As Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, I led the fight against insurance companies that unreasonably delay or deny their customers’ valid claims. I know first-hand the lengths that industry will go to resist reform. I am deeply disappointed to learn that no member of the U.S. Senate is willing to offer an amendment to restore the public option to the health care bill.
Millions of Americans cannot afford to keep up with the soaring costs of health insurance. That is why a majority of the American people support a public option. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that a public option will reduce the deficit. Last week I called on the leadership of the U.S. Senate to allow an up-or-down vote on the public option. We should not allow the insurance industry to kill the competition the American public wants.
A Record of Leadership
Thousands of Coloradans have been forced to do battle with their insurance companies just to get coverage they’ve already purchased. In 2008, I fought the insurance industry and won. The result: a new law that requires insurers to pay what they owe when they owe it – and stiffens penalties on those who don’t.
I voted to reduce Coloradans’ prescription-drug prices, by pooling our purchasing power with other states. I supported efforts to supply rural Coloradans and other underserved communities with greater access to care, by investing in local health clinics and expanding the use of telemedicine. I also authored laws to:
- Help Colorado’s seniors get the care they need in their own homes and communities;
- Save millions of dollars in state medical expenses by holding private insurers to higher standards of accountability;
- Make contracts between health-care providers and insurers more transparent;
- Provide health coverage – including access to the Children’s Health Insurance Program, mental health services, and drug and alcohol treatment – to thousands of Coloradans.
My leadership has been recognized by Colorado’s leading health and human service organizations, including the Colorado Psychological Association, the Colorado Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, the Colorado Dental Association, the Colorado Community Health Network, the Colorado Society of Osteopathic Medicine, the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, the Colorado Association of Alcohol and Drug Service Providers, Peer Assistance Services, Crossroads Turning Points, and Advocates for Recovery. In 2006, the Colorado Medical Society named me Defender of the Patient –the physicians’ highest honor.
A Plan of Action
I will fight to secure high-quality health care for all Americans. My plan calls for coverage that is affordable, reliable, and portable. I believe our nation’s health care plan should:
- Guarantee coverage for all Americans through a single-payer model.
- Make coverage affordable, by reducing medical errors, minimizing administrative expenses, and promoting prevention and early intervention.
- Make coverage reliable, by cracking down on companies that unreasonably delay or deny the payment of claims.
- Make coverage portable, by allowing Americans to keep their insurance even if they change or lose their jobs.
- Prohibit discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions.
- Expand consumer choice and encourage innovation among health-care providers.
- Improve the quality of medical care by coordinating services and by reforming reimbursement formulas to reward value, not just volume.
- Increase the use of information technology.
- Promote personal responsibility for health decisions, by reducing co-payments for check-ups and wellness programs.



114 Comments







Welcome to Firedoglake – glad you could join us today!
Welcome, Andrew. It’s a pleasure to have you with us today.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity!
Welcome to FDL, Andrew!
We have some breaking news for your well-timed visit, Mr. Romanoff. Senator Bennet’s campaign manager just issued this statement:
Now, I have my own thoughts about what kind of leadership Bennet is showing, but what do you have to say about this flip flop from your opponent?
Strange statement from Bennet’s office indeed. Obama is about to sign “health insurance reform” in a few hours. Reconciliation is only about making the bill every so slightly better.
Indeed – health care is just waiting for a signature. The Senate is debating fixes to the bill to be passed in budget reconciliation, which will inevitably go to the House for a vote. A majority of the House supported health care with a public option, and with out a public option. There is no killing of any bill. Bennet is being dishonest, and breaking his promise.
Thanks also to Firedoglake for pushing an up-or-down vote on the public option. It would take just one senator to introduce such an amendment — no one has stepped up to the plate yet.
Welcome!
That makes no sense. The bill they’re referring to is headed to the President’s desk. It will be signed into law tomorrow. Restoring the public option would strengthen health care reform. Leadership means more than making a speech or writing a letter — it means taking a stand, even if the leaders of your party aren’t ready to stand with you.
It is very strange. The public option saves money so passes the Byrd Rule. If it does not have 50 votes in the Senate then the amendment would fail. That’s all and they would just pass the reconciliation bill without it.
Yep – my thoughts exactly. While he may attack you for a press release, it’s hardly leadership to completely abandon his promise and efforts of the last six weeks.
Do you think this will be an issue for Colorado voters?
Yes. The voters will judge us by what we do, not just what we say. As speaker of the House, I stood up to the insurance industry and passed a law to crack down on companies that denied or delayed their customers’ valid claims. I stood up to the pharmaceutical companies on behalf of my constituents as well.
