http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/group_rss/Women Women progressives. Click here to join this group. The "right-to-life" movement that elevates embryonic life above women's lives is more accurately termed "right-to-prenatal-life." One of the most extreme 2008 anti-abortion, anti-contraceptive ballot measures is the so-called Colorado "Personhood" amendment - number 48 - defining fertilized eggs as "persons" with Fourteenth Amendment rights to "life, liberty and due process of law." Simultaneously, rightists have opposed the same rights for women as "reading feminism into the Constitution." Both Amendment 48 and a rule change proposed by the Bush administration Department of Health and Human Services would re-define pregnancy as the point of conception, disregarding the medical definition of pregnancy - "the implantation of a fertilized egg." They would effectively categorize as abortion any contraception (e.g., the pill, IUD, emergency contraception, contraceptive patch) that interferes with the implantation of a fertilized egg, thus outlawing most contraception - the primary means to reduce the need for abortion. In a slippery slope to 19th century status for women, rightists have promoted "conscience clauses" permitting pharmacists' and others' refusal to fill prescriptions or provide health care for women. The HHS proposal states, "[T]he conscience of the individual or institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion..." - holding women's health hostage to anyone's professed religious/ideological beliefs. It is time to recognize that abortion serves as surrogate for a spectrum of unspoken issues related to female personhood and male entitlement. The anti-abortion political litmus test was introduced by Paul Weyrich, who dictated that women step aside and "make way for new life." It serves dual purposes - the marginalization of women and the lightning rod around which to mobilize political coalitions, notably, Evangelicals and Catholics. The elevation of fetal life over women's lives, coupled with conservative strategist Howard Phillips' euphemistically described goal of return to "one-family-one-vote," is calculated to marginalize and disenfranchise women, consistent with the ultraright tenet that ultimately, only select white Christian males should retain the right to vote or hold office. Rickie Solinger concluded from her historical research of women's health care that women's rights have often been held hostage by politicians and others with "political agendas hostile to female autonomy and racial equality" ( Wake Up Little Susie: Single Pregnancy and Race Before Roe v. Wade , 1992). The criminalization of contraception and abortion, and the widespread U.S. adoption black market that assigned value to babies and punishment to women based on race, were some effects of pre- Roe efforts to control women's reproduction. At core, Weyrich's anti-abortion, anti-contraceptive and abstinence-only ideology serves as cornerstone of an anticipated male supremacist theocracy. It is the platform upon which the majority of Republican candidates continue to run in 2008. The greatest conceit - that pregnancy is not a health issue and women's lives are expendable - underlies the dual standards of Republican Party pronatalist policy demanding female submission to males who presume the right to hold women hostage to personal beliefs. http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CQ8R http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CQ8R/commentary#comments Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:42:59 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CQ8R Michele S Michele S 2 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CQ8R/ Please do not vote to retain ANY judges or justices in Colorado! Under Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey's leadership, Colorado's Judiciary and legal system has been turned into a protection racket for corrupt judges, justices, and attorneys. Self regulation is laughed at, and the Judicial Performance Commission's recommendation, cannot be trusted. As an example, see www.coloradoopencourt.blogspot.com Despite overwhelming evidence of judicial corruption, the Judicial Performance Commission recommended Judge David R. Lass be retained in 2004. Until there is real accountability within our judiciary, vote every justice and judge out of office. They are domestic terrorists who destroy the foundation of America, i.e., our inalienable rights and Constitution(s). I also petitioned ALL State Legislators to investigate the corruption and to hold the judges and justices accountable. To date, NO Legislator has made any real effort to protect We The People from Colorado's corrupt Judiciary. Therefore, please vote out EVERY incumbent as well. Please spread this message to everyone you know and ask them to do the same. If they (judges, justices and legislators) refuse to hear the truth, let them hear our vote!! Halena Lewis Halen@axint.net Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968) Join my group to support accountability within our judiciary at www.progressnowaction.org/page/group/OPENCOURT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/halenalewis/CZCx http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/halenalewis/CZCx/commentary#comments Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:28:37 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/halenalewis/CZCx Halena Lewis Halena Lewis 1 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CZCx/  On August 29, the Friday before the Republican Convention, members of the Council for National Policy convened in Minneapolis to grant their imprimatur to the vice presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin. Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery described the group's reaction in a Focus on the Family Action video, which has since been removed from their website: "There could not be more excitement based on the little we know about Palin so far," enthused Minnery. Given general longstanding opposition to women in positions of power among CNP members, Minnery was asked whether James Dobson could possibly support a woman for the office. He quoted Dobson: "If it's the right woman, we are ready to vote for her." Dobson has been hoping for some time to find a "Margaret Thatcher" type, noted Minnery. Outside the obvious, i.e., her anti-gun control and anti-abortion positions, Minnery recited Palin's positives as a conservative candidate: a hocky mom in an intact marriage who "has not rejected her feminine side"; because she and her husband are union members, it was speculated that blue collar voters in important swing states would be attracted; and (improbably) because she is a woman, that she would appeal to Hillary Clinton supporters. The Council for National Policy (CNP) has remained largely below the radar since its 1981 founding as an umbrella group uniting a network of over 500 members from Congress, the business community and hard-right evangelicals. The press are excluded from their secretive invitation-only strategy meetings, held three times annually. The group is strongly influenced by the teachings of the late Rousas Rushdoony , a CNP member and patriarch of the reactionary Christian Reconstructionist (Dominionist) movement that has infused the doctrine of conservative churches since the '60s, and seeks Christian dominion over all aspects of society and the world. http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CZMG http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CZMG/commentary#comments Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:48:40 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CZMG Michele S Michele S 1 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CZMG/ http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/think/CZjh http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/think/CZjh/commentary#comments Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:45:09 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/think/CZjh Bobby http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/profile_picture/ee6099c9a5ad8f13ea_6dm6bih04.jpg Bobby 0 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CZjh/ When Democrat Mark Udall debated Republican Bob Schaffer in July, he made no effort to refute Schaffer’s distortions surrounding health care reform. In fact, he essentially short-circuited meaningful debate by adopting the nebulous right-wing description of single-payer health care as “government health care,” thus capitulating to Republican framing of the issue. Just what is