President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 24, 2010 04:28 PM UTC
68 Comments
Oh noes! One of the candidates running for Steve ‘Well-Coiffed’ King’s House seat apparently considered voting Democratic at least once in his life!!!!
http://www.gjsentinel.com/news…
Does that make me a Republican?
ps – I do that to encourage them to keep trying
What if everybody did that!
in Colorado Springs, pretty soon we can start calling it Kabul West.
the name of your blog, David.
And from your picture, I’d swear I knew you as a kid. But then I realize, I never lived on an island.
“The polls are taken in stoney Denver where” Hicky” is the champ of an out of control pot epidemic. Take polls with real people outside of the city and they will see that real Coloradans are sick of the Californification of Colorado. Let’s turn Colorado Red again!!!!! Enough potheads and socialism!!!!” -Mark, from the McInnis facebook page
I have had the opportunity to set down with Bob and discuss his campaign and the issues. It is unfortunate that this “simple voter” finds it beyond comprehension that a Republican could split their ticket and think independently.
Unfortunately this isn’t the first time I’ve seen a top notch candidate be used as target practice this close to caucus, assembly and primary season.
Unfortunately, he and people just like him dominate the Mesa County GOP today.
Dumb and dumber.
I’m new to this caucus/primary thing and I’m not sure I understand the politics of it. Bash your caucus opposition hard enough to do well at caucus, but not so hard they become unelectable in the general, and then do it again in the primary if necessary.
How many other states have this hybrid caucus/primary thing?
And do any of them have the primary so close to the general?
Just a reminder for those in need. Mesa County D caucus training will be held tomorrow night and again Saturday morning at the Union Hall on E Road.
“Three or four years from now, we’re not going to have a conversation about jobs and all of that kind of stuff.” -Scott McInnis
Wallace Stevens might disagree:
But that’s a great poem!
Naked sled race draws 14,000
I know, I know, the website says “naked…”
….when I linked to it yesterday. Not so naked.
If the Public Option was intended to provide competition for private insurance, why do the current bills have mandates and regulations for private insurers?
Wouldn’t it make more sense just to let them continue to charge exorbitant premiums if you wanted to bring people to the Public Option?
The issue appears to be that treating the industry like a “regulated utility” appears to have broader support than the public option.
I don’t understand that preferance, perhaps because it’s more complicated and therefore harder to message against?
But the public option is so easy to mischaracterize as a “gov’t takeover” that will “cost trillions”, neither of which is the intent and neither of which is necessary.
But that said, are you saying you’d support a public option, phased in over two or three years? That way, everyone who hates it could vote out the incumbents and vote in only those who want the system we have now, with more “tort reform,” less state regulation, and double digit premium increases every year.
If the stated point of this attempt at reform is to get people insured who currently are not, why does there need to be mandates that will affect my insurance if I’m happy with it?
An “option” shouldn’t have anything to do with meddling in pre-existing private options, right?
If I udnerstand what you are asking, it goes to establishing and maintaining the pool of covered and premium payers.
As long as we have a rule that says no one can be denied care, the pool should include everyone, because everyone is “covered” but not everyone pays. If we can’t do single payer, the only other way to have the pool include everyone is mandated coverage and/or fees for “no coverage,” even though they are still covered.
So how does the contemplated mandate affect your insurance?
By requiring private insurers to cover everyone, and not to drop people from coverage, it raises my rates.
I think there has to be an option for the uninsurable, and I think it could be done inexpensively. Let the government option be the one that’s not allowed to drop coverage and must insure everyone, and let the private companies offer boutique coverage and portability. I am willing to pay more in taxes to make sure that folks with tough situations are covered, but I don’t see why the government has to mess with private insurers to accomplish this.
It appears to be th eonly deal our elected officials can sell.
Seriously- if we were starting from scratch, no health care insurance industry, no medical insurance, no universal accessiblity – would we invent anything like we have now?
By increasing the pool of payers to everyone it should decrease premiums. Everyone pays, everyone has access with portabilty and no exclusion for prexisting conditions – sounds like single payer.
A lot of young people go uninsured because they don’t think they’re going to get sick (and most of them won’t–till later).
The mandate forces younger, healthier people into the risk pool.
It’s a real boondoggle for the insurance companies. Guaranteed business, lower risk, government subisdy. Perfect corporate welfare.
