Michele, the Editor, is not happy with Obama's health plan to mandate that everyone purchase health coverage, yet costs are not addressed at all.  The turning point for Michele was when Obama spoke on Meet the Press and stated that "consumers" need to all purchase health insurance, just like people all need to purchase insurance for their cars.  Owning a vehicle is a privilege.  Human beings have the right to live!  Comparing people to cars and industry spokespeople calling human beings products or commodities is TOTALLY offensive.  Change comes from people, not the government and not the corporations.  We need to reform insurance and healthcare in our country and looks like it's going to be up us!

 

Jordan's reply:

 

Here's my response to Michele's concerns:

 

Let me say that I think her concern is very understandable. She's worried that mandating unaffordable coverage puts an unfair burden on working and middle class families. If this were the case I would completely agree, but there may be a couple of things she hasn't heard about that make this far less concerning.

First, the plan does address costs in several ways. The creation of the exchange will lower premiums by giving large numbers of Americans the bargaining power that comes with joining together as a group just as large employers and the federal government do (this is actually the exact same type of program offered to all federal employees including Senators and Congresspeople.) In addition to bargaining power the exchange creates a marketplace where insurers must compete against each other, resulting in lowered costs. This exchange would also house the public option and/or the CO-OPs plan which are being considered in Congress now.

Cost is also addressed through the creation of Affordability Credits which are offered on a sliding scale for individuals and families making between 133% (up to 133% is covered through Medicaid) and 400 % of the federal poverty level. This means that all Americans in the exchange making up to about $88,000 will be given assistance to afford insurance.

I'd also point out that the entire purpose of mandating insurance is to lower costs. Studies estimate that the average insured individual currently pays $1000 more per year for their coverage because they are covering the cost of uninsured individuals who are unable to see a doctor until it is an emergency. These visits to the ER cost all of us a lot of money, but far more importantly, they hurt the individual who would have been much better off if they had seen a doctor much earlier in their illness.

Finally on the mandate, there is a built in hardship exemption. If you cannot afford insurance you are exempt from the mandate. Affordability is defined on a sliding scale from 2% of income for an individual at 100% of the federal poverty level (about $18,000) up to 12% of income for those making more than 300% (about $66,000) of that level. The "penalty" for not having insurance under the mandate is really just a way to help us pay for the care a person gets that others pay for when a person doesn't have insurance. What the President is saying is, if you can afford insurance and you choose not to purchase it, we're going to ask you to help with the costs you're choice will incur on other people.

I also wanted to address her concern with the President's use of the word consumer on Meet the Press this week. Here is the exact quote from the show's transcript:

"I have to have a plan that is good for middle class families who we know last year ended up seeing a 5 1/2 percent increase in their premiums, even though inflation was actually negative on everything else.  That have seen a doubling of their premiums over the last decade.  That are less secure than ever in terms of the insurance they can actually count on.  And more and more of ‘em can't get insurance because of preexisting conditions, or they changed jobs, or they lost jobs.

"So it's gotta be good for them.  Now, the principles that we've talked about, making sure that there's an insurance exchange that allows people to buy in and get health insurance and negotiate as a big pool to drive down costs.  Making sure that— we have insurance reforms that make sure you can still get health insurance even if you've got a preexisting condition and cap out of pocket expenses and so forth.  Those core things that make insurance a better deal for American consumers."