government health care? Is it the more than 60 percent of all health care costs that are paid by taxpayers, including subsidies for inflated costs of private insurances? Private insurers skim the cream and game the system for profit, and count on government (taxpayers) to pick up the health care costs of all whose coverage they reject. Does government health care include the 70 percent of our legislators’ health coverage that is funded by taxpayers? Democrats who facilely echo GOP talking points grossly misrepresent single-payer health care. In fact, contrary to assertions by the right-wing “free market” chorus, only single-risk-pool insurance provides true free choice of private providers, the same as traditional Medicare before Republicans moved to privatize Medicare (at 12 percent higher cost). Private insurance plans limit choice to “in plan” doctors, often requiring change of providers when plans are changed. Only single payer is capable of providing comprehensive, continuous health care benefits and protection against medical bankruptcy. Our leaders should vigorously protest the abomination of Medicare prescription drug reform that was written by insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies with billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies and inflated profits to benefit their bottom lines, while prohibiting negotiation of bulk drug prices. Instead of privatizing Medicare-for-profit, why not improve and expand its coverage for everyone? Traditional Medicare has lower overhead costs – less than 4 percent – whereas private insurances divert 25 percent or more to profits, lobbying, marketing, exhorbitant CEO salaries and wasteful administrative costs. Profit is a perverse incentive for health insurance, which protects its bottom line by reducing benefits and shifting ever-greater costs to consumers. The insulated political class in Washington, dependent upon corporate money and privy to 70 percent taxpayer-subsidized health coverage, seem out of touch with the U.S. people. Polls by Pew and others have revealed that increasing numbers – 54 to 65 percent – support a national single-payer health care plan. A recent study reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine (3-31-08) that 59 percent of U.S. physicians “support government legislation to establish national health insurance,” an increase of 10 percent since 2002. Notably, more than 20 federal and state studies since 1990, including the 2007 Lewin Group evaluation in Colorado, have demonstrated that single-payer health insurance is the only reform model that can both save money and provide comprehensive health care benefits for all. The Colorado single-payer proposal and Rep. John Conyers’ national health care bill, HR 676, both deserve serious further study. We have everything to gain from an honest dialogue about quality-, saftey-centered universal single payer health care, in place of profiteering health insurance gatekeepers. http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqPs http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqPs/commentary#comments Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:50:53 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqPs Michele S Michele S 1 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqPs/ Progressive Democrats of America with The Nation magazine are setting up headquarters at Central Presbyterian Church (1660 Sherman St.), where they have scheduled issues forums over 5 days of the Democratic National Convention. Free daily panels moderated by The Nation 's John Nichols at 11 AM, are followed by additional panels covering Health Care on Monday, August 25, followed the rest of the week with forums on Media and Election Reform, Economic Justice, Global Warming and Constitutional Law. Participants include Reps. John Conyers, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Keith Ellison and Lynn Woolsey; Tom Hayden, Jim Hightower and authors David Sirota and Vincent Bugliosi; various writers and publisher of The Nation ; journalist and radio host Laura Flanders; Jeff Cohen, author and founder of FAIR; and many others. For schedule and more info, check Web site http://pdamerica.org , click on "Progressive Central" in green bar at page top. Watch for posting of PDF event flyer. Also, check link to HCAC page for Democratic Convention Actions around Health Care . http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqPk http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqPk/commentary#comments Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:00:39 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqPk Michele S Michele S 1 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqPk/ Dear Representative Carroll, In reply to your last email; You said: "When you think a judge gets a decision wrong the best remedy is to appeal." Answer: You didn't read my account did you? To say that I think that the judge reached the wrong decision is insulting, offensive and derogatory. As my account exposes, Judge David R. Lass reached the wrong decision deliberately. He deliberately misstated the facts and evidence, he deliberately misapplied the laws, and deliberately abused his authority. He not only reached the wrong decision, he clearly reached a predetermined one. An appeal regarding the water rights was filed. That case was 04 SA 328. I submitted numerous pleadings and complaints to the Colorado Supreme Court regarding the collusion between the attorneys and judges, the lack of jurisdiction, the violations of law, etc. However, all my pleadings and complaints were struck from the record. You said: "I/we can help with legislative reforms that create /strengthen the judicial performance commission." Answer: The judicial performance commission doesn't work and should be abolished. Judges Lass, Ruckriegle, Ossola, and Petre are good examples of why it doesn't work. Instead, all judges and justices, should be term limited to four years or less. You said: "I don't think impeachment is the proper remedy unless a crime has been committed and if you think a crime has been committed the proper channel would be to report to the police and DA-not the legislature." Answer: 1. If you bothered to read my account, you would find that several crimes were committed. In all, Judge Lass violated, and allowed others to violate 22 laws. 13 of the 22 are felonies, and 9 of the 22 are State racketeering charges. I am herein adding 18-8-403(1)(a), 18-8-404(a)(b)(c), 18-8-405(a)(b), and 18-8-406 C.R.S. How much crime do you need? Show me where the general public is allowed to violate even one law without being held accountable? In addition to the violation of laws, Judge Lass violated the Judicial Cannons, Rules of Professional Conduct, the Constitution(s), his oath of office, and more. Article XIII, Section 2 of the Colorado Constitution provides that the governor and other state and judicial officers shall be liable to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, (it doesn't even have to be a felony), or malfeasance in office. I have evidenced both, high crimes and malfeasance in office. Article XIII also provides that the House shall impeach and all impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. You are clearly provided with the power and the law, so why do you refuse to use it? While you and the rest of the Legislators are refusing to use your powers to stop Judge Lass, he is continuing with the trial and issuing orders even though he has no authority to do so. I recently submitted two Motions to Dismiss and Vacate for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Lass denied my Motions, and instead of relying on his own Court record to show jurisdiction(there is none), and the right to continue, Judge Lass used the Opinion issued in 04 SA 328 wherein the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of issue preclusion bars Appellants from collaterally attacking the lack of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction of the Summit County Court. Because all roads, in the abuse of authority, obstruction of justice, violations of law etc., lead to the Colorado Supreme Court, lets take a look at the jurisdictional findings of that Opinion, shall we? First of all, even though all my pleadings and complaints were stricken, the Justices still had full access to the entire record in Case No. 99 CV 277. The court record itself evidences that Judge Lass violated the laws, allowed others to violate the laws, abused his authority, and deliberately abused, violated, and denied me my civil rights to due process, contract freely, and right to be heard. The law recognizes