U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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
February 24, 2014 06:23 AM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 72 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

"I have found that the greatest help in meeting any problem is to know where you yourself stand."

–William Faulkner

Tweet
Share

Comments

72 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

  1. Cancer patient had insurance policy she liked that covered the durg that keeps her alive.

    Mark Udall votes for Obamacare.

    Cancer patient policy in cancelled because it does not comply with Obamacare.

    Cancer patient can't get the drug covered by any of the insuance policies available in her state.

    Is this the case of someone who can't navigate the system?  Her husband is a doctor and she runs the medical practice, dealing with this type of stuff daily.

    Is this story by some wild ass conservative activist?  It is by her son who is the President of a private liberal arts college.

    The story is in today's Wall Street Journal.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579390772732855560

    Another Mark Udall success story.

     

    1. I promise I will check back.

      If this story holds up, I will admit that you are right about this.

      If this story does not, will you admit it?

      "hold up": her coverage was not replaced or replaceable at similar cost.

      1. Virginia health horror stories seem to be in vogue these days, complete with the family playing on the public for sympathy, while neglecting the sick person.

        Call the Virginia health navigators to check it out. Ask them the questions in the Obamacare horror story thread. I'd do it, since I'm not working today, but dealing with an actual family health issue with my ex, who is, fortunately, well insured by the VA, in spite of Republican efforts to defund veteran's programs.

        As far as Stephen Blackwood, the author of the article in the WSJ, being a credible source and a "liberal", fail. Again. Ralston College is "planned" as an alternative to that most horrific of institutions, the traditional liberal arts college.  In other words, it doesn't exist – it's just raising money. Right wing money grubber alert:

        It is not now accepting applications for admission, nor is it providing information to prospective students. It is at present engaged in the organization of a formal capital campaign to raise seven million dollars in 2014.

      2. JBJK, while I understand the urge to call bullshit for what it is, you must resist the urge to feed this troll and never admit that he is right.  The ACA is new and complex. While the right wing may not have found an actual case of unintended consequences yet, they are no doubt many who are worse off as a result of the ACA.  It is inevitalbe with such a large bureacratic system.  Some of those cases may well be catastrophic. We do not yet know and won't know for a while.  What we do know is that the old system allowed people with pre-existing conditions to be denied (or cancelled when they got sick), allowed insurance companies to cap lifetime benefits, and allowed insurance companies to make their own decisions (based on their profit calculations) on what they would cover and what they would not.  People went bankrupt and some died every day because they could not afford insurance and/or the insurance companies would not cover the medicines to keep them alive.  Now, under the ACA, the insurance companies are up to their old tricks, and the ACA is getting the blame.  From what I read about the above story, it appears an insurance company took a premium but is now refusing to pay for a life saving medicine. How is that the fault of the ACA? If the insurance company affirms this decision (which has been appealed) the "person" that is the insurance company should be locked up for fraud. If the ACA is responsible for any unintended consequences, those cases are dwarfed by the unfair  and unjust practices prior to the ACA. 

          1. Agree. Let's leave the refusing to accept facts to the trolls. Based on Daft's (scroll down a ways) informed explanation of the drug as one that is indicated for treatment of side effects in terminal cases, cases in which death can't be prevented, I'd say that this time no such admission will be necessary.

            Whatever you think of this plan's decision to refuse to cover the drug, the kind of decision private insurers have routinely been making all along, cessation of a drug that cannot prevent death cannot cause death. The patient will not die because of this decision but because she has a terminal cancer. Tragic for her but apparently a considered a lucky opportunity for political exploitation by the righties.

          2. Poor choice of words on my part. I would never expect anyone to admit he is right because:  1) He will never be right: If some portion of the story is true, it will, inevitably have been spun beyond all recognition (i.e. "insurance company denies coverage = ACA + Udall kill people) and 2) don't feed the trolls!

            P.S. I didn't denigrate anyone.  That requires unfair criticism. 

      3. Deal.  Just to be clear, she did get health care coverage but the cancer drug is not covered by the drug coverage.  This seems to be a frequent feature because in order to make the policies "affordable"  they had to cut somewhere. It seems the approach has been to narrow the number of doctors available and cut down on expensive drugs covered.  

    3. Let me use your reasoning and logic to support Obamacare. My son who is 26 can no longer stay on my insurance. He signed-up on the exchange and now has health insurance with a $600 annual deductible and the medication for his chronic condition that if left untreated would kill him is covered by his Obamacare policy. Since his is an Obamacare success story you would now agree that Obamacare is good for the country. Right?