There is certainly a case to be made that health care should not be a for-profit industry in this country. I understand that case and personally agree with it. Health care is a right, not a privilege. That does not change the fact that it is, in fact, a for-profit system in this country. Although I agree Americans being thought of as commodities by corporations is offensive, the President is absolutely not using the word 'consumers' nefariously here. He is speaking specifically about the cost of insurance to Americans, not about a person's right to care. You'll notice he says, "make insurance a better deal for American consumers." Americans purchase health insurance. Therefore, when addressing the cost of the item an American is purchasing, the American in question is acting in their role as a consumer. Michele seems to be suggesting that the President is looking at Americans as though they are nothing more than their roles as consumers. I believe this to be a misunderstanding of Barack Obama's views, character, and intentions. The tragic part of our current system is that far too many people are most worried about how they're going to survive on what they make with health care costs rising. Many people I've spoken to worry about whether they can afford to get sick. When people think about insurance, they think it is something they very much need. They're concern is purely over whether or not they can afford it. This is the reason reform is so needed. We have to bring down costs, offer people assistance in affording insurance and coverage if they can't afford it and we must do it quickly. This is what the President is dedicated to: helping real people.

We elected this President because we needed him to help us bring change in our country. He told us time and time again that he could not do that alone. He told us that he would work hard to bring change, but that his election was not the change, rather his election allows us the opportunity to make the change. Our government is supposed to be of, by, and for us, the American people. President Obama is trying to make that the case again.

It is perfectly understandable to have questions and even disagreements over policy questions, but we must not forget that the goals we share with the President are incredibly important. I'm really glad Michele has been helping and I hope she continues to do so. If my explanation of why an individual mandate is necessary does not fully address her concerns, she should, by all means, continue to voice that concern to her Congressman and Senators, but I hope that she won't give up on the President or on the hugely important reforms he is trying to pass.

Please feel free to respond with any further questions or concerns you have.

Jordan

 

 *************************************

 

From:  Lance W.

Re:  Solar Access Zoning Issue in Denver

Dated:  10/12/09

 

Hello Friends,

 

I hope you all are staying busy in this sluggish economy.  I know it is really slow in some areas. 

 

I am writing you because it has come to my attention that the Zoning revision that the City of Denver currently has underway may be making no provision for solar access.  If you are already aware of this situation, please let me know what I can do to help you raise the visibility of this issue.

 

If this is news to you, please reach out to your contacts and determine what the City is planning and what the renewable energy community can do to address any problems.

 

If the City really is ignoring the emerging trends of solar energy and home gardening we need to get the word out to all the people we know who are interested in a sustainable future.

 

Lance Wright

 

 

 

The economy is certainly taking a toll on the Denver community and one area that has been deeply affected is in essential services for seniors and the homeless.  Severe State and City budget cuts and a reduction in charitable contributions are taking a toll on front-line organizations that serve and support some of the most vulnerable people in our community.

 

In August, The Salvation Army closed the Crossroads shelter downtown giving residents and staff a weeks notice.  The Salvation Army's decision to abruptly close the facility with no transitional planning or assistance to those who were residing there, was short sighted and highly disruptive for those who depended on this facility, and to other human service agencies.   This week, there is talk that The Salvation Army is planning to re-open Crossroads on a limited basis which, is little comfort for the scores of homeless persons it dumped on the street with no place to go.

 

Two weeks ago, the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)  decided to defund several organizations including Senior Support Services, a 32-year old organization that provides services to seniors over 55-years old.   As Senior Support Services director Ted Pascoe stated..."these are the poorest of the poor".    Indeed, Senior Support Services is a front-line human service agency that serves some of the most challenged and vulnerable people in our community.

 

In protest, Pascoe is living outdoors and camping in open spaces around the City in an attempt to draw attention to what Colorado Coalition for the Homeless director John Parvensky calls "a safety net that is being shredded by the State". 

 

The cut in funding to essential front-line programs is often the difference between life and death for those receiving these services. This action will create far greater costs and long-term harm for our community.  Unlike the for-profit sector, when the non-profit sectors revenue is down, demand is up.  For front-line agencies like Senior Support Services, the demand for services is growing rapidly.

 

This is a concerning trend and points to deeper issues affecting our community.  The City of Denver’s Road Home initiative, a 10-year plan to end homelessness, is being greatly challenged by a dramatic increase in the number of people becoming homeless. 

