Posted by Jesus_was_a_socialist on March 21, 2009 at 11:04 p.m.
I, for one, welcome our new robotic doctor overlords.
Posted by meatpieandtatters on March 22, 2009 at 7:31 a.m.
The robotic doctor is also well-versed in over-prescribing pharmaceuticals and ordering needless billable procedures.
Over-billing Medicare is an optional program.
Posted by dludler on March 22, 2009 at 9:36 a.m.
Finally, they've been able to create a surgeon with personality!
Posted by boulderpersonage1 on March 22, 2009 at 11:21 a.m.
Gosh, if the CEO of Boulder Community Hospital would forgo a piece of his $1.2 million dollar salary, the hospital could buy all sorts of new technology and charge less for it.
Posted by ThatCertainWoman on March 22, 2009 at 7:42 p.m.
What's the robot doing in that first picture? Smurf liposuction?
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
One budget hole closed; next is bigger
Posted: 03/26/2009 12:30:00 AM MDT
Lawmakers on Wednesday finished filling a nearly $160 million hole in the current year's spending plan, relying heavily on cash funds to close the gap.
The accomplishment for the Joint Budget Committee, the six-member panel that annually crafts the state's budget, was relatively easy compared with the task it will face starting today: filling a $766.4 million hole in the next budget year, which begins in July.
Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said lawmakers won't be able to rely much on cash funds to deal with next year's budget problems.
"I really think when the new revenue forecast came out (last week), it was a reality slap in the face that we need to start making some cuts," he said.
Some of the cuts JBC members approved to close the final gap in the current year's budget include reclaiming $2.3 million in funds that school districts had not yet used to expand full-day kindergarten programs. The panel also cut $1.8 million in funding that goes primarily to Colorado Springs-area schools to help accommodate enrollment of children in military families.
The panel eliminated any increase in construction funding for charter schools and cut $1.1 million in payments to private hospitals to compensate for care to the uninsured.
Also cut was $1.7 million in grant funding for innovative health care programs.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Colorado House roll call on oil, gas rules
Here's a misleading story from the Associated Press. This version is from KJCT8 in Grand Junction.
The 50-13 roll call by which the Colorado House adopted a measure (House Bill 1292) to regulate the oil and gas industry on Friday.
Voting yes were 36 Democrats and 14 Republicans.
Voting no were 1 Democrat and 12 Republicans.
Democrats voting yes: Dennis Apuan, Colorado Springs; Debbie Benefield, Arvada; Terrance Carroll, Denver; Edward Casso, Thornton; Lois Court, Denver; Kathleen Curry, Gunnison; Mark Ferrandino, Denver; Randy Fischer, Fort Collins; Jerry Frangas, Denver; Sara Gagliardi, Arvada; Gwyn Green, Golden; Dicky Lee Hullinghorst, Longmont; Joel Judd, Denver; John Kefalas, Fort Collins; Andrew Kerr, Lakewood; Jeanne Labuda, Denver; Claire Levy, Boulder; Elizabeth McCann, Denver; Buffie McFadyen, Pueblo West; Anne McGihon, Denver; Michael Merrifield, Manitou Springs; Karen Middleton, Aurora; Joe Miklosi, Denver; Sal Pace, Pueblo; Cherylin Peniston, Westminster; Jack Pommer, Boulder; Dianne Primavera, Broomfield; Joe Rice, Littleton; James Riesberg, Greeley; Sue Ryden, Aurora; Christine Scanlan, Silverthorne; Sue Schafer, Wheat Ridge; John Soper, Thornton; Nancy Todd, Aurora; Edward Vigil, Fort Garland; Paul Weissmann, Louisville.
Democrats voting no: Wes McKinley, Walsh.
Republicans voting yes: David Balmer, Centennial; Bob Gardner, Colorado Springs; Cheri Gerou, Evergreen; Jim Kerr, Littleton; Marsha Looper, Calhan; Don Marostica, Loveland; Mike May, Parker; Frank McNulty, Highlands Ranch; Kevin Priola, Henderson; Ellen Roberts, Durango; Amy Stephens, Monument; Ken Summers, Lakewood; Spencer Swalm, Centennial; Glenn Vaad, Mead.