Certainly is an issue for THIS Colorado (Denver) voter.
I watched Bennet send out his meaningless PO promise, Mitch Stewart from OFA come to town to tell caucus goers how to “support” Bennet, and then Obama himself swoop in and hold a Bennet fundraiser at The Fillmore – all for squat.
No status quo. I want Andy’s ELECTION, not Bennet’s SELECTION.
/end rant
great to hear – OFA’s support of an appointed senator who doesn’t follow through on his promises is disappointing to say the least. but it’s not surprising, because he’s supporting the minimum that obama wanted, which is the corporate bailout of health care.
You can see some of the results of my work here: http://www.andrewromanoff.com/pages/video/real-results-for-real-people-on-healthcare/
This isn’t a bailout. It is a giveaway. With all their money, they do not need a bailout.
Umm, Wall St banks had a ton of money on paper, too, and still do. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the health insurance industry has taken hits in their investments and their contracts with for profit hospitals in order to get area monopolies that they are being careful not to reveal. Buy time and votes and it will all go away, right Goldman Sachs?
C’mon. Bennet came out early for the public option and provided leadership in attempting to get it back in reconciliation over the past couple of weeks. It was interesting that Obama came to CO on a very brief fundraising trip just after Bennet announced his initiative. I didn’t go to any of the events, but there was no mention of Obama, Bennet, or anyone else raising the public option issue. I find the dynamic interesting in light of recent articles documenting that Obama sold out the public option to the insurance companies (which most of us already knew) long before he addressed the nation on HCR and reiterated his support for the public option of national tee vee.
Bennet has also answered all my emails satisfactorily on a variety of issues, including the Dawn Johnsen nomination, habeas, Gitmo,etc. Unlike Udall who seems to waffle until the last moment on most stuff.
That said, Andrew is clearly the more progressive candidate. Bennet is vulnerable on the left on financial system reform. He’s a Wall Street guy.
I agree it’s always fun to punk the party regulars.
Let’s have a drink sometime.
Good luck Andrew.
So what do you say about Bennet abandoning that position today?
MW & Knoxville@ 64&67. What Oldfatguy said @12 in the post above and letsgetitdone @48 here.
Michael Bennet got a visit immediately after announcing his letter. May have already been scheduled, but my email notice came the day before. I would like know what was said to him privately by the Prez. He didn’t get a ride on AF 1, but he’s clearly the establishment candidate both in the beltway and locally.
I don’t see him throwing that away for what is clearly, at this moment, a losing cause. I’m concerned that those in Congress who stood strongest with us on real reform are targets for some of the most savage criticism. DK, Sanders, Grijalva, et.al. I wouldn’t put Bennet in their league, but he stuck his neck out pretty far for a rookie.
Jane @85 agrees with most of you & disagrees w me. I defer to her judgment. I just don’t understand pressuring the best we’ve got to commit ritual suicide. No matter how disappointed we are in the outcome. All the Dem energy inside the beltway is going to popping corks. You want these guys to throw turds in the punchbowl?
Andrew Romanoff is very bright, well-informed, well-connected locally. But, like Obama before 2008, his good intentions may exceed his practical knowledge of what he would face if he were elected to the club. As has been mentioned by several above, his message on HCR is a little wobbly or maybe a little too ambitious (see, e.g., Canadianbeaver@66). All good ideas, but not yet crystal clear.
In an ideal world I’m with fuckno & Masslib. Single-payer, full stop. As a practical response I have no quarrel with Alan Grayson. He did what he had to do for the party, then turned around and (without celebrating) immediately proposed a (partial)fix to the establishment corprocrat monstrosity. Medicare buy-in. Simple, easily understandable, and a real building block toward the ultimate objective. All us Galts love competition, right?
Michael, Kelly, Jeffcotrueblue, name the time and place. I’ll buy the beer to pay for my education.
If Bennet offers an amendment calling for the creation of a public option when it comes before the Senate, I’ll believe his letter or anything he says. So far, it’s been a lot of talk in an effort to take credit without really doing anything to get results.
Tell Michael Bennet: Introduce the Public Option in the Senate
Sign the petition to Senator Michael Bennet
I bet you he doesn’t do it and that his letter supporting a public option was/is total bullshit.
Where’s the moneybomb though? Surprised that isn’t here somewhere.
