health care complaints of those who already have insurance but are dissatisfied anyway: lack of choice in physicians; HMOs that make it hard to see a specialist; high copayments; fear of losing coverage if you lose your job; long waits for non-urgent care; new (and usually worse) health care coverage every time your HR department is told to find a cheaper plan; fear that preexisting conditions won't be covered if you take a new job; and the risk of financial ruin if someone in your family has a truly catastrophic illness.
That's the way to sell universal health care. After all, the uninsured mostly vote for Democrats anyway, and the rest of the country views programs aimed at the uninsured as a mere welfare program to be actively avoided. Expand your marketing to the 80 million who are occasionally uninsured, however, and you're starting to make real progress. Expand it even further to those who are insured but unhappy, and you've hit electoral gold.
Liberals should concentrate instead on making sure that ordinary middle class workers understand just how bad and how expensive their current health care is, and how much better it could be under a decent national plan.
Instead of approaching health care reform as the left does, as a problem for the uninsured — a matter of charity for those less fortunate — conservatives should cast the health care crisis as what it really is: a problem for the insured, for people whose insurance plans will lapse if they lose or shift jobs, whose plans don't cover expensive crises, and who must pay extra, in the form of higher premiums, to cover the medical bills of the permanently uninsured.....All these reforms would have salutary effects on family life. If your coverage were portable, you'd feel more secure in moving your family to a community with a lower cost of living, or where you're more likely to find remunerative employment. At the same time, making health care more universal and affordable would reduce the costs of child rearing, encouraging family formation and offering a sense of security to parents debating whether to have a second (or third, or fourth) child.
This is right. Unfortunately, because they're conservatives, Ross and Reihan are unwilling to take the obvious next step and endorse some kind of sensible national health care plan. In fact, I was unable to discern any real plan at all.
They apparently feel that the answer is to somehow increase competition in the health care market, which will drive costs down so much that it will be feasible to simply mandate that everyone in America purchase their own private insurance. That is a fantasy.
Still, their PR idea is spot on. If liberals want to sell the idea of national health care, they should quit marketing it as a welfare plan for the uninsured. Instead, they should be focused on the health care complaints of those who already have insurance but are dissatisfied anyway: lack of choice in physicians; HMOs that make it hard to see a specialist; high copayments; fear of losing coverage if you lose your job; long waits for non-urgent care; new (and usually worse) health care coverage every time your HR department is told to find a cheaper plan; fear that preexisting conditions won't be covered if you take a new job; and the risk of financial ruin if someone in your family has a truly catastrophic illness.
That's the way to sell universal health care. After all, the uninsured mostly vote for Democrats anyway, and the rest of the country views programs aimed at the uninsured as a mere welfare program to be actively avoided. Expand your marketing to the 80 million who are occasionally uninsured, however, and you're starting to make real progress. Expand it even further to those who are insured but unhappy, and you've hit electoral gold.
Liberals should concentrate instead on making sure that ordinary middle class workers understand just how bad and how expensive their current health care is, and how much better it could be under a decent national plan.
Quote of the day (is it more immoral or more idiotic?)
Rep. David Dreier (R-CA): "We are not cutting Medicaid for those truly in need." Apparently they're only cutting benefits for upper and middle-income Medicaid beneficiaries.
Single-payer health care and the "laws" of economics
Tyler Cowen writes: "Since single-payer national health insurance violates every economic law known to mankind, I am again unsure how I could leap on the Democratic bandwagon."
The things is, every developed country except the United States has a national health insurance plan. And they mostly seem to work pretty well. So either they don't violate every economic law known to humankind, or else economists are doing a pretty dismal job of adducing economic laws. Which is it?
OK, can't resist the economist jokes:
Why did God create economists? So astrologers wouldn't look so bad.
We have the finest economists around: They predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions!
The things is, every developed country except the United States has a national health insurance plan. And they mostly seem to work pretty well. So either they don't violate every economic law known to humankind, or else economists are doing a pretty dismal job of adducing economic laws. Which is it?