Republicans voting no: Cindy Acree, Aurora; Randy Baumgardner, Hot Sulphur Springs; Laura Bradford, Collbran; Cory Gardner, Yuma; Steve King, Grand Junction; Kent Lambert, Colorado Springs; Larry Liston, Colorado Springs; Carole Murray, Castle Rock; B.J. Nikkel, Loveland; Jerry Sonnenberg, Sterling; Scott Tipton, Cortez; Mark Waller, Colorado Springs.
The story is of interest in Grand Junction because some people there, and the local newspaper, erroneously blame the rules for the loss of oil and gas jobs.
The story is misleading because HB09-1292 isn't a bill about regulating the oil and gas industry. It's the annual Rule Review bill.
The legislature passes laws, then the state departments write more detailed rules to implement the laws. The rules have to be both constitutional and within the scope of the authority the legislature gave to the agency to make rules.
Each year we run a bill that's essentially our review of all of the rules that changed during the previous year. We can add or delete a rule if we believe it goes beyond what we intended in the law.
The Rule Review bill is rarely controversial. This year it is because, among the new rules, are those that implement a couple of bills we passed to protect people, property, wildlife and the environment from oil and gas operations. The oil and gas industry hates the rules and wants us to wipe out some of them.
Among those listed as voting for the bill are Reps. Bob Gardner and Ellen Roberts, who led the thoughtful, intelligent and reasonable effort to eliminate a few of the rules. Ellen is from the West Slope.
They made a specific point of saying that most of the rules in the Rule Review bill are appropriate and that many are necessary. Although they disagree with a few of the oil and gas rules, they didn't let that keep them from supporting the the bill and all of the other rules.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Words can't bury budget woes Senate, house meet on fiscal plan
By Tim Hoover
The Denver Post
Posted: 02/16/2009 12:30:00 AM MST
Updated: 02/16/2009 12:36:05 AM MST
An oxymoron has been in wide use this year at the Capitol: "negative supplemental."
That's the term budget officials use when they make a midyear cut to a program. In a good year, there are mostly "supplementals," meaning upward, but usually small, adjustments to programs based on unexpected costs.
But in the current budget year, which ends in June, the state's revenue is expected to be more than $600 million below original projections. The "negative supplementals" have been plentiful and deep.
Lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee last week finished their plan to balance the current year's budget. Their staff will make a presentation of the plan today to the full legislature in a rare joint session of the House and Senate.
Rep. Jack Pommer, a member of the JBC, said the joint session is meant to bring other lawmakers up to speed on what has happened to the current year's budget.
"This year we have an extraordinary number of bills and supplementals cutting a huge amount of money," Pommer, D-Boulder, said. "In some ways, it's like redoing the budget."
The Joint Budget Committee followed, or came close to, many of the recommendations Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, made last month to balance the budget in the current year.
For example, the six-member panel agreed that colleges and universities should be cut $30 million in appropriations from the state's general fund and Ritter's office should take a $2.6 million cut.
Meanwhile, the panel rejected the governor's supplemental request for $26 million in additional funding for schools.
The JBC's balancing plan rests on the assumption, also used by Ritter's office, that the state would get an estimated $107 million in federal stimulus package funding just to help offset the costs of Medicaid in the current year.
Pommer said that with changes to the stimulus package last week, the state could get an additional $100 million for Medicaid in the current year.
While the governor's office called for using $207 million in cash funds — pots of money financed from fees in exchange for goods and services — the JBC recommended using $230.9 million.
The panel approved a recommendation to limit the amount of sales tax revenue that businesses can keep as compensation for collecting the tax for the state. That change would save the state $12.8 million in the current year.
But the panel nixed a proposed $250,000 cut to veterans' programs.