Citizen Knoxville:
Thanx for the link…I left Senator Bennett a little message about how handsome Andrew Romanoff looks and reminded Mr. Bennett about the message in Scott Brown’s election. I am really lookin’ forward to watchin’ what kind of state operation the good Citizen Romanoff can put together…I know Colorado has been tippin toward the blue end of the spectrum, I just wonder if healthcare and the public option won’t be a factor. Do ya know how the PO has polled with Democrats in Colorado?
Colorado is one of the states working on single-payer. They are further ahead then Mn, in that they have a study showy the financial gains with going single-payer.
“Leadership means more than making a speech or writing a letter — it means taking a stand, even if the leaders of your party aren’t ready to stand with you.”
Shivers right now. Thank you, Andrew.
Welcome, Mr. Romanoff.
Restoring it would turn this bad joke on the American people into real health care reform.
Welcome to FDL, Andrew–glad you could join us.
Michael beat me to it–how about that example of “leadership” from Sen. Bennet?
Thanks, Gregg. Only one of us in this race can take a stand on the floor of the Senate, and he has chosen not to.
Interesting Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson two of the four big opponents of the public option in the Senate just said they would vote against reconciliation bill anyway. (regardless if the public option was added or not.)
The Ins. lobby wants no possibility of escape from the mandate or it’s whole plan falls apart. The mandate is the only thing between all of them and failure now since their business model was doomed without it. No way will we ever see it now with this Industry becoming a quasi-Gov’t Dept. now. They’ll cry their TBTF like the banks when the time comes. Plus, COMPETITION is for losers not these people.
No offence Andrew, but you speak these words when you have no power whatsoever to change anything. Why would you be any different to any of Alan Grayson, Denis Kucinich, or Bernie Sanders if you actually were elected? You have to admit, the balance of probabilities suggests no one should believe a word you say.
It’s true that I do not have a seat in the Senate at the moment. I’m running for this job because I believe I have the strongest record of legislative leadership and the best ability to represent Colorado in this capacity.
Well, fair enough answer. At some point, either trust is restored, or “this sucker’s goin’ down”.
However, I’ve an even nastier follow-up. You do realise that if you are elected, by the time you get to the Senate, your party, half of whom are now ideologically indistinguishable from Reagan Republicans anyway (as is the President himself), will have absolutely no power to decide anything since it will be in a substantial minority. What will you do then?
I hope that doesn’t come to pass. But I served as the minority leader of the House (one newspaper called it the “permanent Democratic minority”). I led our party to its first majority in 30 years, our largest majority in 40 years, and our first back-to-back-to-back majorities in half a century.
Also a good response. But my earlier question hinted at the biggest problem you face, one that as a candidate, you dare not address. Your biggest enemy is in fact your own party. How will you deal with the fact that it is essentially now the GOP of the 1980′s? Your agenda cannot exist in that framework. This is the diametric opposite of the ‘Militant’ problem of the British Labour Party 20 years ago, if you know British politics. Unfortunately, they rather over-compensated, but at least they took on the problem within their ranks quite openly, so they got things partly right.
Voters are looking for someone willing to stand up to his or her own party when conscience demands. I will. I am right now.
Would you support primarying the president in 2012?
ha, that’s a tall order
You can say that again… And again…
Though that’s particularly interesting to hear coming from the present Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives.
It makes me wonder what you think, as a legislator, and now Speaker of a Democratic-majority House, as you observe the deplorable lack of public debate, and associated failures of self-government, in the United States House of Representatives. Where we just witnessed the most appalling display of backroom knuckling-under to Party/Speaker pressure by our “Representatives,” conscience be damned, that any purportedly “self-governing representative democracy” is ever likely to see.
Does the Colorado House “Rules Committee,” or equivalent, as in Washington, D.C., answer only to you, as Speaker, thereby allowing you to limit even what the Party proclaims to be “historic” legislation (that will affect every single American) to a few hours, not even one full day, of superficial, Party barb-trading mock debate, while categorically blocking all amendments offered by members of the House so that they are prevented from even reaching the floor for debate or a vote? How do you see and exercise your powers as Colorado House Speaker, in relationship to the Governor, or otherwise, as compared to how Nancy Pelosi obviously sees and exercises her vastly more consequential powers, apparently mostly at the service of the President or wealthy Party donors?
Because the reality in D.C., at least in the House, is that such thoroughly-undemocratic, but increasingly-engrained, practices are what a new member would have to publicly confront to start reforming our Congress. Obviously thereby threatening the power base of the House Speaker, and the President who effectively controls her, along the way. [Do please consider reaching out to Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts about his admirable and gutsy refusal to buckle under, unlike most of the rest of the Democratic caucus, to the threats and pressure from the top of the Party on this vote (apparently even when his was the last vote needed to pass the bill without addressing the concerns of the similarly-courageous Stupak bloc). You might learn a lot about how the game is played today in D.C. behind closed doors.]