 

Now City, County, State and Federal Governments along with numerous churches, charities, foundations, businesses, private donors, citizen volunteers and non-profit service entities will be challenged to step into the gap in order to fill the void.  It is a daunting task that will require hard work and sacrificial giving.  It is a challenge that we should rise up to meet because the measure of our community is, in large part, based on how we care for the most vulnerable in our neighborhoods.

 

It seems the past couple of weeks have been very hard on folks dealing with life challenges like homelessness, illness, addiction, aging and poverty.  The assault on programs for the homeless, seniors, Medicare, Medicaid and other community-based services has been brutal.

 

In the meantime, we give a $12 Trillion bailout to Wall Street and spend $3 billion a week on two wars without end.   AIG can get $182 billion in taxpayer dollars to pay off their investors 100% of their ill-fated investments, but Senior Support Services gets defunded by DRCOG.

 

We need to get our priorities straight.  Let’s spend a little less on weapons of mass destruction, Wall Street bailouts and corporate tax breaks and a little more on essential services to the poorest of our community.

 

**************************************

From:  Former Colorado State Sen. Sue Windels

Re: Ballot Initiatives

Dated:  10/12/09

 

Poisonous Ballot Initiatives

 

I write to alert you to three proposed anti-government ballot initiatives that could have a devastating effect on Colorado, costing our state over $1 billion in tax revenue if they get on the ballot and are approved by voters.  It takes 76,000 petition signatures to get an initiative on the ballot.   When you see those paid signature gatherers out there asking people to sign petitions for these three initiatives, don’t sign and warn your friends and neighbors to decline to sign as well.  Hopefully, we can keep them from getting the signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.

 

#10 -- Motor Vehicle, Income and Telecommunication Taxes & Fees -- Statutory

•        Car ownership taxes would reduce to $2 for new cars, $1 for the rest

•        Car registration, license fee and title charges cannot exceed $10 when all added together

•        No tax on vehicle rentals and leases

•        No tax on the first $10,000 of the sales price of a vehicle

•        No tax on dealer car rebates

•        No fees on new license plates, inspections – no tolls on roads – unless approved first by a vote of the people.

•        Reduce income tax from 4.5% to 3.5% by reducing it .1% per year in any year growth exceeds 6%

•        No fees (except 911 at the 2009 rate)  on telephones, pagers, cable, TV, radio, Internet unless approved by a vote of the people

 

#12 -- Property Taxes   -- Constitutional

•        Allow people who own property, but don’t reside on that property to vote on property tax issues.

•        Require enterprise zones and authorities to pay property taxes

•        Require any property tax increase to expire after 10 years

•        Phase out half the school district property tax rate of 2011 by 2020 with state replacing lost revenue.  (Note:  this is an attempt to re-Bruce school districts that voted to de-Bruce and eliminate the mill levy stabilization passed by the CO state legislature in 2008.)

 

#21 – State and Local Debt Limitations -- Constitutional

•        No borrowing by the state whatsoever.  No COP’s (certificates of participation) which allow the state to buy back buildings it constructs over years through lease-to-purchase arrangements.

•        Voter approved debt by local governments allowed but must be repaid within 10 years

•        When a voter approved debt is paid off, taxes must be reduced to reflect the retirement of that debt obligation.

 

The legislature and Governor Ritter have already had to cut almost $2 billion from our current state budget in order to balance the budget during these tough economic times.  We must ask ourselves what kind of state we want to live in. Do we want to provide our children with a quality education and make higher education affordable for all?  Do we want to help the developmentally disabled and the mentally ill?  Do we want to keep dangerous people locked in our prisons?  Will businesses invest in our state’s economy when we continuously rank 48th, 49th, or 50th in government support for vital state services?

 

The Denver Post reports that Douglas Bruce is behind these proposals.  El Paso County kicked him out of the legislature.  Let’s keep his poisonous measures off the ballot.  Please, don’t sign!

 

Best regards,

Sue Windels

 

******************************************