The panel also reversed a recommendation that would have cut $2 million from a senior assistance program that funds services like Meals on Wheels.
"We got a surge of lobbying from senior citizens' groups," Pommer said.
The Denver Post
Posted: 02/16/2009 12:30:00 AM MST
Updated: 02/16/2009 12:36:05 AM MST
An oxymoron has been in wide use this year at the Capitol: "negative supplemental."
That's the term budget officials use when they make a midyear cut to a program. In a good year, there are mostly "supplementals," meaning upward, but usually small, adjustments to programs based on unexpected costs.
But in the current budget year, which ends in June, the state's revenue is expected to be more than $600 million below original projections. The "negative supplementals" have been plentiful and deep.
Lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee last week finished their plan to balance the current year's budget. Their staff will make a presentation of the plan today to the full legislature in a rare joint session of the House and Senate.
Rep. Jack Pommer, a member of the JBC, said the joint session is meant to bring other lawmakers up to speed on what has happened to the current year's budget.
"This year we have an extraordinary number of bills and supplementals cutting a huge amount of money," Pommer, D-Boulder, said. "In some ways, it's like redoing the budget."
The Joint Budget Committee followed, or came close to, many of the recommendations Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, made last month to balance the budget in the current year.
For example, the six-member panel agreed that colleges and universities should be cut $30 million in appropriations from the state's general fund and Ritter's office should take a $2.6 million cut.
Meanwhile, the panel rejected the governor's supplemental request for $26 million in additional funding for schools.
The JBC's balancing plan rests on the assumption, also used by Ritter's office, that the state would get an estimated $107 million in federal stimulus package funding just to help offset the costs of Medicaid in the current year.
Pommer said that with changes to the stimulus package last week, the state could get an additional $100 million for Medicaid in the current year.
While the governor's office called for using $207 million in cash funds — pots of money financed from fees in exchange for goods and services — the JBC recommended using $230.9 million.
The panel approved a recommendation to limit the amount of sales tax revenue that businesses can keep as compensation for collecting the tax for the state. That change would save the state $12.8 million in the current year.
But the panel nixed a proposed $250,000 cut to veterans' programs.
The panel also reversed a recommendation that would have cut $2 million from a senior assistance program that funds services like Meals on Wheels.
"We got a surge of lobbying from senior citizens' groups," Pommer said.
House OKs vehicle fee-hikes
By John Ingold The Denver Post
Posted: 02/24/2009 07:48:32 PM MST
Senate Bill 108, known as FASTER, won initial approval in the House, over the objections of every House Republican and four Democrats, including the House majority leader. It must still receive another vote in the House.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, urged his colleagues to pass the bill, saying it is critical the state invest money to repair its aging infrastructure. He said the work generated by the bill would preserve as many as 8,000 jobs in Colorado and generate new ones.
"The cost to doing nothing is much greater than the cost of this bill," Rice said. " Things wear out. The infrastructure wears out. This is an important part of the solution. It's something we can do now."
Republicans, meanwhile, continued to blast at the bill's registration fee increases and complained that their suggestions to fix the bill went unheard.
"We have a fundamental difference that this is a fee bill instead of a broader bill," House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, said. " We don't have a solution together for Colorado. We have a bill that we feel like we have had minimal input on the process."
State representatives Tuesday argued into the evening over the bill, and the vote on the bill followed a by now familiar pattern for FASTER, which sponsors once hoped would be a bi-partisan effort but has seen a string of largely party-line votes since it was introduced.
Lawmakers from the two parties squabbled over registration fees, rental car fees, mass transit funding, eminent domain, tolling and just about any other issue the bill potentially touches in an exhaustive debate that lasted several hours.
Things got so contentious that Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, offered an amendment out of frustration that "no one shall have any power to charge anybody anything to support the transportation system."
"Let's vote yes and go home," Pommer joked.
FASTER would ultimately raise vehicle registration fees by $41 for the average car — an amendment Tuesday phases in the fee increase over three years instead of two — generating more than $250 million a year for road and bridge fixes. The bill would also charge a $2-a-day fee on rental cars and would give local governments the authority to put tolls on existing roads if the governments get the buy-in of all communities that would be impacted by the tolls.