But since you’re running for the U.S. Senate, not the House, at least you’ll still have the opportunity to be heard, if elected, on the Senate floor, in a substantive, meaningful way, including by conducting (or threatening to conduct, so long as that remains the majority’s favorite excuse for inaction) real filibusters, as need be. [Do please note Senator Byrd's laudable February "Dear Colleague" letter on that subject.]
I can see why you’re running as a Democrat, given your proud history in and to that Party. But as others above have noted, the purported “platform” of your Party at the national level seems to be almost anything but, in practice, as this President and Congress are making ever more evident.
In short, challenging the leaders of the Democratic and Republican Parties in Congress during your campaign is to my mind not only more than justified at this stage of the game, but electoral gold in the nation at large right now.
Furthermore, you have the experience and standing to advocate for reform of Congress, more generally, as a vital institution of self-government that is being subsumed and undermined by Party powerbrokers, by calling for genuinely open government, that ends the Party-directed backroom-deal status quo, and the reassertion of the independence of our Legislative Branch of government – which in my opinion is the most imperative objective of all for those who want to change the course of this nation before it’s too late. [For example, in addition to more substantive matters like the obvious need for ASAP passage of sound publicly-financed campaign legislation (or the beginnings of a Constitutional amendment toward that end), I'd like to see a whole-Senate "caucus" every now and then, instead of the Party-segregated, off-the-record private caucuses that now interrupt the Senate every Tuesday, as though we had two Senates, not one. And why isn't our federal Congress subject to the same sort of "open meeting law" restrictions that so many state and local legislative bodies and committees have long become accustomed to?]
But, meanwhile – yes, trust is gone for the incumbents of the current Congress, at least for those Americans not swept up in the partisan, personality-based warfare that the Parties and the media depend upon to divert our attention from their underlying actions and agendas.
It does sounds like you have both the integrity and the legislative experience – plus a welcome respect for the role of a self-governing legislature and independent-minded legislators – that a United States Senator should have, unlike your Democratic opponent and many of his fellow incumbents in office.
I wish you the best.
I appreciate your thoughts. While I am no longer the speaker of the House here — I was term-limited out of office last — I will bring to the Senate the advantage of having led a legislature. That’s why I’ve been proposing some common-sense reforms, including a Sunshine Law to end backroom deals.
I think one thing will be done by making Sen. Bennett unemployed. That is that there are penalties for screwing up. That’s a message I think needs to be heard in DC, and it certainly hasn’t been lately. There have been no penalties for congressional or presidential screwups any more than there have been for the banks and the insurers.
On that basis, you’re worth a look.
I may have missed it, but is there a link that explains that insurance bill you spoke of having gotten passed? These days, googling for anything related to insurance is a time-consuming chore.
Well, I think you raise an interesting question coming off of a 15 month fight where every one of our supposed allies turned against in the end. I’ll let Andrew speak for himself, but he brings a significant record of standing his ground on tough fights and would be a more likely progressive voice than Bennet.
Mr. Romanoff. Why is this still being called healthcare reform when it isn’t. It’s about health insurance, and nothing in this bill deals with them adequately. If this bill is so great, why is it not enacted immediately? We’ve heard over and over it’s imperative to do right away, yet, it’s put off. Why? Thanks and welcome to FDL by the way.
Thanks for pointing that out. I have argued (as you can read on my website, http://www.andrewromanoff.com) for a universal single-payer or nonprofit plan, as well as for reforms in the delivery of health care.
Mr. Romanoff besides the public option what do you think is the single most important piece missing form/should have been added to the bill that just passed?
Within the context of this debate, I’d say we should remove the antitrust exemption the insurance industry now enjoys. I’d like to move off of an employer-based insurance model.
Mr. Romanoff, a great honor to have you here.
Are the media outlets in any way receptive to your message?
If not, what can be done?
We’ve picked up more coverage since winning the caucuses last week, but welcome your help — letters to the editor, emails, etc. Thanks for asking.
Thank you for your efforts.
If you feel so inclined, can you speak to the systemic issues that state insurance commisions face in trying to regulate the deep pockets of the health insurance cartel?
Great question – and those problems will be amplified now that said commissions bear tons of new responsibilities in under health reform, and are subject to coercion from the insurance industry itself.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Andrew Romanoff:
Thanx for comin’ into this little swamp of unregenerate old hippies, progressives and even crazier folks. My question is: are you willing to make the public option a major campaign issue in the primary and how does it poll with Democratic voters in the state? I wonder if you might not be able to push Bennett off the center(ist) line in the middle of the road on this issue.