      Of course you won't. But neither can you indict the entire program based on one story about one patient in the Wall Street Journal. We don't even know all the facts yet about WSJ story. If anything, it sounds like the insurance comapny representative didn't know enough to properly advise her. That is that company's responsibility not the government because after all Obamacare relies on private sector health insurance companies to handle the insurance policies. I'm betting that when the story reaches its conclusion the lady will have health insurance that covers her cancer medication. 

       

      1. R36, Before Obamacare the state had a program that was designed for insureds like your son that was paid for by a fee charged on all insurance policies. The name escapes me now, was your son eligible for that program?

         

        1. Yes, he was on it for a few months but with Obamacare he is paying $40 per month less than he was on the state program and now he has dental insurance too. Obamacare gives him more coverage, at less cost, than the state program.

          Again, the point of my initial response to your post this morning is you can't indict an entire program where it may not have worked for one person. It certainly has worked for my son. Another example should suffice, When I worked on the "Hill" in Washington, D.C. we had constituents call whose Social Security check had been mistakenly stopped by the Social Security Administration. That certainly wasn't a reason for terminating that program. The all or nothing approach the Republcians have to health care doesn't move the policy debate one inch.

          The fact is people like my son in many states across the United States couldn't purchase medical insurance because of pre-existing conditions. When I was young, President Johnson convinced Congress to pass Medicare because the free market wouldn't provide health insurance to older people. All Obamacare does is extend healthcare through both private insurance companies and the government's Medicaid program. Will there be bumps in the implemetation and administration of the program? Certainly. But repeal isn't the answer. Reform and fine tuning is.

          1. Cute how he thinks he knows more about your son's options and what's best for him than you or your son do. Who does he think intelligent people are going to believe? You and your son based on actual experience or his clown car idiotological spin? More pathetic by the minute.

          2. My understanding is the program was closed down or will be closed down because of Obamacare.  I also understand that others on that program will end up paying more under Obamacare, or that is atleast what they are reporting.

            The truth is that program, which was in effect before Obamacare was ennacted, covered people who had "pre-exisitng conditions" in Colorado so that the Dem meme of Obamacare covers all these people who could not get insurance with pre-existing conditions is, like most of their statements, a false narrative.

  2. Must be strong…oh hell:

    Health Care Horror Hooey

    Remember the “death tax”? The estate tax is quite literally a millionaire’s tax — a tax that affects only a tiny minority of the population, and is mostly paid by a handful of very wealthy heirs. Nonetheless, right-wingers have successfully convinced many voters that the tax is a cruel burden on ordinary Americans — that all across the nation small businesses and family farms are being broken up to pay crushing estate tax liabilities.

    You might think that such heart-wrenching cases are actually quite rare, but you’d be wrong: they aren’t rare; they’re nonexistent. In particular, nobody has ever come up with a real modern example of a family farm sold to meet estate taxes. The whole “death tax” campaign has rested on eliciting human sympathy for purely imaginary victims.

     

    …And conservatives don’t really have a Plan B — in their world, nobody even dares mention the possibility that health reform might actually prove workable. Still, you can already see some on the right groping toward a new strategy, one that relies on highlighting examples of the terrible harm Obamacare does. There’s only one problem: they haven’t managed to come up with any real examples. 

     

     

    Stephen Blackwood

    Stephen Blackwood is the president of Ralston College, a new liberal arts college in Savannah that is not yet accepting applications for admission. He has a doctorate in religion from Emory University and has held visiting positions at Harvard University and the University of Toronto. His academic work focuses on the performative character of ancient texts. Earlier in his career he founded an educational organization for inner-city youth.

    1. That was another good article by Paul Krugman in today's NY TImes that you are quoting.  I would add another lie told by the GOP is "rampant voter fraud". 

      My question to Polsters is, What is the most effective way for the Dems to debunk these lies?  Just throwing up our hands and saying it's not necessary because most voters don't read newspapers, or it's not possible to talk sense to the right wing seems defeatist. 

      I remember the Obama '08 campaign had a website that was devoted to confronting lies about him which appeared pretty effective.  Any thoughts?

  3. There you go CT, substantively dealing with the issues.

    Was her cancer drug covered by the policy she had?

    Was the policy canceled?

    Is she now not able to get the drug covered?

    Maybe MJ is on this one too?

    1. Yes, it appears that he is, does that mean the cancer drugs don't cost any money?

      "Then on Feb. 12, just before going into (yet another) surgery, she was informed by Humana that it would not, in fact, cover her Sandostatin, or other cancer-related medications. The cost of the Sandostatin alone, since Jan. 1, was $14,000, and the company was refusing to pay.