That’s why I hate the Senate bill.
Let’s take the same money and do a public option. If private companies can’t compete, let them get more efficient.
Really sad as How the United Sates is so backward in this regard.
The Premier of Newfoundland how great their system is.
http://www.usnews.com/money/bl…
for reasonably priced Health care… Checkups and what not.
Then Hop the southern border for reasonably priced Dental.
If I have an emergency I will .go local then have to sell all my properties and become homeless like hundreds of tousands of fellow countrymen.
That’s A-OK with you eh?
What are you talking about? Of course it’s not ok for you to have to sell your “properties”. My question is related to the best way to avoid that, and why it’s so important, if the public ‘option’ is really that, why there needs to be anything done to private insurers?
If they’re so evil and make such a killing gouging people and dropping people and not offering coverage, then offer a better alternative and let them collapse under their own weight,
eh?
I use Dr. Botello in Cd. Acuna. Been there twice, couldn’t be happier, saved by now, almost $2000.
How does someone have five heart attacks between his thirties and late sixties and live to tell the tale? Is he some kind of top secret bionic government project? Is that what all that time in an undisclosed location was about? Is he some kind of chubby Borg? Does he really have a heart at all? If not, that would explain a lot.
And I know this dates me but seeing Shana Alexander’s name in the quote, I could see the SNL team of Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin doing the Point-Counterpoint sketch and hear Aykroyd saying “Jane, you ignorant slut”.
that the American taxpayers can buy!
1. Without mandates, you can’t really require insurance companies to ignore pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, people won’t buy insurance until they get sick. That’s not a viable business model for either public or private plans.
2. Regulations: In order to have true competition, you need to be selling the same basket of goods. Having baseline requirements allows buyers to get bids that are comparable.
I’ve seen both of these issues discussed extensively, so I expect that you already knew this, no?
I was thinking about it this morning. Couldn’t the government create a true option that isn’t weighed down by admin. costs, subsidizes pooled high-risk folks, but leaves mandates and regulations for private insurers off the table?
Tort reform is a must, even if it’s only the ridiculous 2% number that gets tossed around. You can’t expect moderates to buy into something when you give as your reason for not including it that you’re afraid to take on the trial lawyers.
Why don’t the states do it?
I hav eno real aversion to the feds doing something similar, but it’s no solution.
doesn’t make it ridiculous. Every reputable study puts the number in the same place. We have states with no tort reform right next to states with tort reform and it doesn’t effect the cost of health insurance.
Personal favorite example: North Carolina has no caps on non economic damages–average cost of family health insurance-$10,950. South Carolina $350K cap on non economic damages–average cost of family health insurance-$10,950 its a crazy coincidence, but health insurance costs vary regionally, independently of the tort environment.
Colorado has some of the most aggressive tort reform in the entire country and because of it health insurance is cheap. No wait! My health insurance isn’t cheap! In fact despite having one of the healthiest populations (based on age, smoking and obesity rates) our health insurance is right in the middle of the pack.
Are you suggesting that we
1. Set up an insurance pool of last resort, kind of like Pinnocol, but for health care?
2. Enact Texas-style tort reform, and
3. Leave everything else alone?
I don’t see much benefit in that approach.
If I can always get subsidized insurance from the govt, why bother to get insurance if I’m young and healthy?
Asking the government to insure high-risk people is a cheap out for the insurance companies while not significantly helping high-risk insured.
We actually have a high-risk pool here in Colorado. It costs a fortune to join it, and you have to have failed to get coverage under other plans, but if you’re reasonably well off it is an option. Going national with such a plan doesn’t really address cost issues – it just transfers the costs from private insurers to government.
Just imagine that scenario… I’m a low-risk insured, self-employed guy. I pay a private insurer for my insurance; there’s no real regulations because the government provides a backup plan. So I go to the doctor and am diagnosed Diabetic. My insurer raises my rates or just kicks me off the plan… I never really get my money’s worth from the private insurer because they kicked me off before they paid out what I’d contributed to the plan. Now I go to the high-risk pool of the public plan; I pay a lot more, and because the legislators were smart when they created the plan, it’s not like the government is subsidizing me – I’m paying my fair share into the pool to cover the plan’s expenses.