In one of the more bi-partisan moments of the debate, a group of Democrats and Republicans fought unsuccessfully to take the tolling provision out of the bill. Rep. Edward Casso, D-Thornton, said Colorado residents shouldn't have to pay to use roads they've already paid for with taxes.
But Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, said the debate over FASTER shows the state has not adequately paid for its existing roads and bridges.
"We've got to be creative with how we fund our transportation system," she said.
Posted: 02/24/2009 07:48:32 PM MST
I think we were hoping for a headline more along the lines of "Disaster Averted! House Rescues Failing Bridges." Oh, well.A major bill to raise annual vehicle registration fees to pay for road and bridge improvements squeaked through another vote today at the state Capitol.
Senate Bill 108, known as FASTER, won initial approval in the House, over the objections of every House Republican and four Democrats, including the House majority leader. It must still receive another vote in the House.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, urged his colleagues to pass the bill, saying it is critical the state invest money to repair its aging infrastructure. He said the work generated by the bill would preserve as many as 8,000 jobs in Colorado and generate new ones.
"The cost to doing nothing is much greater than the cost of this bill," Rice said. " Things wear out. The infrastructure wears out. This is an important part of the solution. It's something we can do now."
Republicans, meanwhile, continued to blast at the bill's registration fee increases and complained that their suggestions to fix the bill went unheard.
Unheard? We listened to them ranting about the bill for hours. Personally I think it's an awful bill, but not for the reason most Republicans opposed it. They seem to think we can maintain the transportation system for free. We can't. But we should do a better job of managing it before we impose a regressive fee to repair it.
"We have a fundamental difference that this is a fee bill instead of a broader bill," House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, said. " We don't have a solution together for Colorado. We have a bill that we feel like we have had minimal input on the process."
They wanted to spend General Fund money on transportation. That would mean cutting higher ed, K-12, Judiciary, or some other service. And they would oppose those cuts, I assume, since they opposed a lot of the cuts this year.
State representatives Tuesday argued into the evening over the bill, and the vote on the bill followed a by now familiar pattern for FASTER, which sponsors once hoped would be a bi-partisan effort but has seen a string of largely party-line votes since it was introduced.
Lawmakers from the two parties squabbled over registration fees, rental car fees, mass transit funding, eminent domain, tolling and just about any other issue the bill potentially touches in an exhaustive debate that lasted several hours.
Things got so contentious that Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, offered an amendment out of frustration that "no one shall have any power to charge anybody anything to support the transportation system."
"Let's vote yes and go home," Pommer joked.
I don't like the bill and initially wanted to vote against it. Not because we don't need the money, but because I think we should be doing more to manage the demand for transportation.
During the debate, reps from both parties ran amendments to take away options that could pay for transportation. They opposed a fee based on the amount you drive, tolls and, of course, the registration fee that's the point of the bill. Most legislators oppose a tax increase. Yet everybody agrees the transportation system is falling apart.
FASTER would ultimately raise vehicle registration fees by $41 for the average car — an amendment Tuesday phases in the fee increase over three years instead of two — generating more than $250 million a year for road and bridge fixes. The bill would also charge a $2-a-day fee on rental cars and would give local governments the authority to put tolls on existing roads if the governments get the buy-in of all communities that would be impacted by the tolls.
In one of the more bi-partisan moments of the debate, a group of Democrats and Republicans fought unsuccessfully to take the tolling provision out of the bill. Rep. Edward Casso, D-Thornton, said Colorado residents shouldn't have to pay to use roads they've already paid for with taxes.
But Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, said the debate over FASTER shows the state has not adequately paid for its existing roads and bridges.
"We've got to be creative with how we fund our transportation system," she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
Sometimes the comments are better than the article. These are some of the comments from an article in the Camera about a new robotic device that helps perform surgery at Boulder Community Hospital.