      The news was dumbfounding. This is a woman who had an affordable health plan that covered her condition. Our lawmakers weren't happy with that because . . . they wanted plans that were affordable and covered her condition. So they gave her a new one. It doesn't cover her condition and it's completely unaffordable."

  6. "He's a doctor…" like Steven Colbert.

    http://wikiality.wikia.com/Dr._Stephen_T._Colbert,_D.F.A.

    Cancer sucks, and terminal cancer that has metastasized, first diagnosed in 2005 is rough.  

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model

    The stages, popularly known by the acronym DABDA, include:[2]

    1. Denial — As the reality of loss is hard to face, one of the first reactions to follow the loss is Denial. What this means is that the person is trying to shut out the reality or magnitude of their situation, and begin to develop a false, preferable reality.
    2. Anger — "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"
      Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. People can be angry with themselves, or with others, and especially those who are close to them. It is important to remain detached and nonjudgmental when dealing with a person experiencing anger from grief.
    3. Bargaining — "I'll do anything for a few more years."; "I will give my life savings if…"
      The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow undo or avoid a cause of grief. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Other times, they will use any thing valuable as a bargaining chip against another human agency to extend or prolong the life they live. Psychologically, the individual is saying, "I understand I will die, but if I could just do something to buy more time…" People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek to negotiate a compromise. For example "Can we still be friends?" when facing a break-up. Bargaining rarely provides a sustainable solution, especially if it is a matter of life or death.
    4. Depression — "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die soon so what's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?"
      During the fourth stage, the grieving person begins to understand the certainty of death. Much like the existential concept of The Void, the idea of living becomes pointless. Things begin to lose meaning to the griever. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time crying and sullen. This process allows the grieving person to disconnect from things of love and affection, possibly in an attempt to avoid further trauma. Depression could be referred to as the dress rehearsal for the 'aftermath'. It is a kind of acceptance with emotional attachment. It is natural to feel sadness, regret, fear, and uncertainty when going through this stage. Feeling those emotions shows that the person has begun to accept the situation. Often times, this is the ideal path to take, to find closure and make their ways to the fifth step, Acceptance.
    5. Acceptance — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
      In this last stage, individuals begin to come to terms with their mortality or inevitable future, or that of a loved one, or other tragic event. This stage varies according to the person's situation. People dying can enter this stage a long time before the people they leave behind, who must pass through their own individual stages of dealing with the grief. This typically comes with a calm, retrospective view for the individual, and a stable mindset.

    My thoughts with the family.  Pretty terrible that righties are doing all they can to manipulate the discussion with this sad and difficult time.  

    1. I think the stages of grief are not relevant to this discussion.  I have close relatives with chronic cancer conditions that will prove fatal if the person does not die of another cause first.  Granted, those cancers are not the ones described in the article; but I am not aware of any drug that "cures" cancer…..I am in long term "remission" and I think it was surgeries that "got" the cancer…but I am not a doctor.  

      The suggestion that the family can not accept the finality of the diagnosis is simply not germaine.  I think there are two issues:

      1) As I have already asked.  In what way was the original insurance policy not compatible with ACA?

      2) If the consumer bought the policy on the verbal assurances that a specific medication would be covered, does the consumer have legal recourse?  I remember a time when I staggered to the Post Office and sent certified letters to my insuramce company that began:  "This is to confirm our conversation of such and such date…etc."
       

  7. CT, the SON is not a doctor.

    Her HUSBAND is a doctor.

    Your thoughts are not with the family.  

    You do not think about anyone except yourself.

    You caused this.  Sleep well at night.

  8. Greg Brophy's head explodes.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-24/colorado-first-state-to-clamp-down-on-fracking-methane-pollution.html

    "Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC), Noble Energy Inc. (NBL) and Encana Corp. (ECA), among the state’s largest oil and gas producers, worked with the Environmental Defense Fund to craft regulations approved yesterday by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission that would fix persistent leaks from tanks and pipes. "

  9. Octreotide is indicated for the treatment of the side effectsof terminal cancers.

    It does not cure any disease.

    Distributing benefits over a population, whether insured lives within a captive insurance pool, or the population at large, involves decisions of cost v. benefit. Not all conditions can be treated without regard to cost.  Nothing stops anyone for paying out of pocket for a treatment they are denied.

    1. So what you're saying is that this medication does not prevent death and so a denial can't be seen as causing death. And private insurers have been making these kinds of decisions all along without a peep from the right. Another sad personal tragedy exploited for political purposes by the right. Surprise, surprise.

      1. It's called rationing.

        It's always existed, but no one wants to talk about it.  

