Playing for the long term in November 2014

This election, 2014, is much more about the next president than it is about the current one. The longer game will have a far greater impact on our country’s direction than the shorter one.

Our vote this November is  mostly about  what happens post Obama presidency, because those we are electing will influence  a very likely  Supreme Court vacancy filling and legislative deadlocks. Any elected Senator has 6 years to warm a Senate seat.

The future Senate will have the opportunity to decide on whatever this Court punted, from Roe v Wade,  same sex marriage, to affirmative action, to  election finance laws, to health care and the ACA, and the overreach  and unconstitutionality of  actions  either by the President or Congress or various states.

Here is the short term.

This November election appears to be a referendum on a lame duck president as candidates look like they are rerunning  2012.

If the GOP takes  over the Senate , we are on track for a mammoth case of deadlock and stalemate  for two more years, the remainder of the President’s term.

If we fear  the President will become more “imperial”, the only way left for him  to  overcome  stalemate and deadlock  is to issue more executive orders . Court challenges for his orders  will likely be decided after he leaves office.  Since he is term limited,  ticking  off one special interest, party,  or others  will not affect his prospects of re-election.  

President Obama will only be constrained by concern for his “legacy” and so far he has shown little regard for that. He seems to be  doing “what he thinks is right “ or is doggedly  pursuing the agenda he promised six years ago.

The President will wear out his veto pen  if the GOP controls the Senate but GOP Senate will not have enough seats to override it.  The House is stuck in a role of continued obstructionism, as predictions are the GOP will still hold its majority.

The state of Colorado is not immune to any of this.

Colorado governors have four year terms.   For the next four years the Colorado Governor will be  faced with using vetoes or cheerleadership over a most likely Democratic controlled  state legislature (either both or one of the houses) . A governor who cannot compromise or walk a center line as Governor Hickenlooper has done, will just put us into a deadlock funk. His opponent, Bob Beauprez, is running on a platform of trying to overturn  or change any environmental or consumer protection law , rule or regulation that does not favor business interests.   Beauprez is no middle of the roader, nor is he one with compromise in mind.

A version of this column appeared in the Sky Hi Daily news , Oct. 23-24, 2014 www.skyhidailynews.com

The laugh is on Cory Gardner regarding his recent remarks attacking Mark Udall re: Obamacare

I got a laugh when I read the Denver Post story about Cory Gardner, running against Democrat incumbent Mark Udall for Senate.  Gardner tried to make an issue of a long ago Udall statement that he (Udall) did not want a government run health insurance program but wanted to improve our employer based program and then to find a way to cover those uninsured.  Claimed Gardner it was another lie a la the President's promise to allow you to keep the insurance you had.  Shame on Udall.. he LIED. ..so the inference goes.

First, Obamacare did not remove the employer based program we have, but it did improve the employer based insurance system.  It stopped  the insurance company  practices of charging more than 20% for overhead, for discriminating against women by making them pay more for premiums, or putting lifetime caps on insurance, and other consumer unfriendly practices.  Nearly 80 per cent of those not on Medicare, Medicaid  who worked had employer's insurance and that has not changed.

The laugh refers to the origin of Obamacare.  It was a plan to thwart attempts to move to a single payer system like Canada's or other socialized medicine systems and still provide a way to cover the 30 million not covered by Medicare, Medicaid or who did not get insurance from employers because their employers did not provide it.  Out of fear that the insurance industry would be destroyed by a single payer system that short cut the private insurance industry, the conservative Heritage Foundation came up with a proposal to require all who could to pay for insurance per income level to purchase private insurance.  That is exactly what Obamacare does and the laboratory for it was Romneycare...the state of Massachusetts.  It kept the private insurance industry in the loop, gave them a potential of 30 million new customers who now had their policies subsidized so they could afford private insurance , and it is, per the American Medical Association, performing as designed.  The projections  are that within 3 years, the program will be fully operational and most of the 30 million will have been insured.   Those who have gotten insurance via Obamacare seem happy with their policies, even though they may have had to change doctors, but that is not new. Employers often change insurance providers leaving employees having to change doctors as well.  (For more regarding this point, key word search this site for "Obamacare" where much is written and polled about this).