that the Judgment in 99CV277 was not only void, but void ab initio. (From the beginning.) Instead of holding Judge Lass accountable, the Supreme Court Justices denied, circumvented and concealed his criminal conduct, and put the blame on me by saying I had the chance to litigate, and/or did litigate the lack of jurisdiction, and am now barred by the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion from challenging it. I re-read the transcript of 99 CV 277, and jurisdiction was not even mentioned once. The record shows that I hired four attorneys to represent me, my rights, and that of the Association. One was hired prior to the filing of the lawsuit, two were hired during proceedings to trial, and one was hired after the trial. Not one of the four ever mentioned subject matter or in personam jurisdiction, nor the lack thereof, to me or the court in any of the submitted pleadings before, during or after the trial. None. I stumbled upon jurisdiction requirements through law discussion groups and investigated it on my own. So no, I did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the lack of jurisdiction during the lawsuit, or at trial, and the record confirms it. For that matter, due process also mandates that the court confirm that subject matter and in personam jurisdiction exists. Again, the record does not evidence the court confirming its jurisdiction in any way except to deliberately misstate the facts and evidence in order to fraudulently obtain it. The Colorado Supreme Court then supported their findings with case laws. Case law is supposed to be used to support arguments in like or similar circumstances and determinations. Let's look at the ones they used: 1. Keystone v. Flynn, 769 P.2d 484, 488-89 n.6 (Colo.1989) This is a case regarding whether the District Court obtained subject matter jurisdiction while the parties had not yet exhausted all administrative remedies, nor had the Public Utilities Commission entered a final decision. 2. Insurance Corp. Of Ireland, Ltd. V. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinea, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S. Ct. 2099, 2104 n.9 (1982). This is a case regarding personal jurisdiction over a foreign party by sanction, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A). 3. O'Neill v. Simpson. 958 P.2d 1121 (Colo.1998). This is a case regarding a lack of jurisdiction based on defective service of process. 4. City of South Pasadena v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 1154,1157 (9th Cir. 2002). This is a case regarding 11th Amendment immunity. 5. In re Marriage of Mallon, 956 P.2d 642, 645 (Colo. App. 1998). This case is a case regarding lack of jurisdiction due to the husband not residing in Colorado for 90 days prior to the petition for dissolution being filed. 6. People in Interest of E.E.A., 854 P2d 1346 (Colo.App.1992). This is a case regarding a jurisdictional flaw because the minor child being the subject of a paternity suit, was not made a party to the suit. 7. In People ex rel. J.A.U. 47 P.3d 327, 331 (Colo. 2002). This is another case regarding paternity, and lack of jurisdiction based on mistake. While claim and issue preclusion may have applied to the above cases, none of them state that the reasons for lack of subject matter or in personam jurisdiction was based on the unlawful, fraudulent and malicious actions of the judge. Claim and issue preclusion does not apply when unlawful, fraudulent and malicious actions are committed by the judge. None of the above case law applies to my situation, the record, or the appeal brought in 04 SA 328. Citing one case law wrongfully is a mistake, citing seven wrongfully is deliberate and a cover-up. The Justices then stated that to overcome the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion, there would have to be a showing of "manifest abuse of authority by the trial court." Again, in spite of striking all my pleadings and complaints which did show manifest abuses of authority, they had the Court Record, and the justices cannot escape the fact that the record itself speaks to manifest abuses of authority by the trial court. They also reference Restatement (Second) of Judgment §12 cmt.a (1982). In the Restatement, a modern rule was added wherein finality rather than the validity of a case is given greater weight. They also say that finality over validity is in the public's interest. No, it is not in the public's interest to forego truth over closure in any case. Off the top of my head, this principle of law is unconstitutional and violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. It strikes at the very core of our judicial systems stand for due process, fairness, equality, and to get at the truth in every case. The Supreme Court Justices have a duty to strike this principle everywhere it is used, and remove it from everywhere it is written. The concept of finality over validity only ensures a revolving door employment for attorneys, clogs our courtrooms, and denies justice. Again, the quoted Restatement did not apply to my case, or the appeal brought in 04 SA 328. In their final argument, the Justices validly cite Restatement (Second) of Judgments §12 (1982). But, because they denied, circumvented and concealed Judge Lass's criminal conduct, they say the remedy doesn't apply. Here is what it says: Section 12, paragraph 1, states that a judgment may be attacked for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when; (1) The subject matter of the action was so plainly beyond the court's jurisdiction that its entertaining the action was a manifest abuse of authority; or . . . . The Plaintiff(s), not an Opinion, establishes the court's subject matter jurisdiction. The record evidences that the Plaintiff's in 99 CV 277 had NO standing to bring suit, they could show NO injury, and there was NO justiciable controversy. In short, Judge David R. Lass lacked subject matter jurisdiction, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUBJECT MATTER!!!!!! Likewise, there was NO judgment on the merits, BECAUSE THERE WERE NO MERITS!!!!!! By deliberately not addressing or even explaining the abuse of authority, or criminal conduct committed by Judge Lass, the Supreme Court Justices Opinion is biased and can only be construed to be a cover-up. Judge Lass's use of the Opinion as a defense for his continuing actions shows not only cover-up, but collusion between himself and the Colorado Supreme Court Justices. Furthermore, because of the amount of officials involved, the amount of money and property involved, this is more than just a good ole boy type system. It is a criminal enterprise, and all roads lead to the Mullarkey Court. (www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/orgcrime/glossary.htm) The Opinion, and Judge Lass's reliance on it rather than his own court record, is yet another on ramp. The public will also be deceived by this Opinion as it will undoubtedly set precedence for someone else. They, not being privy to all the facts, and that crimes and abuses were intentionally denied, circumvented and concealed from the Opinion, will not be able to defend against it. How many more Opinions are there like this? Obviously, this case shows that a judge and/or justice can make a case, finding, or judgment have any outcome they want it to be, and the unsuspecting public has no clue. As long as the judge or justice signs it, the unsuspecting public will think that it must have been adjudicated fairly and by the rules and law, right? Again, how much crime do you need? How many more victims will there be who may or may not figure out what happened to them? If you want to look up this Opinion yourself, the Case No. is 04SA328. A google search will bring it up easily, and while I am only herein focusing on the jurisdictional findings, the entire Opinion can be shown to be geared towards protecting Judge Lass, the attorneys, and other public officials criminal conduct. The only remedy is impeachment, and I have herein made a partial but effective case against the Colorado Supreme Court Justices. If they are not stopped and held accountable, I as well as all other victims of this current corrupt judiciary, will hold you, and all the legislators, etc., liable for our losses of rights and property. And yes there are other victims. In fact, when I met with you in 2006 regarding this same case, Representative Wes McKinley told me that there had been another couple in to see him regarding Judge David R. Lass just two weeks earlier. Had something been done in 2006, I, as well as others would not have to be unduly enduring the continuing injustices today. I did