Don’t know how it polls, but I’ve met a lot of Democrats who were hoping for more leadership on this and many other issues. That is what I will provide.
Andrew, looking at the race as a whole, what do you think the main issues are that separate you from your opponent? And what do you think Coloradans will be voting on in August?
I have a record of legislative leadership. I am the only candidate to who refuses to accept the corporate cash that is corrupting Congress. And I have demonstrated more aggressive leadership on a number of important issues, including health care, financial reform, and climate change (http://www.andrewromanoff.com/issues)
How do see the general election shaping up? Will the GOP challenger try to tar Bennet or yourself with this HC reform legislation, and what would your response be that would give you an advantage over Bennet?
Or, are there other issues that might push HCR off the CO radar?
I do better than my Democratic opponent against all of the leading Republican candidates. In fact, the latest independent poll concluded that I would beat each of them. A willingness to take on Wall Street distinguishes me as well — and the economy may trump all issues in Colorado and around the country.
Do you think that you do better than Bennet against Republican opponents because of your position on creating a public option and on the need for real reform in the financial services industry?
I guess I’m wondering why, in the wake of the MA special election and with all that the polls should be telling them, Democrats don’t see how badly they’ve screwed up/are screwing up politically.
We’re lucky in CO, I think, because the candidates there are known with voters, whereas Scott Brown kind of came out of nowhere. Besides, Andrew topped all GOP candidates (better than Bennet) in a recent poll. He looks like the best shot.
Do you know off hand when the primary will be?
August 10
Thanks. I’m looking forward to it!
I’ve gotten to know thousands of people in Colorado over the last 17 years of work in the public, private and nonprofit sectors — and they know me. Voters want someone who will focus on raising their standard of living — not just on raising corporate cash. Supporters have cited my willingness to fight for health care and financial reform, my record of leadership on these and other issues, and my decision to turn down contributions from special-interest groups.
Plus, I have a pretty keen local perspective. I worked for Dan Grossman in his TeleTech office for about a year back in 2001-2002, and I watched him and Andy work.
Dan has since retired from politics, but I’ve continued to watch Andy since then, and be part of turning Colorado blue. Bennet didn’t have anything to do with any of that sort of work in the last 10 years.
Dang, I’m late for a conference call, and have to go.
Keep it up Andy!
Today, I was listening to Thom Hatman on my car radio. He told a story that LBJ went tothe insurance industry when he wanted to pass Medicare and said “I want to take over the costs of your most expensive, sickest patienets. Iwill do that on the government’s diem if you don’t fight me hard.”
And that the insurance industry allowed LBJ to start medicare, knowing htat nothing stopped any president from lowering the age of medicare via Executive Order.
Later, Nixon,and Clinton tired and failed to get heatlh care reform b/c they did not appeal to the insurance industry’s bottom line at the front end.
He then went on to say that Obama went to Pharma and the the health insurance lobby at the front end of this process and said “i will give you 30 million new customers, if you don’t fight me hard on recission, portability, etc.”
I have no clue, if Hartman was talking out his ass or not, he cited no research.
But, I wonder, should the fight be for extending medicare age limits down, and down and down, until we get to zero?
So, we slowly wean the insurance industry off the public tit?
I’d love to hear from you on this, Andrew – it’s the corporate control of the bill that has made it suck so bad, IMHO
woops, disregard, andrew! see you already did.
We taxpayers now “insure”:
- senior citizens (Medicare)
- the poor (Medicaid)
- the military and veterans (military health care and the VA)
- prisoners
These are among the most at-risk populations in our country. Yet for-profit insurance can’t make a go of paying for the rest. That tells you something about how sustainable this system is right there.
We also insure all federal,Senators, congress and presidents, state, (all teachers) county, municipal workers and there families.
And with all that money we pay for insurance for them, we could provide health care to all of us.
I will refuse to accept federal health benefits until every American can afford coverage.
I do support a system of Medicare for all, along with other reforms to hold down the cost and improve the quality of health care. There’s a reason most of our competitors have adopted a non-profit or single-payer model. Americans should be able to supplement a decent package of benefits on the private insurance market, but no one should fall below the floor.
Have you seen Rep. Alan Grayon’s Medicare buy in proposal? What do you think of that as an initial step towards medicare for all?
You’re speaking out of both sides of your head here:
As long as insurance companies are involved, there will be no universal nonprofit. Sounds more like the same as what is in Washington now. Sorry.