Is this a government run system?  It depends what you mean by government run.  Requiring insurers to abide by standards so that consumers are no longer harmed, or setting up the infrastructure to be able to subsidize consumers per income level, or providing a marketplace for consumers to choose a private insurance plan may fit the most broad definition, but so far the GOP has not been able to come up with a better plan to cover the 30 million uninsured.  Even their attempt to propose alternatives such as cross state competition or malpractice reform has been a farce.  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would reduce premiums so that 3 million more could afford insurance....hardly adequate for the job of insuring the other 27 million. When the GOP comes up with a plan that will provide the same benefits and make insurance affordable, maybe we can take them more seriously. Until then, they are the ones worthy of a laugh.

The GOP and the gender gap

The GOP must be looking at poll numbers. They are still losing the women’s vote, especially in Colorado. The gender gap is wide as Democrat Sen. Udall begins the campaign with a 9% lead among women over the GOP opponent Congressman Cory Gardner.  July and August NBC/Wall Street Journal polls show a significant gender gap nationally. The Colorado gap may widen as more women learn Gardner’s positions on their issues.

So now Republicans are attempting to blunt the Democrats' accusations that they are waging a war on women by trying to divert attention to job creation and the economy.  It may not be a war on women, but the GOP consistently gives women’s economic and personal interests second place to other priorities. What Republicans do not understand is that women’s take-home pay and their ability to participate in the economy are being made more difficult by their policies of consistently putting women’s interests below employers' rights and bottom lines or when core religious conservative supporters raise objections.

For example, women getting insurance from employers should not have to pay more for health insurance premiums than men.   Increasing the minimum wage helps women who mostly hold the minimum-wage jobs.  There is no one more important right that enables women to work than being able to control when, if, and how often they have children.  That is the ultimate economic issue in middle-class families where the women’s paycheck is vital.

While some GOP members have supported raising the minimum wage, the party as a whole, including Gardner, has blocked congressional action.  Republicans' adamant opposition to Obamacare would restore the right of insurers to charge women more for premiums, and Gardner has voted to repeal Obamacare fifty times.

The GOP has consistently supported limiting women’s ability to control their reproduction schedules. Birth control is even under assault from the GOP-lauded Hobby Lobby decision that permitted certain corporations to opt out of covering birth control for religious reasons.

Pro-life is the basic litmus test for the GOP to back any candidates.  There are those who permit exceptions to banning abortions and others more extreme who want to criminalize abortions or the doctors who perform them.  The GOP still nominates candidates who take the most extreme positions, including Gardner.

Gardner was also not only a proponent, but a longtime leader of the state personhood amendment that would consider life begins at conception, a backdoor way to make all abortions criminal, and passage would make certain kinds of birth control illegal.

Recently, though, Gardner quietly tried to walk back his support of the personhood amendment.  His conversion is suspect, given the timing.  With the personhood amendment on the state ballot in November, it will be hard for him to duck his history.  In Congress, his name is still on a federal personhood amendment bill, and he recently voted for a bill that would make it criminal for abortions to be performed after the 20th week with few exceptions.

For more, visit www.mufticforumblog.blogspot.com

A version of this appeared in the www.skyhidailynews.com August 28 and 29 2014

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/poll-democrats-hang-slight-leads-key-senate-races-n155531

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2060

America's Fed Up: Obama Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low, Poll Shows - NBC News

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/08/a-fight-over-birth-control-in-colorado/?utm_source=FactCheck.org&utm_campaign=14f7ddb656-FactCheck_Newsletter_8_15_20148_16_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3294bba774-14f7ddb656-47897245

Shameless and deceptive anti Obamacare ads flood Colorado

Indeed, an anti Senator Mark Udall ad  running in our market says  Obamacare ( ACA) is “about people”, but the” people” referenced in the ad  are  not  about the   7.1 million who signed up for private insurance through federal and state ACA exchanges  ,  or in Colorado 277,149,  who signed up  as of  March 31 for either commercial health insurance or Medicaid’s expanded version. The anti Udall ad shamelessly exaggerates  the numbers as "millions and millions"    who  could  not sign up after their insurance policies were cancelled .  The GOP mantra,”repeal Obamacare” ,  means that coverage  would be taken away from those “people” for whom it worked to get covered, especially  nasty for the 9 .3 who never had  health insurance before.
..
A Rand Corporation's study reported in the LA Times, March 30, 2014 (Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people), found that  4.5 million previously uninsured adults signed up for state Medicaid programs which were expanded to include more by the ACA, 3 million young adults took advantage of the ACA provisions allowing them to stay on their parents' insurance.. 9.5 million who got insurance thanks to ACA provisions were previously uninsured.