everything right. I filed complaints with every agency, entity and officials who are in position and power to stop the corruption, and bring accountability to our judiciary. I didn't fail, you did, and they did. (In 2007, yet another person has contacted me regarding Judge David Lass.) 2. Regarding the second part of your statement, I did take it to Sheriff Minor and D.A. Hurlbert. They both told me they would not investigate or bring charges. In fact, Sheriff Minor even yelled his statement that he would do nothing about the corruption. Here are their phone numbers. Feel free to call and ask them why they won't perform the duties, obligations and responsibilities of their offices of public trust. Sheriff John Minor - 970- 453-2232, D. A. Mark Hurlbert - 970-453-2327. While your at it, here is the number to Summit County Commissioners Thomas Davidson, Bob French and Tom Long. Their number is 970 - 453-2561. I sent them a copy of the same account I gave you, and mailed it via Certified Mail No. 7007 3020 0002 4929 7947. Anyone can go to USPS.com, put in those numbers and verify that they did receive it. Ask them why I haven't heard from them, and ask them why they refuse to perform the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of their office of public trust. The number for Chief Judge Terry Ruckriegle is 970-453-2241. The number for Judges Ossola and Petre is 970- 945-5075 The number for County Attorney's Frank Celico and Jeff Huntley is 970 453-2561 The number for Summit County Planning Dept. is 970-668-4200 The number for Summit County Environmental Health is 970-668-4070 The number for Dept. Of Natural Resources is 303-866-3581 The number for Attorney General Suthers is 303- 866-4500 The number for Governor Bill Ritter is 303-866-2471 The number for Attorney Regulation is 303-866-6400 The number for the Judicial Discipline is 303-894-2110. The above is a shortened list, but call and ask these public officials why they refuse to perform the duties, obligations and responsibilities of their offices of public trust, and/or participated in the racketeering. Article XIII also provides that those who are not liable to impeachment are liable to removal. Will I hold them liable? You bet. Again, I didn't fail, they did. You said: "If you think the law itself is not properly written (which maybe lead to the wrong result in your case), we may be able to help." Answer: It is not the law itself. As I have shown, and which you continue to skirt the real issue, it is the people elected and appointed who do not follow, uphold, and/or apply the laws fairly and for the benefit of all. As I have shown, our laws are being prostituted for money and job security, and not for truth and justice. I will not respond to the rest of your e-mail because it is just more of the same skirting the real issues. I will however state that if this Governor and Legislature fails to use the power and rights we the people granted in Article XIII, I will in the future run a campaign to remove it from the Governor and Legislature, and put it in the hands of the people. Use it or lose it. I will be sharing this email with the public. Part of the reason is to show the people what it is really like to seek redress of grievances, the other part is to warn them of corrupt public officials. If I alienate you-the one legislator out of a hundred who has responded to me-so be it. When our judiciary is being allowed to render a Judgment/Opinion that fits any scenario but the truth, we have bigger problems than whether I made you mad. Ours is a government of, by and for the people, (a Republic), not the other way around. Halena Lewis Halen@axint.net Read my account at www.coloradoopencourt.blogspot.com Join my group to support judicial accountability at www.progressnowaction.org/page/group/OPENCOURT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/halenalewis/CqPc http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/halenalewis/CqPc/commentary#comments Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:29:42 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/halenalewis/CqPc Halena Lewis Halena Lewis 1 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqPc/ Joan Fitz-Gerald, Colorado Candidate for U.S. Congress Herein are excerpts from Joan Fitz-Gerald's ad for U.S. Congress. I answer the statements and provide first hand knowledge of why no-one should vote for Joan Fitzgerald. Statement: "You can count on Joan Fitz-Gerald." Answer: As my State Senator, I contacted Joan Fitz-Gerald regarding judicial corruption and criminal conduct within the 5th Judicial District in 2002, and again in 2006. She finally responded in 2006 stating she would look into my complaints, and that her aide would be contacting me. She did nothing with my complaint, her aide never called, and the corruption and criminal conduct within our Judiciary is continuing. So no, you cannot count on Joan Fitz-Gerald. Statement: "She'll change America" and "She'll bring change to Washington." Answer: How will she do that when she did nothing to change our corrupt and criminal Judiciary? She failed us at home, she'll fail us nationally, too. Statement: "She's tenacious" and "She's a fighter." Answer: She's a coward, and she's a liar. (See my first answer.) Statement: " She'll bring a sense of urgency to Congress." Answer: Really? I'm still waiting on the investigation into my complaint, it's been over two years, Joan. Statement: "Joan will work to get us out of Iraq." Answer: No she won't. Our young men and women are fighting and dying for our Country every day. What makes our Country great, and the envy of other countries, is our Constitutions, and laws. Joan Fitz-Gerald failed to uphold our Constitutions and laws when she refused to bring accountability to the corrupt and criminal Colorado Judiciary. She slapped the face of every man and woman fighting and dying in Iraq, and has shown her true concerns about their well being. She has shown she could care less about getting us out of Iraq, and that her only allegiance is to protect the wealthy. Statement: "Joan changed Colorado." Answer: Joan failed Colorado. No matter what accomplishments she stacks up on paper, she failed where the people needed her most, and that was to uphold our Constitutions, Laws, and our rights and freedoms. All the other accomplishments don't matter. If there was a truth pill every politician was made to take, Joan Fitz-Gerald's ad would state; You can't count on me, I am a liar, I'm a coward, I'll make promises I don't intend to keep, I won't uphold the Constitution's, the Laws, nor the oath I swore to do so, A vote for Joan Fitz-Gerald, is a vote for the same as before. I'm just a different face, After election, I'll pretend to work on tough issues that affect the working class, ignore the working class, and for the most part, sit on my ass and continue living off the public dole for another four years. Halena Lewis Halen@axint.net Don't vote for Joan Fitz-Gerald. We can't afford another four years of her forked tongue representation. My Judicial corruption case is told at www.coloradoopencourt.blogspot.com Join me in supporting a call for an investigation into our corrupt and criminal Judiciary at, www.progressnowaction.org/page/group/OPENCOURT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/halenalewis/CqPB http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/halenalewis/CqPB/commentary#comments Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:15:21 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/halenalewis/CqPB Halena Lewis Halena Lewis 0 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqPB/ From David Swanson: The peace movement has stood for peace and justice, for ending wars, preventing new ones, and building peace. Our top priority in Washington, D.C., has been ending the funding of the occupation. That work is over for the next year, because Congress has provided that funding. We can still work against recruitment, we can still educate, we can still agitate, we can still oppose an attack on Iran. But one of our secondary priorities in Washington has been imposing a penalty for the illegal attack on Iraq in order to discourage future attacks on Iran or anywhere else. We have pushed half-heartedly for impeachment, with our main lobbying focus on cutting off the money. Now, at the same time that the money is a done deal for another year, the possibility of impeachment is beginning to spark. After over two years of declaring impeachment "off the table," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has relented and suggested that some sort of preliminary hearing be held in the Judiciary Committee - and specifically on the impeachable offense of misleading a nation into war. If the peace movement is not just a movement against one war or occupation, but a movement for peace, we should push with everything we've got for that (impeachment) hearing to happen, happen soon, and happen well. We should ask everyone who cares about peace to phone Pelosi and Committee Chairman John Conyers, as well as their own representatives, whom they should ask to introduce their own articles of impeachment. We've been on a losing streak, brothers and sisters, and the door is cracking open toward a major victory. Let's open that door fully and lead a peaceful march of millions through it. