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
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
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
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 01, 2013 07:22 AM UTC
32 Comments
Only 5 days left (including today) to get your ballot in. And it must be received by Tuesday, not just mailed by Tuesday. So today's the last semi-safe day to mail it.
<a href="http://www.coloradoballot.net/">Voter's Guide to the Coloraod Ballot Initiatives</a>
Sorry about the link error. Old habits die hard.
Today's Obamacare report. We have good news & we have bad news:
Signups the first 3 days
October 2
6
October 3
94
October 4
142
The good news? For a fortunate few, people can sign up. And can do so in a day. The bad news? We all assumed the numbers were bad as the administration was not releasing them. I didn't think they were this horrible.
Here's hoping the new people brought in can make up for the incompetent leadership to date and are able to direct the piss-poor existing dev teams to a workable system.
That one's not my fault. I did a table using the toolbar and it wrote it out without the table.
The more relevant numbers at this point are how many people are visiting the site and creating accounts. A lot of people are still shopping around and looking at different options; it shouldn't be a surprise that people aren't selecting a plan in the same online session in which they first create an account.
The Connect for Health Colorado update newsletter, mailed out Oct 31, reads, in part:
The update newsletter goes on to reassure customers that CCHC is NOT the same website as health.gov, and that there is no need to go through the federal exchange. Whew!
I'm still waiting to hear from Medicare on the status of my application.
What would be very impressive for the state of Colorado, and very embarassing for the feds, is if more people signed up in Colorado than through the federal site.
It turns out that I have to get only 3 more things straightened out and my entire staff and I will be insured. Life is complicated. But not impossible. The website was, well, trying for diplomacy (not my strong point), problematic. But the live chat folks were a fountain of information.
But one piece of information won't be available until 12/7/13, cutting it kinda short. I still think do-able.
Applicants through the federally run sites say the same kind of things when they realize how confuising it is and seek live person assistance.
OK, ColPols…. so how about a Littwin quote instead?
How about a dead presidents quote each Friday? Maybe only from the Mt. Rushmore 4?
That would be good. He's not on Mt. Rushmore, but they could start with Ben Franklin's quote about beer.
Thank you Pols folks. One of the criticisms I have of the MSNBC shows is that they constantly showcase convervative lunatics and their fanatical ideology. They continually dwell on the negative.
And what's your point? The reality is that most "Republican" elected officials are crazy and far out of the mainstream of American thought on most issues. So of course they're going to have the most outspoken idiots on their shows. MSNBC is a biased liberal media outlet. They make no bones about it. They don't claim to be "fair and balanced" as faux news does. And what Democrats does Faux News have on? Well, you know, I don't really know right now since they've lost ConservaDem Joe Lieberman. But, you get the point. Faux News uses the far right of the Democratic Party. I
If you think that the people who MSNBC uses are not acceptable, well that's just tough, because deep down, what the idiots says is what the "moderates" believe in their hearts. And at lease MSNBC puts on a face of having the other side of debates sometimes rather than the constant propaganda of Faux News.
I think maybe GG is referring to the clips they show of Rush and of various Tea Party crazies, not guests so much. I like to know what the latest rightie talking points are but don't have dwyer's tolerance for actually tuning into rightie media so this allows me to check out the latest in small doses.
I would say to GG that the wacko fringe has dragged the entire universe of Republican officials so far into Wackoland that it's increasingly impossible to catch one sounding rational or reasonable. What would have been called hard core conservative even a decade ago is now called "moderate" and even that kind of "moderate" is pretty rare so it isn't fair to expect MSNBC to over represent them for the sake of phony balance.
far less MSNBC and far more the mainstream media and its insistence on presenting fictional balance that is profoundly distorting. Ideological lunacy on the right really is the norm from which only a few dare to diverge. Choosing only among those few, instead of among those who really do make up the majority of Republican opinion makers and elected officials, for the sake of "balance" would be more dishonest than any presentation on MSNBC.
Is there a Democrat who can run against ol' Tipton? the western slope is getting restless, and in need of some representation…Tipton doesn't represent all of the Third…just the money…
I vote for Ellen Roberts to change parties and run as a Democrat. She'd win in a heartbeat.
I second that motion. Roberts is great.
Would be fun to watch – but I seriously doubt Roberts would consider changing – she's definitely a Republican.
I would guess that it's getting awfully late for a Dem to get in this race – need time to raise lots of money, and some really good strategic thinking to effectively and productively cover such a large District.
Would the Dem candidate please step forward NOW!
I'd like to see Ralphie run. I think he would get a ton of votes and the debates would be awesome.
Why do you hate Ralphie?
I nominate Ralphie.
Seriously.
Shooting at LAX, shooter with AR 15 and one TSA agent dead, multiple wounded. When I first saw this, I thought, "It must be an older white man who didn't want to give up his rifle at security." He just walked up to document check and started shooting, some witnesses said.
Huffpo: http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/lax-shooting-incident_n_4192370.html
Al Jazeera America is sometimes faster and less biased: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/1/shooting-reportedatlosangelesairport.html
Continual updating from LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-live-lax-shooting-tsa-agent-alleged-gunman-shot-20131101,0,3517669.story#axzz2jQFtZodv
So if I join the Christian Science religion – can I then refuse to provide healthcare to all my employees?
This is why a basic single payer package should be universally available. Employers should not be the major insurance providers with the power to make this kind of decision for their employees. With a basic quality public healthcare package available people could still go to the private marketplace for supplemental coverage as those on medicare can right now. Employers could choose to offer suppplemental coverage s a benefit if they chose to.
Sorry for type-os.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Chicken Dinner!
A large part of the problem with US medical insurance for the pat 50+ years is the distortion caused by the transaction being a 3rd or 4th party event. I want a check up or other medical service. I see which doctor my insurance covers me to see (be seen by). I don't have any reason to negotiate the price. And even if I do – say I want to see a specialist outside my plan network, I have no real way to evaluate that price.
Buying medical services is not like buying normal consumer goods and services. And while we can argue the relative merit of a free market solution for cantaloupe growers, a free market solution for medical services has never optimized a market for medical care. Ever. Anywhere.
In corrolary: "Quality" as measured by hospital, government, or insurance clipboard practitioner does not mean that the medical care recieved is actually of any quality.
Hopefully this is overruled – it is a nonsensical decision, especially considering the number of other places where we don't allow religion to dictate medical treatment options.
It will be like wack-a-mole as long as employers are in charge of their employees healthcare options. There is no end to the things employers will be able to object to and there will be no end of going to court o resolve everything that pops up.. Employers shouldn't have this power, period. We need universal single payer public healthcare that takes employers out of the decision making process unless they want to offer supplemental coverage, such as the plans available to supplement medicare, as a perk. private
And yes I know there's no way that's going to happen any time soon but that doesn't change the fact that it's the only truly viable solution. Reform that leaves private insurers and private employers in control of healthcare options is always going to be an unmanageable mess that will leave people at the mercy of a combination of amoral corporate bottom line considerations on the one hand and other people's religious beliefs on the other.
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,
are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Id. at 166-167.
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a
valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes.)
Antonin Scalia for the SCOTUS
Employment Division v. Smith