The ACA made it possible for at least 15 million to get insurance. if one adds the 7.1 million plus who bought insurance through the state and federal exchanges,  exchanges, the 4.5 million who got Medicaid  thanks to its expansion, and the 3 million young adults who now could stay on their parents' plans,   15 million is a number in the ball park.

Ads have already begun in Colorado, tying Udall to Obamacare (ACA), attempting to bring attention to the fewer who drew the short stick instead of the far more who benefitted.    One, against Obamacare, sponsored by the Koch Brothers, was very deceptive,.  That one featured an angry woman who lost her individual insurance and was suffering, though that she could find alternatives was never even suggested.

 The “about people ad” is a good example of hyping the ACA shortcomings, claiming   “millions and millions” lost their insurance and could not get a replacement. The Washington Post fact checker hit that one hard. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/25/new-anti-obamacare-ad-makes-misleading-claims-video) Per a recent survey by the Rand Corporation,  fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 cancelled  are not uninsured  now.  the Rand survey reported in the same LA Times article above.  "We are talking about a very small fraction of the country" who lost coverage, said Katherine Carman, a Rand economist who is overseeing the survey.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-uninsured-national-20140331,0,5472960.story#ixzz2xkg9oyA7   That is  certainly a negative for those in that predicament, but it is  not the “millions and millions” the ad claims.

 Most deceptive was  the claim in the ad that Obamacare forced persons to pay more for less coverage .  Come, come. T he reason those who had individually purchased catastrophic policies got the discontinue notices  was because it did not offer enough coverage Obamacare deemed basic. 

It is such a shame hospitals will see cuts to government subsidies, whines another   ad, implying reduction in  Medicare services to your parents and grandparents. Here’s why that line is so deceptive : so many more will now have health insurance,  uncompensated charity care hospitals must cover  is less; and that hospitals will be held to higher standards, such as reducing readmissions due to sloppy infection prevention practices and unneeded, repetitive tests.

In fact, The Congressional Budget Office projects that a decade has been added to the life of Medicare due to the cost saving measures. Of course,  no benefits are being cut  by Obamacare and traditional Medicare is preserved.  Even Medicare Advantage serving 28% of seniors is projected to continue. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/aug/19/will-obamacare-hurt-medicare-advantage/

Expect future ads to claim Obamacare “is” not working because “in the future” premiums will soar as insurance companies drop out for lack of customers or not enough healthy sign up, causing a “death spiral”    Those are scare tactics.   The ACA foresaw that and insurers will be subsidized to keep policies low until the free-riders feel the pain of ever increasing penalties in the next couple of years. The Congressional Budget office estimates it will take three years for all qualified to sign up. Even if young, invincibles fail  to constitute 40% of the sign ups, mid 20%s will still be enough for the “death spiral” not to happen, per the Kaiser Family Foundation. (latimes.com/business/hiltzik: March 31, 2014, "Obamacare numbers coming in huge: Here's a guide to GOP excuse-making) .
From Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF.org...Metrics are mostly wrong)
"How about the percentage of young people? Everyone seems focused on that.  Young people benefit the risk pool because they are healthier, but it’s really the percentage of healthy people that make or break the risk pool. Even if enrollment of young adults stays where it is – at about one-quarter instead of 40%, which our analysis shows they make up among potential enrollees – premiums would only increase by two to three percent. Though even that isn’t quite right, since many insurers expected this and already built it into their premiums.  Nevertheless, news organizations continue to hammer enrollment by young adults as if it were the sole make-it or break-it factor to the health of the risk pools and, in some news reports, the law.  There  are no data yet on the overall health of enrollees because the law no longer allows insurers to collect that data in order to exclude people with pre-existing conditions from coverage."

For a very comprehensive fact check similar to this, go to http://news.yahoo.com/millions-lost-insurance-214739724.html  published 4/11/2014