President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
December 07, 2016 07:17 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 17 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“To be angry is to revenge the faults of others on ourselves.”

–Alexander Pope

Comments

17 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

    1. The Electoral College as our Founding Fathers established (exercise of the electors free conscience) or today's EC where the elector's vote is (generally) prescribed by state law?  Asking for a friend.  

      1. Michael:

        Give your friend some context.  Back in the day of the Founders, the governmental entity of importance was the state, not the new confederation of several states. That relationship took almost another 100 years, and a lot of bloodshed, to get sorted out.

        It was always the thought that each separate state, governed by state law, would determine how that state voted for President from the get go.

          1. You might start with Chernow's Alexander Hamilton and Goodwin's Team of Rivals.  If you read them, like I have, you may come to the same conclusion.

            1. Yet once we got it 'sorted out' (in particular the federation of states funding reconstruction no longer considering a black man 3/5 of a person and allowing women the right to vote), we still use the logic of EC math designed under another scenario meant to give slave states an uneven hand. Got it.

    2. The 2016 poll was taken shortly after the election, and the results of the poll on the electoral college reflect pretty precisely what the election did: 49% want to abolish, 47% don't–the two-point margin by which Clinton won the popular vote. No surprise there.

      Let's check back in a few months or two or three years and see what folks think.

  1. The Republican plan to repeal Obamacare will cause 530,000 Coloradans to lose health insurance.

    Via Talking Points Memo: Charles Gaba has estimated the number of people in each state who benefit from Obamacare, either through Medicaid Expansion, Exchange Enrollees with Subsidies, Young Adults on their parent's plans.

    Colorado has 446,000 under medicaid expansion, 78,000 with significant subsidies, and 7,200 young adults who benefit from Obamacare.

    I don't think that includes those of us who buy individual policies on the exchange (like small businesses, farmers, and self-employed) – we’re screwed, also. If the Republicans kill the exchanges, then we would have to find insurance on the private market… that is if the insurance companies even offer insurance.

    The problem with the individual market is that there is no shared-risk pool, so we return to Insurance companies dropping you because you had acne, or skinned your knee, or whatever stupid excuse they use to justify getting rid of customers with pre-existing conditions.

    FYI, Age is a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies profits go up only when they can decrease their services, i.e. they filter their risk-pool into only young, healthy people. 

    1. Partial Repeal is even worse than Full Repeal! That is because partial repeal completely collapses the individual market.

      Why would partial repeal hurt more people than full repeal? Well, in this case partial repeal means repealing the money (the incentives) without the regulatory structure. In the words of the Urban Institute study: "The additional 7.3 million people become uninsured because of the near collapse of the nongroup insurance market." Basically you're leaving the regulations intact but removing the money that makes them possible. So everything goes haywire and you get a lot of collateral damage. Why would you do that? Simple. The rules of the Senate allow you to do that with 50 votes. It's politically easier to destroy care for an additional 7 million people.

      1. I know this is a rhetorical question, but at some point does the breadth and depth of the human misery caused by their policies cause republican politicians (Paul Ryan, Cory Gardner) pause?  Hundreds of thousands will die, and millions will suffer. But, the most wealthy will pay less in taxes – so I guess it makes sense. 

        1. EW…It is not a rhetorical question and the answer is no. At no point does the "Free Market " give a shit about the pain and misery of the masses of human beings who suffer when profit and prejudice are ascendant.

          Milton Friedman is cackling in his grave. With the upcoming institution of a fully sanctioned, thieving, corporate aristocracy, his experiment is successful in the most powerful economy in the world.

          Ask Naomi Klein.

           

    2. And this estimate of those losing health insurance doesn't factor in the number of people losing it because the hospitals they are working at close, downsize and decrease benefits in order to stay financially healthy.

    3. ParkHill:

      So you are now an expert on the "Republican" plan?

      Does the plan involve providing funds to the states to subsidize indigent care?

      Is the plan really to deny everyone healthcare?

      What plan are your talking about?

      What exactly is the "Democrat" plan?

      Keep your policy, keep your doctor, and price goes down?

      That wasn't a plan.  That was a lie.

       

      1. Do tell, Carnegie. Put up or shut up. What is the Republican plan for health care?

        As far as I can tell, it involves only creating health savings accounts which are individually funded, receiving a coupon or voucher to go out and purchase insurance on the open market,  and no regulation or limits on pharmaceutical or industry profits.

        As others have written, it is a gigantic step backward. It is morally bankrupt, will cause people to die because they can't access basic health care, and doesn't even make fiscal sense.

        But if you know something different about the grand and wonderful Republican Health Care Plan, do share. We're all ears.

         

        1. Great piece on this subject in the LATimes this morning MamaJ. I'm mobile now but will post it later. In a couple of sentences: the chickens are coming home to roost. Case in point: Tulare and Kern County, ground zero for Kevin McCarthy's district, has 93% of his constituents accessing the ACA subsidy. The same workforce that gives us all those delicious, "cheap" fruits and vegetables.  McCarthy has already started his tap dance.

  2. Different topic. Per the New York Times, Mr. Trump will nominate Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. Mr. Pruitt is so far in bed with the oil & gas industry that he can't see the sides of the mattress. 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

75 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!