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34705 PLEASE CALL and demand that Impeachment Hearings be started BEFORE the Election House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr.: (202) 225-5126 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: (202) 225-4965 And your Congressman: Contact info Please join our weekly Impeachment Events, see our Calendar on the website ImpeachCO.com or in the Calendar here on ProgressNowAction.org John H Kennedy, organizer Impeach Colorado Coalition ImpeachCO.com .. http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CqyT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CqyT/commentary#comments Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:32:28 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/kennedyjohn/CqyT John H Kennedy http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/profile_picture/5e4c96e6db734362f3_l5hmv2v71.jpg John H Kennedy 0 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqyT/ July 7, 2008 Governor Bill Ritter 136 State Capitol Building Denver, CO. 80203 Certified Mail No. 7002 2030 0000 0388 5347 Dear Governor Ritter,      On May 22, 2008, I sent you a certified letter regarding the criminal conduct within our judicial and legal system. I detailed how my rights, water, and land was stolen from me through corrupt judges and attorneys. I also detailed that I have been unlawfully subjected to the Summit County Court for more than ten years, and that the criminal conduct is allowed and protected by Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, and all the Colorado Supreme Court Justices. Instead of answering my letter with concern over the criminal state of the people’s judiciary, and helping to put a stop to it, you answered my petition for an investigation and accountability through an unsigned letter from a Citizen Advocate dated June 18, 2008. I herein answer your letter: 1. You said, “the Governor has no jurisdiction over the Judicial Branch.” Yes you do. When corruption is involved as it is in this case, you, Governor Ritter, have the authority and duty to ask that the CBI and/or FBI investigate and bring charges. You also have the authority to convene the Legislature in order to impeach the corrupt Judges, Justices, and other public officials. Every day they are allowed to remain in office, is another day that all Coloradans are in jeopardy of losing their rights and freedom. 2. You said, “the Governor’s office cannot intervene in court cases, overturn decisions made by judges, or offer legal advice.” I never asked for that. Nowhere did I ask that you intervene, overturn a decision, nor did I ask for legal advice. I asked you to do your job as Governor and call for an investigation and accountability. Again, you not only have the authority, you also have the duty. 3. You recommended that I my petition the Colorado Legal Services, and the Colorado Judicial Department instead. A. Colorado Legal Services does not handle corruption cases, nor do they have investigative authority. B. The Colorado Judicial Department is the State Court Administrator. The State Court Administrator does not have investigative authority. 4. A Citizen Advocate, also does not have authority to demand an investigation, only you do.      Governor Ritter, do not dismiss my worth of your time, nor dismiss my grievances as insignificant. The corruption is real, and our offices of public trust have been turned into a network of organized crime for the super wealthy and connected. The information I sent you on May 22, 2008 evidences that I am not a disgruntled litigant, but rather a victim of the lawless corruption within our Judiciary and legal system.      On June 20, 2008, Judge David R. Lass announced his retirement. He will be allowed to leave public office unaccounted, and allowed to resurface somewhere else. Isn’t this the same as the pedophile priests were allowed to do? Once there were complaints, they were moved and allowed to continue the abuse. By not holding Judge Lass to account for his criminal conduct, he also is a threat to the unsuspecting public everywhere. The criminal conduct will continue, because if he allowed such criminal behavior at work, he’s allowing the same in private life. He has shown his true character, and just as any other criminal, must be brought to justice. It will also be found that Judge Lass did not act alone. There are many more elected officials involved in this criminal network.      Just as Judge Lass has shown his true character, so too have all the other corrupt public officials who today are allowed to interact with the unsuspecting public. How many more victims will there be? In my case, my mortgage company is also being defrauded. How much longer will you allow the corruption to go on? Eventually, all will be brought to light. When it is exposed, what will you tell the people when they find out you knew about the corruption and criminal conduct within our Colorado Government, and did nothing to stop it? What will you tell God? Our Laws are rooted in the Ten Commandments, so this corruption is not only against man, it is also against God. Is He not worth your time either?      On its face, the amount of the corruption is eighty million dollars, crosses State lines, has cost the taxpayers millions, and is being allowed to continue. Imagine what an investigation will uncover. Governor Ritter, I will be expecting that you will use your authority to call for an investigation into the corruption and abuse of power. If there is more information you need, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address and phone number. Thank you for your time, and I will be expecting to hear from you soon. Respectfully, Halena Lewis Note: This letter and all future replies will be shared with the public. http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/halenalewis/Cqyz http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/halenalewis/Cqyz/commentary#comments Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:00:34 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/halenalewis/Cqyz Halena Lewis Halena Lewis 1 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/Cqyz/ Read Resolution overwhelmingly passed by U.S. Conference of Mayors at their Jun 22-24, 2008 annual meeting. http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/Cqy5 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/Cqy5/commentary#comments Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:39:24 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/Cqy5 Michele S Michele S 0 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/Cqy5/ A study published in Health Affairs (6-10-08) documents a sharp (60%) increase in numbers of underinsured between 2003-2007. Underinsurance rates nearly tripled among those with incomes above 200% of poverty. Consequently, 42 percent of U.S. adults were under- or uninsured in 2007, reporting high levels of access problems and financial stress. Even among those with incomes over 400% of poverty, 15% are underinsured. The study indicates that the move toward greater consumer cost-sharing for minimum benefit insurance policies in recent years is pushing millions of insured non-elderly adults toward spending large shares of their incomes on health care. The clear impact is to increase the share of families at risk for medical debt and loss of savings for retirement, college, or other long-term needs. Our current insurance system is working well only for the wealthy, who can afford high costs. Politicians' promises that "you can keep the insurance you have" also apply to the wealthy.  Read the Report Following is a 650-word piece I wrote about the failure of profit-centered health care that has been picked up by several newspapers around the state.                               