OK, can't resist the economist jokes:
Why did God create economists? So astrologers wouldn't look so bad.
We have the finest economists around: They predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions!
Friday, November 04, 2005
Survey of world's health care (we ain't #1)
The Washington Post summarizes a survey published in Health Affairs of health care around the world: "Nearly a third of U.S. patients reported spending more than $1,000 in out-of-pocket expenses for their care, far outpacing all other nations....experienced the most problems getting care after hours....most likely to report problems seeing a doctor the same day they sought one.... more likely to report forgoing needed treatment because of cost....one-third of U.S. patients reported problems with the coordination of their care.....Americans also reported the greatest number of medical errors. Thirty-four percent reported getting the wrong medication or dose, incorrect test results, a mistake in their treatment or care, or being notified late about abnormal test results."
Best health care in the world, baby! Best health care in the world.
In the interest of fairness, it's worth pointing out that this survey included only people who had recently been hospitalized, had surgery, or reported health problems. In other words, sick people. Healthy people probably thought American health care was just fine.
The full report is here. If you hunt through it, you'll note that there are a few things we do better than other countries. Not many, though.
Best health care in the world, baby! Best health care in the world.
In the interest of fairness, it's worth pointing out that this survey included only people who had recently been hospitalized, had surgery, or reported health problems. In other words, sick people. Healthy people probably thought American health care was just fine.
The full report is here. If you hunt through it, you'll note that there are a few things we do better than other countries. Not many, though.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
The would-be governor's connections to the big daddy of corruption in DC
Here's a quick run-down of how close Rep. Mark Green, candidate for governor of Wisconsin, is to former House Majority Leader Rep. Tom Delay (R-Texas), the man whose greatest claim to fame is his "pay-to-play" approach to government and his indictments for money laundering and conspiracy. He is the face of big money corruption.
When measuring ties to DeLay, Green ranks #1 among Wisconsin's congressional delegation and #8 among the 434 members of the House. He has voted in lock-step with DeLay 90.59% of the time (1790 with, 186 against). In addition to the thousands of dollars Green has taken from DeLay's money machine, Green donated $1,000 to DeLay's legal defense fund. Green also voted "yes" for the "DeLay Rule" to change a rule requiring members in leadership positions to step down if indicted by state grand juries.
As bad as things have become in Madison, this guy doesn't offer us much hope for cleaner government.
To see how your members of Congress rank, go here: http://www.pcactionfund.org/delayspocket/
When measuring ties to DeLay, Green ranks #1 among Wisconsin's congressional delegation and #8 among the 434 members of the House. He has voted in lock-step with DeLay 90.59% of the time (1790 with, 186 against). In addition to the thousands of dollars Green has taken from DeLay's money machine, Green donated $1,000 to DeLay's legal defense fund. Green also voted "yes" for the "DeLay Rule" to change a rule requiring members in leadership positions to step down if indicted by state grand juries.
As bad as things have become in Madison, this guy doesn't offer us much hope for cleaner government.
To see how your members of Congress rank, go here: http://www.pcactionfund.org/delayspocket/
More on Madison's culture of corruption
Earlier, I've noted the the culture of corruption in Madison as revealed by some of the folks who already hold seats of power there, but, of course, it doesn't end there. The man who would be king in Wisconsin -- Congressman Mark Green -- appears to move quite easily in this culture, as evidenced by the dust-up over his campaign donations. (Evidenced, too, by the ties between his office and the infamous Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff, which have earned state and national attention.)
The Democracy Campaign's review of campaign records showing missing donor information on the reports Green's campaign for governor filed with the state has prompted Green to agree to provide the missing details and exposed lax enforcement of Wisconsin's disclosure laws by the state Elections Board.
It has been learned that the Elections Board told Green in January that he only needed to disclose the identity of donors who supplied him with $1.3 million he transferred from his federal campaign fund to a state account he is using to run for governor. State law in Wisconsin also requires disclosure of the occupation and employer of any donor who gives more than $100.