Other countries that provide universal coverage also allow consumers to buy supplemental policies on the private market.
Andrew, I have the impression that you’re more progressive than Bennet. So far, so good. But why work for the PO now. A Po based strategy has already failed us once. Its messaging component was far too complex and it tries to sell people on a neo-liberal market-based orientation toward health care insurance.
Why not just give that up and work and advocate for Medicare for All, while compromising, ONLY IF NECESSARY, on incremental steps toward that goal? Isn’t it more attractive to people to hear you say: “I’m for providing you with full enhanced Medicare coverage and I’ve got a simple 30-Page bill that you’ll be able to read and understand without any difficulty. No surprises, just removing your worry about health insurance for good”?
Yes. That has been my position as well. We still have a chance to improve the bill the Senate is now considering, under reconciliation.
I appreciate your interest and hope to continue our conversation. I will try to answer any other questions later. You may also contact me through my website at http://www.andrewromanoff.com. Thanks again!
Thanks so much, Andrew! It was great having you here at FDL and we look forward to hearing from you again soon.
Your on a roll DREW!!
Good luck…I have no faith in any politician at this time…..Fining people who cannot afford this crap is beyond my contempt…..Especially when polticians’ healthcare is bought and paid for by taxpayers.
Good luck anyhow.
Thank you for being here today, Mr. Romanoff.
I’ve contributed to your campaign at ActBlue http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/22933 and would encourage others to do the same.
Many thanks Andrew for answering my questions. However, it is hard to really believe what you claim to stand for when you won’t or can’t directly take on the problem that is your own party. There have been dozens of members of Congress proclaiming they were respecting their consciences, right up to the minute they had to vote, when strangely, their consciences were nowhere to be found. There is no way around it. The health care monstrosity is a monstrosity because that is the monstrosity the President wanted. Exactly the monstrosity, down to the last dotted i and crossed t. My earlier “primary” question is wholly logical and consistent. Wouldn’t a third party be the better way to go at this point? I’ll leave you to think about that.
Welcome Andrew,
On another thread today, I noted that there are already two single payer systems, the Pentagons’s Tricare (for active, retired and reserve personnel and families) and the VA’s CHAMPVA (for the families of disabled veterans). They both use Medicare rates and (unlike Medicare) are allowed to negotiate drug prices.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/22/health-care-reform-where-do-we-go-from-here/#comment-102354
Perhaps the first step to a public option buy-in is a plan to allow veterans and their families to buy into Tricare or CHAMPVA. Once a public option is established for veterans and their families, the next step would be to allow non-veterans to buy in as well.
Administratively, I’d say a Tricare buy-in is the way to go. On the other hand, since CHAMPVA is run in-house out of a VA office in Denver, expanding CHAMPVA into a public option for veterans would mean a lot of new jobs for Colorado. :o)
http://www2.va.gov/directory/guide/facility.asp?ID=2015
I’m kinda prejudiced against Tricare from all the complaints I heard about it when it started. No doubt it’s better now.
For me, Medicare would work if it were properly funded and the prohibition against negotiating drug prices were repealed. There may be other problems, but those are the big ones, and they’re both fixable.
Citizen Cujo:
With all the “problems” with Medicare, it is a program that works and provides the readymade structure for a national public option. The ban against drug reimportation and Medicare not bein able to negotiate prices can be fixed easily especially if the White House gets goosed by some primary challenges and bad pollin’ in Blue states.
Sorry Cujo359,
Last comment was addressed to you. My point with suggesting Tricare or CHAMPVA be used as a public option for Veterans (and no, I’m not a veteran myself) is that Medicare is subject to regulatory capture to some extent. Not the federal employees who work there to be sure,, but the lawmakers with jurisdiction over it are beholden to the healthcare lobbies. That’s why Medicare can’t negotiate on drug prices (Pharma lobbyists) and why its benefit package has barely changed in 40 years, its almost a necessity to get a private Medigap or Medicare Advantage policy (insurance lobbyists).
The difference with Tricare and CHAMPVA and why they have superior benefit packages to Medicare is that when it comes to DoD and VA legislation, healthcare lobbyists are outgunned by military and veteran lobbyists. Were it otherwise, there wouldn’t be a public option for reservists (the TRS I mentioned above) nor could the DoD and VA negotiate drug prices. If veterans groups were behind it, there’d be little political opposition to allowing a public option for veterans (heck you’d get Republican support), and you’re creating a public option bridgehead that can be expanded with non-veteran buy-ins later. Though the VFW and American Legion would have to be assured before allowing non-veteran participation that it would not impact veteran participation (ideally, it would, if anything, subsidize it instead).