It’s a huge win for private insurers. It might lower the cost of private insurance, but it won’t do a thing for folks with medical conditions (except likely get them pissed off at the government for charging them so much for insurance that used to cost so little while they were in a private plan).
Subsidize the pools with tax dollars?
I thought the idea was not to fund this with more taxes or increased government debt, at least to the extent that we can. Having the government front subsidies for what will wind up being almost every high-risk insured seems insane, especially for someone in a party that hates taxes and government.
provide a “public option”?
That’s socialism, dude.
All snark aside, it works for me, but I’m a Boulder Liberal. I don’t think the teabaggers will go along….
http://voices.washingtonpost.c…
n/t
n/t
Don’t like the 1 hour delay.
Great tip. Thanks. I was still watching the game at 0-0 on Channel 9. Time to head over to the website.
(5:30 MNT) is going to be incredible. Russia vs. Canada in an elimination game.
Ovechkin vs. Sid the Kid.
Awesome.
the new TV ad exposing Jane Norton as a tax and spend liberal? It was aired on our local news tonight but I was cooking dinner and didn’t catch who paid for it. Anyone know who is behind it? I can’t find any info about it on the nets. Great ad.
“Same old, same old isn’t going to bring us victory.” -Mike May
From the Declaration Alliance’s Conservative Majority Project
Listen here:
http://www.declarationalliance… (scroll down to the Norton heading)
Wiens is also airing radio ads slamming liberal Republicans who supported Ref C, but doesn’t name Norton.
I bet it was the Declaration Alliance. It sounded like the TV ad at your link.
at the bottom of the Norton Free Ride thread, just a bit ago.
on the wrong thread. 🙂
man
the screw, to answer your question from the other thread, the ad was aired on KJCT’s evening news tonight. First time I’ve (partially) seen it.
but I don’t have the energy.
So who benefits if the true conservatives (and avid caucus-goers) sour on Norton? Wiens is still a mystery to almost everyone, so is it Buck?
I’d think Buck is their protagonist. Especially seeing how this comes on the heels of the pro-Buck ads which have been airing here over the past couple of weeks. Think they are trying to tell Penry and McInnis that they are not as important or influential as those two think they are.
I have seen it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/na…
The word “hero” gets tossed around a bit much in my opinion, but in this guy’s case, it’s absolutely well earned. He literally risked his own life and God only knows how many lives he saved. He’s being named “hero teacher” on ABC News as I type this.
He not only risked his life and in doing so clearly saved the lives of a lot of kids, but in an incredibly high pressure situation instantly acted in a very effective manner.
An amazing guy.
By a vote of 406-19, the House passed the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act (HR 4626), introduced by Reps. Tom Perriello (D-VA) and Betsy Markey (D-CO). This bill is designed to restore competition and transparency to the health insurance market – by repealing the blanket antitrust exemption afforded to health insurance companies by the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. Under this legislation, health insurers will no longer be shielded from legal accountability for price fixing, dividing up territories among themselves, sabotaging their competitors in order to gain monopoly power, and other such anti-competitive practices.
I just got a fundraising call from the Mitt Romney campaign.
And when I replied that I had been a delegate for Obama the caller gave it the old college try and asked me what I thought of the economy now.
I replied that while we were in bad shape because of the mess the Republicans got us in, I thought Obama was doing a good job digging us out.
He hung up 🙂
In even number years I shift a lot of my giving from charitable to political causes, and I told her that. But I do it at the end of the month, looking at all my bills, expenses and requests.
I said I would ‘strongly consider’ a $50 contribution, but she wouldn’t accept it. Said I had to commit on the phone to a certain amount. I said–“I am telling you I contribute to political causes. I want to keep the CO Senate in Dem hands. I will put your request at the very top of my pile.”
She wouldn’t accept that, and basically told me goodbye. Which is fine. I hate telephone solicitations, personally. But seriously, WTF? I’ll send my money elsewhere.
You never know what % the telemarketing company gets. I always say no then go on the web to donate.
any idiot can call me up based on publicly available voter registration data and ask me for money, claiming to be from the Democratic party. I haven’t actually had a problem, but telephone solicitations in my opinion are less secure than online solicitations. I can read a web address and see if it’s from Russia or something, but phone salespeople frequently block their number, so I’ve got nothing at all to go on.