Failure of U.S. profit-centered health insurance Spending almost twice as much, the U.S. has worse health outcomes than other industrialized nations. Uniquely, U.S. health care is dependent on over 1200 for-profit health insurances, functioning as gatekeepers. Underwriting – the art of risk evaluation and avoidance – insures profits by covering the healthy and rejecting everyone else as a "pre-existing condition." Profit is a perverse incentive for quality health care: imagine for-profit fire or police protection. "Market-driven" health care treats health as a commodity, to be negotiated like a car or a house. The free market has also spawned "designer hospitals," offering only the most profitable specialties, e.g., cardiac procedures, and eliminating less profitable services, e.g., emergency and mental health. No reform proposal by current presidential candidates addresses the failure of the private health insurance industry, characterized principally by decreasing benefits and greater costs and risks shifted to consumers. In turn, more are subjected to underinsurance and unpaid medical bills – now the leading cause of personal bankruptcies. Premium increases of 87 percent over 6 years have outpaced both cost-of-living and median family income increases. Incremental reform proposals demonstrate lack of political will – the same failure to confront corporate profit-taking by insurance and pharmaceutical industries that wrote Medicare prescription drug reform with billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies and inflated profits to benefit their bottom lines. Commercial health insurance is the 800-pound gorilla, responsible for over 25% of health care dollars siphoned to excessive administrative costs, lobbying, marketing, CEO salaries and profit-taking: $30 billion annual health insurance profits; $32 billion insurance underwriting and marketing costs (McKinsey Group, 2007). Gaming the system for profit has given rise to the annual $20 billion business of "denial managment" – health insurance middlemen who search claims for excuses to delay, deny or renege on reimbursements. Responding to double-digit premium increases, more employers are opting to move employees into underinsurance – high-deductible catastrophic plans. Simultaneously, the American Hospital Association reports that both family out-of-pocket health expenses and unpaid medical bills have risen approximately 60% over a decade – still more costs ultimately shifted to taxpayers and consumers. Notably, more than 20 federal and state studies since 1990, including the 2007 Lewin Group evaluation in Colorado, have demonstrated that single-payer health insurance is the only reform model that can both save money and provide comprehensive health care benefits for all. Indeed, the single payer model is the only truly efficient, equitable, and sustainable financing system, enabling universal coverage by spreading risk across the entire population. Contrary to assertions by the "free market" choir, only single payer insurance permits true choice of pubic and private providers; private insurance is limited to "in plan" doctors. Only single payer provides comprehensive benefits and protection against medical bankruptcy. Rather than comprehensive health care reform, most current proposals revert to a Massachusetts-style nostrum, preserving insurance profits and requiring an individual mandate to purchase minimum-benefit insurance, subsidized by taxpayers as needed. It is a formula for continued inflationary consumer health costs and decreasing benefits. National single payer bill, HR676, calls for a progressive 3 to 4 percent employer and employee payroll tax to replace all health deductibles and premiums. Full-coverage costs for a family of four earning $40,000 annually would drop to $110 a month, from recent levels of $273/month for employer-sponsored coverage, or $489/month for an individually-insured family (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2007). A political class dependent on corporate money (and privy to 70 percent-taxpayer-subsidized health coverage) sidesteps meaningful reform. Nevertheless, polls by Pew and others have revealed increasing numbers – 54 to 65 percent of people – support a national single-payer health care plan. A recent survey reports that 59 percent of U.S. physicians now support national health care, up 10 percent from 2002. A grassroots movement and political reforms, including publicly-financed campaigns, may be necessary to instill the political will for meaningful reform. We have everything to gain from quality-, saftey-centered universal single payer health care to replace U.S. dependence on profiteering health care gatekeepers. http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/Cq45 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/Cq45/commentary#comments Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:35:09 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/Cq45 Michele S Michele S 0 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/Cq45/ CheneyCare -- We taxpayers pay 70% of guaranteed coverage for VP Dick Cheney and 2 million federal legislators and employees.  Link: Bill Moyers' Journal 5/9/08 -- California Nurses' campaign for "CheneyCare" for all.  Read transcript or view program: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05092008/transcript1.html Video "Who the Health Cares?" gets straight to the point: Presidential candidates will not determine health care reform -- the ball is in the court of Congress. http://www.moblogic.tv/video/2008/04/30/who-the-health-cares/ For-Profit Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industries -- scary statistics 1) Melody Peterson's book "Our Daily Meds" reveals that the benefit of medicines marketed by pharmaceutical companies "has become secondary to how much it will bring shareholders in profit"...due to constant pressure by Wall Street for drug companies to exceed profits made the year before; Big Pharma employs 2 lobbyists for every Congress member. 2) Tests show that placebos often work as well as the drugs being marketed to the public. 3) 100,000 Americans die annually from taking prescribed drugs as prescribed (FDA reports). 4) U.S. experiences 75,000-100,000 preventable deaths annually, ranking 19 out of 19 nations. (Recent study, Ellen Nolte & Martin McKee, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)  http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqYV http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqYV/commentary#comments Sun, 25 May 2008 21:39:15 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqYV Michele S Michele S 0 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqYV/ Please join Be the Change-USA & Health Care for All Colorado for an exciting, engaging and fun event May 31 Are We All Really Covered? Closing the Gaps in Health Care 12 noon - 7:30 PM, Sat., May 31, 2008 First Plymouth Congregational Church 3501 S. Colorado Blvd. (Hampden and Colorado Blvd) Englewood, CO Registration: Full program: $35; Dinner & evening speakers: $25; Evening speakers only: $10. Discount for Seniors, students, veterans, BTC and HCAC members: $5 Special program features: 1-3 PM Providers and Patients Panel: "How did we get into this mess, and how can we get out?" 3-5 PM Presentations by CO elected officials and candidates: "Will Colorado begin to close the gap?" 5 PM Dinner "Legislative Grill" -- Members of Congress and candidates and representatives of Presidential campaigns: "Will Congress or our next President begin to close the gap?" 6 PM Evening Keynote speaker: Elizabeth Kucinich More info: www.BTC-USA.org or www.healthcareforallcolorado.org or call Dick Barkey, 303-808-8504, or Eliza Carney, 970-416-0636 To register online: www.BTC-USA.org   http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqYj http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqYj/commentary#comments Sun, 25 May 2008 21:20:23 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqYj Michele S Michele S 0 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqYj/ The U.S. spends on average twice as much on health care as other industrialized nations, and has overall worse outcomes. Paul Krugman’s & Robin Wells’ commentary ( "The Health Care Crisis and What to Do About It ," The New York Review of Books , 3/23/06 ) attributes the U.S. health care crisis to high dependence on fragmented, for–profit private insurances, hospitals and numerous middlemen that add health costs without adding value. Noting "the strange persistence, in the teeth of all available evidence, of the belief that the private sector can provide health insurance more efficiently than the government," Krugman and Wells remark that free-market ideology is "wholly inappropriate to health care issues." As many observe, health is not a commodity, like a car or house. Factors of declining U.S. health care:      -Washington and the Bush administration are in thrall to insurance and drug industry lobbyists.      -The privatization-for-profit increases the fragmentation of U.S. health care, swelling the ranks of the uninsured.      -Commercial insurance has abandoned the principle of shared risk, shifting more risk to consumers, and has adopted the principle of adverse selection to guarantee profits for shareholders.      -Private insurances continue to skim over 20 percent of costs for profit and CEO salaries. Employer-provided health coverage is unraveling, as U.S. health costs rise twice as high as inflation and 4 times faster than wages, prompting more employers to reduce/eliminate health coverage. Medicaid rolls grow, as Medicaid picks up the slack from the unraveling system of employer-based insurance.      -Medicaid is particularly vulnerable as a means-tested program – its consituency is not politically powerful.      -Authors: "Funding for Medicaid depends on politicians' sense of decency, always a fragile foundation for policy."      -States fund an average 40 percent of Medicaid – unable to operate at a deficit, states are squeezed by growing Medicaid costs.      -Attempts to privatize Medicaid for profit – states like South Carolina are seeking federal waivers to offer recipients vouchers for purchase of private insurance – certain to be inadequate for many. So-called ‘consumer-directed’ health plans requiring higher out-of-pocket medical expenses are not a cure.      -Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) serve as a tax break for the rich, but do nothing for the lower income.      -HSAs undermine employment-based health care, encouraging adverse selection – HSAs are attractive to healthier individuals, tempting them to opt out of company plans, leaving them less healthy individuals. The authors cite a large body of evidence indicating that public insurance of the kind in many European countries achieves equal or better results at much lower cost. Unfortunately, political will is lacking. Krugman and Wells call it "politically smarter" and "economically superior" to educate voters about the huge advantages of a single payer system, than to merely attempt to coopt the drug and insurance lobbies by writing them into compromise plans that they will likely oppose anyway. Alternatively, say the authors,"things will have to get much worse before reality can break through the combination of powerful interest groups and free-market ideology." Everything speaks to the need to grow a grassroots movement in order to overcome the powerful insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies that write policy, as they did Medicare prescription drug reform, with billions of dollars of subsidies and inflated profits to enhance their bottom lines. http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqlG http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqlG/commentary#comments Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:04:53 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqlG Michele S Michele S 501 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqlG/ Anyone else sick of kids peddling gift wrap, candy bars and other unwanted stuff for their schools?  Couldn't we just fully fund public education?  Great Education Colorado Action and “Granny” are—again—exposing the chronic underfunding of public education that has taken a toll on kids and families across Colorado. Check it out at: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2700/t/5492/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=861.   This video pokes fun at the butter braids, oranges, smelly candles and other random junk that we buy to "help the kids' schools."  But it’s a serious problem—these fundraisers now fund the basics like teachers and books instead of “extras.”   Why?  Because Colorado’s investment in public education is $1,034 less per student than the national average. If you're sick being bombarded by school fundraisers--and think schools should be fully funded--pass it on!       http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/progressivepromoter/CqTW http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/progressivepromoter/CqTW/commentary#comments Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:59:10 MDT http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/progressivepromoter/CqTW Progressive Promoter Progressive Promoter 0 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqTW/ The reporting in the media around candidate health care reform proposals perpetuates a false premise: the notion that health care reform revolves  around the question of whether or not to enforce a mandate to purchase private insurance. Growing numbers of under-insured will testify that insurance does not equal health care. At best, mandates move people from uninsurance to undersinsurance, leaving families at health and financial risk. However, the insurance industry promotes mandates and taxpayer subsidies to private insurances because they enhance their bottom line, while failing to address cost and quality controls for health coverage. Following is information forwarded from Rep. Morgan Carroll about the money spent by insurance, pharmaceutical and related lobbies. The insurance and pharmaceutical have recouped many billions of dollars in profits in return for  their lobbying investment. From 1998 - 2007 here''s how much the following industries spent on lobbying  activities nationally: Insurance Industry spent $1,008,474,967 on Lobbying Pharmaceutical Industry spent $1,316,714,703 on Lobbying Hospital / Nursing Home Industry spent $563,926,474 on Lobbying Health Professionals spent $531,096,203 on Lobbying *SOURCE: Open Secrets.org Imagine how much cheaper your premiums might be if YOU weren't paying $3.95 BILLION for their lobbying activities since 1998? ($3,951,308,550 to be precise). That would have been enough to pay for an entire year of insurance premiums for 1,069,655 individuals at the average of $3,695 per year for individual coverage. *SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation The consumer is ultimately footing a big bill for lobbying activities that are not always in their best interests. http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/Cqk8 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/Cqk8/commentary#comments Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:42:47 MST http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/Cqk8 Michele S Michele S 1 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/Cqk8/ Throughout the process of the Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform, the two large Denver newspapers have consistently failed to present factual information about the Colorado Health Services Single Payer Proposal -- the one that was most favorably evaluated by the Lewin Group. Since March of 2007 both The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News have each printed a number of commentaries by 'free-market' health care advocates Brian T. Schwartz and Paul Hsieh, as well as commentaries by Sen. Andy McElhany and ex-Senator Mark Hillman. Only Rep. Claire Levy was granted a commentary in the Post that dissented from the predominant 'free market' view. At least five commentaries since the Spring of 2007 have been submitted by myself and others about the advantages of the Single Payer proposal, as well as the broken system of third-party multi-payer commercial health insurances. The information has been ignored by the Post and the News . Only out-state papers like the Pueblo Chieftain and some northern Colorado papers, including the Fort Collins Coloradoan and the Northern Colorado Business Report , have consistently printed different perspectives of health care reform, including the Single Payer perspective. In May 2007 Todd Engdahl, a Post editorial page editor, notified me that he planned to print a commentary/overview that I had written about the Colorado Health Services Single Payer health care reform proposal then being evaluated by the Lewin Group for the 208 Commission for Health Care Reform. Subsequently, Engdahl was one of eight or so reporters and editors 'retired' by the Post . I followed up with Post assistant editorial page editor, Barbara Ellis, who repeatedly assured me the paper would print a piece about the single payer health care proposal. Each time we have sent something to the Post, Ms. Ellis has responded to the effect, "Thank you, we are considering how to present health care reform, and we will be in touch." In