After the Democracy Campaign called attention to Green's failure to disclose this required employment information revealing the financial interests of nearly 700 donors who gave him than $387,000 the Elections Board reversed its position and asked Green to fully comply with the state's disclosure requirements.
This is the latest in a string of examples of how the Elections Board has failed to rigorously enforce Wisconsin's campaign laws and is the most recent illustration of why the board needs to be reformed.
The Democracy Campaign's review of campaign records showing missing donor information on the reports Green's campaign for governor filed with the state has prompted Green to agree to provide the missing details and exposed lax enforcement of Wisconsin's disclosure laws by the state Elections Board.
It has been learned that the Elections Board told Green in January that he only needed to disclose the identity of donors who supplied him with $1.3 million he transferred from his federal campaign fund to a state account he is using to run for governor. State law in Wisconsin also requires disclosure of the occupation and employer of any donor who gives more than $100.
After the Democracy Campaign called attention to Green's failure to disclose this required employment information revealing the financial interests of nearly 700 donors who gave him than $387,000 the Elections Board reversed its position and asked Green to fully comply with the state's disclosure requirements.
This is the latest in a string of examples of how the Elections Board has failed to rigorously enforce Wisconsin's campaign laws and is the most recent illustration of why the board needs to be reformed.
More thoughts on the TABOR loss in Colorado
Nathan Newman is absolutely right: yesterday's approval of a Colorado ballot initiative relaxing the robo-fiscal-policy provisions of TABOR is a really big deal.
But I'd like to be more specific: this result is a particular setback for conservative uber-lobbyist Grover Norquist; for his longstanding efforts to dictate state fiscal policies from Washington; and for the crazy-quilt GOP coalition he has done so much to shepherd based on the principle of mutual irresponsibility.
TABOR, a long-time conservative cookie-cutter idea that first reached fruition in Colorado, is sort of the ultimate reflection of the starve-the-beast philosophy of Grover Norquist: taxes and spending must always go down, never up, no matter what's going on in the real world.
And TABOR's enactment represented Grover's big-time clout in state politics around the country. Other than trying to intimidate state and local officials into naming everything possible after Ronald Reagan, Norquist's major outside-the-beltway project has been to intimidate Republican state legislators and governors into a posture of never, ever, considering new revenues in budget decisions. Grover's Rules especially prohibited any effort to close off tax loopholes created to benefit the corporations sitting at his table those famous Wednesday meetings in Washington where the GOP's Theocrat/Mammon/Hack coalition met to get its weekly talking points.
But the whole Grover Machine is beginning to fall apart. Aside from his deep implication in every aspect of the Casino Jack Abramoff scandals, Grover's clout in state politics, even among Republicans, is visibly crumbling, leading him to become not a uniter but a divider in GOP ranks. The TABOR modification initiative was backed by Republican Governor Bill Owens, who not that long ago was being widely touted as a potential presidential champion of the Conservative Movement. But for all his efforts, Grover could not defeat the heretic.
Check out Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform site, and the only comment about his Colorado setback is this, at the very top of the page:
"Young Republican children years from now will be scared in campground campfires by stories about Bill Owens - the tax-cutting Republican who magically turned into a tax-increase bad guy...and they will not be able to sleep all night."
The TABOR modification approved yesterday didn't just liberate Colorado's government from a stupid restriction on democracy; it also helped further the process of loosening the bonds of "our team" Republican solidarity forged by Grover Norquist and his buddy Karl Rove. Every now and then, the real world butts in, and the ideologues and the money-driven networkers must retreat.
Let's pray it's a trend.
But I'd like to be more specific: this result is a particular setback for conservative uber-lobbyist Grover Norquist; for his longstanding efforts to dictate state fiscal policies from Washington; and for the crazy-quilt GOP coalition he has done so much to shepherd based on the principle of mutual irresponsibility.