        If you think we pay too much for health care, you're in favor of it.

        Republicans think rationing should be done in such a way that rich people who can afford it should have every high-tech treatment possible to extend their cancer ridden lives a month or two, at the expense of basic health care for poor people (moochers) which can extend lives by decades.  Look at life expectancy stratified by wealth.

        I guess those leeches deserve to die.

    2. That was only one of the drugs used for her cancer treatment.  Here is what the drug does, from webmd:

      "Octreotide is used to treat severe watery diarrhea and sudden reddening of the face and neck caused by certain types of tumors (e.g., carcinoid tumors, vasoactive intestinal peptide tumors) that are found usually in the intestines and pancreas. The symptoms occur when these tumors make too much of certain natural substances (hormones). This medication works by blocking the production of these hormones. By decreasing watery diarrhea, octreotide helps to reduce the loss of body fluids and minerals.

      Octreotide is also used to treat a certain condition (acromegaly) that occurs when the body makes too much of a certain natural substance called growth hormone. Treating acromegaly helps reduce the risk of serious problems such as diabetesand heart disease. Octreotide works by decreasing the amount of growth hormone to normal levels.

      This drug is not a cure for these conditions. This medication is usually used with other treatment (e.g., surgery, radiation, other drugs)."

      The drug helps regulate symptoms so she can continue to live a near normal life.  She has had the cancer for years and been putting up the good fight.  By itself, this drug does not cure cancer.  It is an important part of the equation that has kept her alive.

      1. Are you her doctor?  If not, that's just made up bullshit.  There is no evidence that octreotide extends life.

        Furthermore, the story you linked to above shows that she was lied to by her insurance company, and that the ideology of Virginia's former (GOTP) governor prevented the state from creating an exchange which led to her problems finding new insurance.

        Weak sauce.

         

        1. DP, I am not her or anyone else's doctor.  

          I did read the article on the drug.  

          I did not say the drug cures cancer or extends her life.  

          The article states the drug is given to address a symptom of her type of cancer and helps reduce the loss of body fluids and minerals.

          DP are you suggesting the Doctor who has been treating her is pulling one over on her and she does not need the drug?

          If the Doctor thinks the drug is medically necessary to manage her cancer treatments, the basis for your disagreement is what?

      2. You cited a source- thank you.

        Data does not support your conclusion about life extension.  But still- it was covered before, and the story and you claim it's not now because of ACA. And the writer and his mom clearly believe it was improving the patient's quality of life.

  10. Funny. I don't recall any righties complaining about private insurers denying various cancer treatments and medications, refusing to offer new coverage to cancer patients who had lost their insurance along with their jobs(citing their cancer as a pre-existing condition) or dropping cancer patients altogether when they were judged to have become too expensive. That was all perfectly OK, just private business functioning as God intended in a free marketplace to maximize profit. Viva capitalism and all that.

    Whether or not they can finally manage dig up a story here and there that's both accurate and spin free, surely deaths resulting from common and long established private insurer practices must have been legion for decades. The fact that this concern of theirs for cancer sufferers in relation to insurance coverage is something brand new, never before heard from them prior to the advent of ACA, indicates that it is motivated by a perception that  such people can now be used as tools for political purposes. Otherwise they would have been making these same accusations against private insurers for years, calling the private insurers murders wouldn't they? 

    What a bunch of  stone cold, heartless, repulsive hypocrites. They couldn't care less about the truth or falsehood of their stories or about all of the people who have struggled and failed to access quality healthcare in our barbaric death panel for profit system while the rest of the civilized world has moved on to treating access to health care as something that should be available to everyone in a prosperous modern state. 

    1. BC, your lack of recollection are not words of limitation and  does not mean it did not happen.  T

      he old battles on the cancer treatment front were whether the treatment was experimental and therefore not covered.  

      Many of the lawyers fighting that fight are conservatives and battles like that have been going on for years.

       

    2. Well BC, ya gotta see it from the GOTP's perspective.  The Insurance Racket, I mean Industry, has been a really profitable, and lucrative source of campaign funds for them.  Sure, it still suffers from all the problems you outlined above.  Republicans have been sitting on their fat asses for decades with no hint of solving them.

      Now that Democrats have made this first initial step in solving the issues and bringing relief to millions of Americans, well, now we *own* all the pre-existing problems that haven't been solved through legislation.  But that might have added a few more pages to the bill, and you *know* Republicans hate to read bills.

      So look at the big picture here.  If the GOTP can smear their crap all over Democrats and win more seats, just think of the massive profits to Republican politicians and CEO's will reap! 