There was a big political mess when the VA under the first President Bush worked out a deal for HHS to share underutilized VA hospitals for local civilian use. Veterans groups went ballistic, 1. they weren’t consulted and 2. they didn’t think civilians should have access to VA hospitals until every veteran and their family had access to one. Since CHAMPVA is an insurance plan covering private doctors and providers, the issues are different but the principle is clear, keep the veteran groups involved in the process and cover every vet and their family first.
Sorry everyone for going so far in the weeds with this!
The weeds are not a problem. There’s a lot I still don’t understand about the government health care systems. Thanks for the explanation.
I’d rather you stood up for the first point on your action plan.
“Guarantee coverage for all Americans through a single-payer model.”
I think the entire public option campaign has essentially been a waste of time that got us further and further away from that fine goal.
I would have started this negotiation with that proposal, rather than at the 50-yard line. I’m trying to improve the soon-to-be law now.
OK, now that he’s gone we can talk about him. Is there anyone here who is familiar with Andrew Romanoff’s career so far? If so, what impresses you about him? Why should I believe he’d be any more interested in keeping his word to the public than all the progressive congressmen I’ve been vilifying lately?
That may seem like a rhetorical question, but it’s not. I’m looking for potential candidates to put on the Slobber And Spittle Blue slate (our motto: “We’re obscure, but unprofitable”), and right now the pickings are slim.
Hey Cujo. I’m new here – actually registered in hope of getting involved with this chat but got on a bit too late. Anyway, I live on the Western Slope of Colorado and have been a big admirer of Romanoff’s for years. He built the first Democratic majority in the Colorado State House in 30+ years, the first back-to-back majority in 40years. While Speaker, he tackled some major issues like passing Ref C to save the state’s budget situation, BEST which helped fund public schools and he took the insurance companies head on in some very tough fights. Importantly to me, he has been to every county in this state over and over the past 10 years to meet with voters.
There really couldn’t be more of a difference between he and Bennet. In college, Romanoff went to work for the Southern Poverty Law Center fighting the Klan then he went to Central America to teach English in small villages there. While Romanoff was building a Dem majority here, Bennet was making millions for uber-bigot and homophobe Phil Anschutz as a corporate raider. Check out the articles below and then look at Romanoff’s bio. I’m really excited we have a chance to vote for somebody who is ready to stand up and lead!!
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_14705658
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_14707234
http://www.andrewromanoff.com/pages/about-andrew
Kelly knows him well from CO. He had to go but was here earlier. Why not ask him? From what he said, Romanoff has been a stand-up guy, much more progressive than Bennett and was a big part of turning CO blue while Bennett was nowhere to be found in that effort. He sounded like he knew a lot about him and about CO politics and was pushing for Romanoff.
In response to NorskeFlamethrower @ 74
That’s what I was trying to find out with my question in the comment @ 54, which I wrote in response to Romanoff’s comment @ 43. It seems like Romanoff’s positions are clear and well-known and like he’s doing well against all opponents, so I’d say the PO is polling well in Colorado.
The big strike against Tricare is that its administered by contractors (the DoD bid out management on three regional contracts). Medicare is mostly administered in-house by CMS but provider reimbursement (and customer contact IIRC) is handled by fiscal agents (i.e. insurance companies). CHAMPVA goes the other way, its also administered in-house (though they seem to copy Tricare and MEdicare policy when they can) but it does its own accounts payable. Every CHAMPVA bill is sent to the Denver office for payment. Its a small program, only a few hundred thousand beneficiaries, but it could easily be scaled up with additional personnel since the bureaucracy is in place in terms of provider networks and billing paperwork (same as Medicare), policy manuals and reimbursement software.
The one thing missing is a system for the collection of premiums. Between CHAMPVA and Tricare, only Tricare’s program for reservists– Tricare Reserve Select– actually charges monthly premiums. That function can be outsourced or a new section could be added to the CHAMPVA office (more Colorado jobs!) to handle premiums.
Thanks for joining us Andrew. I have been curious about you since I read the article about the big fund raiser Rahm did for Bennett. I had to assume he was corporate, so it is good to know someone is running against him that is worth supporting.
Hey Mr. Romanoff, thanks so much for being here.
I’m sitting in the CNN greenroom, I just talked about this on the new John King show.
How do you think Colorado Democrats are going to respond to Senator Bennett’s — er, “flexible” commitment to the public option?
Thanks, Jane. We’ll soon find out. My goal here is to restore the public option. We should keep up the pressure to do so.