TABOR, a long-time conservative cookie-cutter idea that first reached fruition in Colorado, is sort of the ultimate reflection of the starve-the-beast philosophy of Grover Norquist: taxes and spending must always go down, never up, no matter what's going on in the real world.
And TABOR's enactment represented Grover's big-time clout in state politics around the country. Other than trying to intimidate state and local officials into naming everything possible after Ronald Reagan, Norquist's major outside-the-beltway project has been to intimidate Republican state legislators and governors into a posture of never, ever, considering new revenues in budget decisions. Grover's Rules especially prohibited any effort to close off tax loopholes created to benefit the corporations sitting at his table those famous Wednesday meetings in Washington where the GOP's Theocrat/Mammon/Hack coalition met to get its weekly talking points.
But the whole Grover Machine is beginning to fall apart. Aside from his deep implication in every aspect of the Casino Jack Abramoff scandals, Grover's clout in state politics, even among Republicans, is visibly crumbling, leading him to become not a uniter but a divider in GOP ranks. The TABOR modification initiative was backed by Republican Governor Bill Owens, who not that long ago was being widely touted as a potential presidential champion of the Conservative Movement. But for all his efforts, Grover could not defeat the heretic.
Check out Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform site, and the only comment about his Colorado setback is this, at the very top of the page:
"Young Republican children years from now will be scared in campground campfires by stories about Bill Owens - the tax-cutting Republican who magically turned into a tax-increase bad guy...and they will not be able to sleep all night."
The TABOR modification approved yesterday didn't just liberate Colorado's government from a stupid restriction on democracy; it also helped further the process of loosening the bonds of "our team" Republican solidarity forged by Grover Norquist and his buddy Karl Rove. Every now and then, the real world butts in, and the ideologues and the money-driven networkers must retreat.
Let's pray it's a trend.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
TABOR gets dumped in Colorado
Yesterday, Colorado voters streamed to the polls and delivered a devastating blow to radical activists by passing Referendum C -- and dumping TABOR -- by a margin of 52 - 48!
By suspending the so-called Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (TABOR), Coloradans rolled back the harshest government spending limits in the nation. This vote will help Colorado rebound from economic crisis and reinvest in education, health care, and public safety.
The message coming out of Colorado is clear: After living for 12 years under TABOR's drastic budget cuts, Coloradans have had enough!
Unfortunately, this victory is only the beginning of the fight against TABOR. The radical crusaders are working hard to enact similarly destructive legislation in states across the country, including Wisconsin. Stay alert; stay active.
Read more about the defeat of TABOR in Colorado:Rocky Mountain News - Colorado voters suspend taxpayer rights bill: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TAXPAYERS_BILL_OF_RIGHTS?SITE=CODER&SECTION=POLITICS
Rocky Mountain News - Voters give nod to C but Jon Caldara eyes legal challenge; Ref D fails by slight margin: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_4205608,00.html
Watch a video on the history of TABOR in Coloradohttp://www.cbpp.org/taborvideo.htm
By suspending the so-called Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (TABOR), Coloradans rolled back the harshest government spending limits in the nation. This vote will help Colorado rebound from economic crisis and reinvest in education, health care, and public safety.
The message coming out of Colorado is clear: After living for 12 years under TABOR's drastic budget cuts, Coloradans have had enough!
Unfortunately, this victory is only the beginning of the fight against TABOR. The radical crusaders are working hard to enact similarly destructive legislation in states across the country, including Wisconsin. Stay alert; stay active.
Read more about the defeat of TABOR in Colorado:Rocky Mountain News - Colorado voters suspend taxpayer rights bill: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TAXPAYERS_BILL_OF_RIGHTS?SITE=CODER&SECTION=POLITICS
Rocky Mountain News - Voters give nod to C but Jon Caldara eyes legal challenge; Ref D fails by slight margin: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_4205608,00.html
Watch a video on the history of TABOR in Coloradohttp://www.cbpp.org/taborvideo.htm