      Millions suffering for GOTP monetary gains?  In the words of Lord Cheney:  "So what?"

      As you can see below, the little ash borer has already moved on to the next bit of nonsense,

      1. Love the way he completely ignores how righties never protested private insurers denying people for pre-existing conditions or dropping them when they thought they were costing them too much or how righties have been (up until they could blame Obama and Udall) completely unconcerned with the people who couldn't afford insurance but weren't poor enough for medicaid or who had to go bankrupt before being poor enough

        This is one of those arguments, like the way Rs supposedly really do care about women, they are never ging to win unless people stop believing their own lyin' eyes. Everyone knows they've always supported every piece of legislation that restricts women's healthcare choices and ability to receive equal pay for equal work, have never supported access to quality healthcare over private corporations' profits or the kind of immigration reform the hard working families who contribute so much to our economy need. They aren't going to attract more women or more Latinos and they aren't going to get anyone with more sense than a fence post to believe they care about the little guy's healthcare.  They should stick with the free market, freedom, anti-commie message because the caring so darn much message just isn't going to fly. It doesn't help that most of the stories are untrue with a sprinkling of those that are only mostly untrue but not at all relevant to the point they think they make. 

        What they are going to get here in Colorado Is Udall remaining our Senator and Hick remaining our Governor. 

        1. Exactly.  And the current freakout in GOP-controlled legislatures doing everything they can to ban abortion, prosecute women and doctors, and bring back discrimination should remove any doubt in voters minds what will happen 10 seconds after any GOP candidate is sworn into office.

          I'm waiting for Kansas to reinstate slavery since they missed out on their chance during the Civil War.

          http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/kansas-enters-the-union

  11. How are things going for Obama in Texas?

    Here is the polling for the Dem primary for Senate:

    View image on TwitterRogers thinks Obama should be impeached and the ACA should be gone.

     

    3. Republican hacks like AC will never be satisfied until the Epic Failure that Was Richard Nixon is paid back on a (D) president. Oh wait, that won't satisfy them either. They stupidly attempted that pay back over a blow job, and more stupidly talk about it over a popular president pursuing popular policies, while they dream of turning back the clock on American Society to the <s>1950s</s> 1850's. 

    1. Walmart clearly hasn't thought the Walmarization of the economy through to its logical conclusion;  a low income worker class with so little buying power they can't afford Walmarts's prices and nobody else wants their crap. 

      1. Walmart's new business plan will include opening charitable food and clothing banks.  The margins could be pretty good if they keep 70 cents out of each dollar of donations, and have no cost of goods sold.

        1. Walmart:  Pays its people crap wages, drives the mom-and-pop stores out of business, slaps down the unions, and then makes a frigging profit from the charity drives to help all of their working-poor employees?

          Walmart deserves:

           

           


          var _giphy = _giphy || []; _giphy.push({id: ‘TMmR0ZJe3EJi0’,w: 500, h: 214});var g = document.createElement(‘script’); g.type = ‘text/javascript’; g.async = true;g.src = (‘https:’ == document.location.protocol ? ‘https://’ : ‘http://’) + ‘giphy.com/static/js/widgets/embed.js’;var s = document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(g, s);

          2. Sorry MJ55, I was making a bad joke about the business plan for Walmart opening charities.  Some really bad charities have a 70% overhead rate.  I combined the two plausible circumstances into one sarcastic comment.

            Apologies if you took me seriously.

                1. But if I had written something for the rightwing nutters, it would have been all over 50 "conservative" websites by now, and probably at least a banner flashing by on Faux News.

                  1. No, to get that kind of coverage, you'd have to work in an obamacare horror story somehow. 

                    Walmart workers somehow mistakenly paid $10.50/hour,  enrolled through the Affordable Care Act, having good health insurance for their families and deliriously happy, realize that they don't need to work at Walmart anymore, and storm out the doors, thereby crushing several customers.

                    Clearly Obama's fault. And Udall's, of course.

                     

                    1. I won't hold my breath for that to actually happen, but yep, it could make the headlines of the WSJ tomorrow!

            2. It did sound really plausible. I bet that Walmart does take tax deductions, or has one of its foundations take it, for its "charitable" work, necessitated by underpaying its employees.

    1. Wait, David, how can putting out of business all those paving companies, not to mention automobile manufacturers, parts suppliers and dealerships (not to mention taxi drivers 😉 be good for the economy?  And horrors! All the gasoline that won't get sold!

      Working from home, I only put two thousand miles on my car last year.  Sorry if I'm a one man economic wrecking crew!  Blame it on my fast internet.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

55 readers online now

Newsletter

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