- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I do not want to withdraw this proposal and formally decline. The Greater Boulder Green chapter spent a good deal of time discussing the pros and cons of the healthcare amendment and then when we made our decision we began to put our feet and labor in it. We worked on petitions and discussed it with the public; so we are the opposite of Pikes Peak in that we endorse (d) the amendment as a grassroots decision. They had a debate on Ch 12 yesterday with T. R.Reid and the person debating him suggested that Canada's healthcare was not as good as the US's. However I have heard Canadians were glad for the healthcare system moving from private to public and we as Greens certainly endorse the public healthcare. Canada had to pass it one province at a time and it seems to me that will be the best avenue for the US to pass public healthcare one state at a time. It should be an honor for the Greens and Colorado to lead the way. Also it appears that some of the stronger opposers are also against ending fracking because they are representative of the Big 1% corporate interests. I wish we had passed this before because I felt like I had to go back and revisit the research when I wanted to move on to immigration, voting rights for all residents not just citizens. I don't believe our considerations for issues and policies should halt because of election season, but rather our work should continue along with campaigning. Speaking of moving on to these issues that it would be nice if the Colorado Greens were out in front of others with, I really like that the amendment 69 will cover all residents not just US citizens. We know the US supported the new presidents in South America who were removed illegally. NAFTA also was not what the US should have been supporting and thus we have many immigrants pressured to leave their homes and enter the US for help and I believe this bill will help them as well as many like me who struggle with affording the Afordable Care. It is too expensive compared to our salaries or wages, especially when we don't know when we are paid a fairly low wage with our college requirement, some still paying loans or taking more classes), don't know how much work we will have and still have living expenses and some like myself may go years without having any healthcare needs and thus the system is not paying out expenses. We in the US spend so much on things like destructive weapons, it will be good to spend on a helpful policy for public healthcare. I hope our new Green Party chapter in Mesa, as well as the San Miguel chapter will vote for this endorsement of public healthcare in Colorado.
I do not appreciate the insinuation that those of us who object, do so because we also agree with other conservative policy points. That is a very divisive and unwelcome insinuation to make.
Susan, I appreciate that sentiment you brought forth about coverage for all people! I would say that the Boulder Greens have the most experience with this issue, as you did go out in the street and petition for the amendment. I imagine working alongside their group lent you a particular insight into the amendment and its pros and cons. And I sensed no ulterior motive in your words. It is true that the main opposition to this bill comes from places where the Greens would not normally find company. I think this is why its important to put the facts on the table and leave the rest at the door.This bill has been supported by our Senate and Presidential candidates. It is "a good step forward". If officers have questions, they must be addressed so they can educate their chapters.
We have to agree that the end goal is single payer, even if we don't all agree that this proposed legislation is the way forward.Let's find a way to keep the team together on shared values, instead of continuing to make divisive shots across the bow, please.Now, let's move on to the challenge of helping our candidates. Thanks to everyone who participated here, either tacitly or otherwise.
As a chair, I've done my duty by doing my homework, as has Arn, and the Boulder Greens. I can't say this is the case for all of our leadership. Some people in this party think its OK to hold to their own fears instead of rising to the challenge of getting their questions answered and perhaps admitting they had made a mistake in their assumptions on the legislation. Treating A69 like it is only a minor thing is doing more harm to our campaign than discussing it like adults.
Jason, A request by anyone can be made to extend voting on which I as council facilitator act on. I have been doing a one week voting extension when a request is made.
BlockThis is not the time for this proposal. It divides our efforts and energy to infighting rather than electing our candidates. I cannot believe this was put forward 6 weeks prior to the election. Was it to create a melee just to do that? To divert us from our common purpose? We have no way of carrying out an impeachment process via this forum that guarantees a fair trial. We have no time to be fair about this while we are working on the Stein and Menconi campaign. And so far as I am concerned there is no evidence that any attempts were made to hear out Bill by the complainants or attempts to resolve the situation in a timely fashion. The timing of this is extremely suspicious.
AS I said before the comment that included BLOCK by myself was not supposed to be regarding this endorsement but was in regard to the proposal to can Bill. I seriously don't know how that happened. Brain Freeze. Lets get Amendment 69 endorsed now!
Again, I see no other BLOCK on this Proposal Agreement Seeking for 003. Thus, since I have removed by BLOCK the only issue is whether sufficient local groups have spoken. Brittany, please verify and if not I will reach out to some more chapters.
By my count 6 chapters participated in this and by my removing my ill and mistaken BLOCK that means that the proposal was agreed to in time. So Do we agree that the Colorado Green Party has endorsed Amendment 69??
Bob, Apologies, I haven't been getting emails that people have been replying on this. Agreement seeking has ended, so there was no need to block the proposal. It's no longer an active proposal so voting is no longer open. Sorry for the confusion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.