January, before the 208 Commission for Health Care Reform presented their final recommendations to the legislature, a piece was sent to the Post signed by the board president and vice president of Health Care for All Colorado, critiquing the draft recommendations by the 208 Commission, based on a Massachusetts-style mandate for private insurance, and elaborating on advantages of Single Payer insurance. When I followed up with Ms. Ellis in early February, inquiring why no commentary presenting the Single Payer health care proposal has been printed in the past year, I received the following email from her: "With the governor and his staff about to propose their own health care reform plan, publishing anything by the individual groups involved in submitting proposals to the 208 Commission is taking the story backward instead of forward." "However, if you or anyone else should have anything to write in response to that plan once it is detailed, feel free to send it to us. I'm sure you can understand that the 208 Commission's report may be rendered moot by the governor's plan, so we're trying to take the story forward. Should the single payer plan still be part of the discussion, we'd value your input." On February 2, 2008, the Post printed an editorial wrongly stating that, of the five reform proposals, Single Payer universal health care is the 'costliest option,' costing an 'additional $15 billion a year.' The lack of understanding of the Single Payer proposal by the Post editorial board alone is disturbing, and it is quite understandable why Coloradans who have been so poorly served by local media totally lack understanding about what the 208 Commission has done, and what the proposals would accomplish (or not), let alone the results of the Lewin Group evaluation of the proposals. Only one proposal evaluated by the Lewin Group, the Colorado Health Services Single Payer Plan, demonstrated the capability of providing comprehensive health coverage for all, and of reducing health care costs. Reported annual health cost savings to the state were $1.4 billion. More than $4 billion additional costs savings were reported for Colorado businesses, families, providers and hospitals. See Lewin Report Single Payer Cost Savings . The $15 billion public funding for Single Payer represents a shift from the current higher rate of private out-of-pocket health care costs (premiums, copays and deductibles, etc) that we all currently pay. In place of these high out-of-pocket private health costs, everyone would pay a progressive tax (the individual and employer tax is the source of $15 billion public funding) that for all except those making over $100,000 a year, would be less than their current out-of-pocket health care expenses. The Rocky Mountain News exercised their own version of news blackout on the issue of health reform, early on writing an editorial titled "Single Payer Baloney" advising that Single Payer reform be dismissed as unreasonable and unworkable.  After saying he wanted to present another perspective and repeatedly failing to do so, Rocky Business editor Rob Reuteman informed me in a phone conversation that he was "not going to confuse the readers by printing" my commentary about single payer, calling it "pie in the sky," and insisting that he could not understand where the funding would come from. Is it any wonder that so many are still in the dark about health care reform in Colorado? We still have not had a honest and open exchange of information surrounding health care reform – when are we going to hear the broader perspective? If the local news media refuse to provide a forum, then who will? It is no wonder that the multi-billion-dollar insurance and pharmaceutical industries continue to write health care policy, as they did with Medicare prescription drug reform, granting themselves billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies and inflated profits to enhance their bottom lines. Simultaneously, commercial insurances game the system to increase their profits by delaying, denying and reneging on claims they should be covering. One can only assume that the corporations that own the media set the standards of news coverage – selectively influencing what information is and is not made available to readers. http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqD3 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqD3/commentary#comments Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:44:38 MST http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqD3 Michele S Michele S 530 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqD3/ The Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform based its recommendations to the legislature on its own 5th Proposal, modeled after Massachusetts reform, with a mandate to purchase private insurance, no controls of insurance costs, and taxpayer subsidies to private insurances. A cornerstone of the Massachusetts plan as adopted by the 208 Commission is an individual mandate that compels everyone to purchase private health insurance, or suffer tax penalties. Comprehensive health plans in Massachusetts total $6,000 annually for an individual or $14,000 for a family - prohibitive costs for many. 'Affordable' coverage is often a bare-bones, stripped-down 'minimum benefit' insurance averaging $660/month for a family, and $330 for an individual - still unaffordable to many working families. Stripped-down policies, with high copays and deductibles, do not provide adequate protection against serious health or financial risk. A 2005 Harvard Medical and Law Schools study estimated that 76 percent of those bankrupted by medical bills had insurance at the onset of the illness that bankrupted them. As noted previously, high-deductible or catastrophic insurances have contributed to a 59 percent rise in consumer out-of-pocket health expenses and a 60 percent rise in uncompensated hospital care over a decade (reported by the American Hospital Association). The Massachusetts plan does nothing to control insurance costs or eliminate the high overhead costs, including exorbitant CEO salaries and profits, of multi-payer insurances. Therefore, Massachusetts continues to experience annual double-digit premium increases, shifting more people into taxpayer-subsidized private insurances or public programs. It is a recipe for the downward spiral that renders more people under- and uninsured, and shifts increasing costs to taxpayers. Read 2-3-08 Denver Post article about the Massachusetts mandate - the Massachusetts 'Health Care for All' mentioned in the story co-authored Massachusetts reform, and is actually a group funded by commercial insurance companies. http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqDx http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqDx/commentary#comments Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:06:45 MST http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/micheleswenson/CqDx Michele S Michele S 0 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqDx/ I'm involved with Great Education Colorado (GEC), which has released another humorous "Granny" video to tell the story of how chronic underfunding of public education is hurting Colorado's kids and classrooms. The 45-second video (2nd in a series of 5) pokes fun at the painful truth that many Colorado students are forced to use hopelessly outdated textbooks--including geography books still featuring the U.S.S.R.--due to lack of funding for new books. The comical, well-meaning Granny is clueless about how schools--including her grandson's--are suffering. You also can go see the video AND sign a petition supporting public education at http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2700/t/5492/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=861. If you're moved by the message, please pass it on! GEC--a statewide, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of parents and other public school supporters--works to focus attention on the need for better funding for public schools, bring people together to create a vision of 21st century education, and advocate for all public education reforms to be accompanied by adequate resources. http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/progressivepromoter/Cq8y http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/progressivepromoter/Cq8y/commentary#comments Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:38:50 MST http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/progressivepromoter/Cq8y Progressive Promoter Progressive Promoter 0 http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/comment_rss/Cq8y/