Sorry to have missed this, best of luck to you.
I’m very happy to see the appointed Senator challenged anywhere, especially where Rahm and Obama have decided Democrats’ views don’t matter. I was heartened by your performance at the caucuses last week, and hope that bodes well for your candidacy.
Come back again please and let us know how things are going!
Thank you very much!
“Guarantee coverage for all Americans through a single-payer model.
Make coverage reliable, by cracking down on companies that unreasonably delay or deny the payment of claims.”
Sir, a single-payer model would make the next point moot.
Thank you.
1.”Guarantee coverage for all Americans through a single-payer model.”
2.”Make coverage reliable, by cracking down on companies that unreasonably delay or deny the payment of claims.”
I must admit I would have stopped with the first as I have diffuculty reconciling the first with the need for the second.
If you allow people to buy supplemental policies, under the approach I’ve described, you should hold accountable the insurers who sell such policies.
This is the true legacy of Jane/FDL: she put the bug of the public option up the butt of the American public, and it ain’t goin’ away soon. The idea is a winner, and will remain in the public discourse until it, or something like Medicare for all, is passed into law.
She hath prepareth the way……..
Thank you, Jane.
“Don’t know how it polls, but I’ve met a lot of Democrats who were hoping for more leadership on this and many other issues. That is what I will provide.”
This sir, with all due respect, has been said many times by many others and yet here we are today with a weak bill that masquerades as “universal health care.”
While I understand this post was CO Centric I have to drop in and say that both candidate came off well, and CO is lucky to have such a candidate to vote for.
But my MAIN reason to drop in was to compliment each and every comment and commenter who shared not only insight to the workings of CO’s political/healthcare machinery but also shared so much about aspects of healthcare I’d not thought much about.
Truly a keeper of a thread for bookmarks for its info alone!!
You folks rawhked this one, thanks!!!
Mr. Romanoff, I’d like to hear your views in regards to the I/P situation. How do you feel about the Goldstone report, or do you feel like the house or senate should even be voting to accept or reject it? Will you take money from AIPAC or obscure groups like it? How do you feel about Obama’s war in Afghanistan, Iran, Plan Merida, the recent Honduran Coup, and meddling in Cuba’s politics?
Mr. Romanoff, when you returned you didn’t address my questions. Yes, they’re tough, but I’d rather hear from you directly rather than looking for quotes from the internet, which turns out, they aren’t too progressive or enlightened.
From an IJN exclusive roundtable:
That is not what the Iranian president said, and even if he did say he it, which he didn’t, he is not the supreme power in iran and could’n t make that decision.
ElBaradai the head of the IEAE was clear that there was no evidence that Iran was pursuing weapons capabilities. The head of the agency has changed and he is more vulnerable to pressure to change the official opinion of the IEAE, even though no new evidence has been found (that wasn’t found to by a forgery).
I’d also like you to speak about your standing on the legalization of cannabis and other natural drugs, our prisoner/prison problem as we have only 5% percent of the worlds population but 25% of the worlds prisoners.
Thank you for coming back to answer questions, sir.
It speaks volumes compared to others whose staff dropped a diary into the Seminal asking for money on the very day all of us felt so betrayed by the single-payer/public option “caucus.”
Best of luck to you.
Thank you for returning, Speaker Romanoff.
I was just getting around to reading the above Q&A.
Thank you for spending your time here answering questions. I have decided to donate to your campaign through ActBlue. If you get into the Senate, I want you to remember all of us and the promises you made to us. It may sound corny in the cynical world of politics, but we really are in dire need of politicians who remember once they get there how they got there and why they were sent there. We people need a voice. We need transparency, so fight for up and down votes, no more of these “we don’t have the votes but we won’t tell you who is holding out because we care more about protecting each other than protecting the democratic process.” Thank you.
Single Payer folks still pushing hard! At the very least they need to add a public option.
Mr. Romanoff, I met you at the organizing meeting for the State Employees Union (WINS) in 2008. I’m a member of the Puebl chapter of Health Care for all Colorado . We support single payer health care, and I know you have been a supporter, too. I was very disappointed when you were not appointed Senator and I have supported you in the primary. In fact, I left the Democratc Party after the farce of a primary in 2008, but rejoined so I could caucus for you in this proimary.
I know Bennet in not being honest about the “public option”. I don’t support anything less than Medicare for all anyway. But, he would not have had Obama campaigning for him the same week as he demanded public option, if he was being honest. It is no secret Obama never supported any kind of government plan.
I support you and I know that the Colorado Legislature worked better with you there.