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
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
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 22, 2014 04:40 PM UTC
74 Comments
"She is a Republican, therefore her argument is invalid."
I've always known that's how Colorado Pols feels, but thanks for coming out and saying it.
Going to share with us your definition of "statism"?
She's not a shill! She's a victim! Why can't you leave her alone!!?!?
Come on Modster. It's not that hard. If you really have no idea what you're saying when you say "statist" you can easily look it up online. While your at it you can look up all the other words you repeat as the Borg dictates. They do have meanings. Just not what you think they mean.
Correction, Moddy. When a Republican activist of some wealth peforms a put-up job on behalf of facist billionaire brothers, her argument is invalid.
And in case you are too young to know the term put-up job:
put-up job
a deception; a deceptive event. : That's really phony. A put-up job if I ever saw one.
A question: For her "performance"–how much is she going to be paid?
She can't be paid for her performance Harley. However, she is now eligible for a little known program called AFP STOOGE CARE. As a free market alternative to the completely communistic Obamacare, you pay more than you can afford into a healthcare plan privately administered by Halliburton, and they deny you coverage or actual " health care " (whatever that is). You may die from this plan if you get sick by your own fault, but you die so with the satisfaction that freedom is happening out there somewhere…
I'm pretty sure her compensation is doled out in the form of Koch-bucks, which can be redeemed for services at places like The Fladen Law Center, such as their popular "LIKE and totally SHARE everything you post on Facebook for a small retainer" package.
Of course, you made this up. It doesn't say this anywhere in the article. So you make shit up and put it in quotation marks to try to convince someone that is what is being said. You are as dishonest as you are obtuse.
AFP stooge rollout masquerading as Obamacare victim. Wow, thats original.
Be wary when its never about the facts, but the emotions. " I'm frightened ". The greatest way to alleviate fear of something is to gather information about it.
Or you could just remain " frightened" BOO !!!!
Don't forget, "AFP stooge conveniently forgets critical piece of the story that changes everything", like, "I didn't even try check the exchanges online because I was afraid Obama would come through the computer and force everyone in my family to get gay married and have abortions", or, just as ludicrous, "My wife lost her wallet and I'm too dumb to figure out what to do without it."
No kidding. I didn't bother to check, but i'm frightened that I'll pay more, even though i'll probably pay less. If I do end up paying less well then " look, over there " !
What a bunch of bullshit.
I'm sympathetic to "my wife lost her wallet". Imagine if his wife had been a citizen in a state with required voter ID. No vote for her.
I am sympathetic to that part too Phoneix. Not Carol Perry though. Sheesh.
Here – let me paraphrase, and I'll use a Republican point of view so you can understand: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me – you can't get fooled again."
AFP has dragged out tall tale after tall tale of "Obamacare horror stories". They all have the same features: conservative activist "victim" is "hurt" by ACA, but on inspection their problem is either manufactured, doesn't involve the ACA at all, or was caused by the "victim's" ideological avoidance of comparison shopping on the Exchanges. They're the good old boys who cried "Wolf!" and they're no longer believable. Reporters owe it to their integrity to go over this story with extreme skepticism.
The elimination of pre-existing condition coverage denials and the many other positive features of the ACA far outweight these biased and anecdotal Koch-ads.
Pssst…the word is out…AFP and the koch brothers lie…anything put out by this group can be assumed to be untrue…and they should be ignored…
Like if you've ever switched jobs and lost insurance after donating a kidney to loved one, you can get insurance now. Before you fell under the category of no good deed goes unpunished by the insurance company death panels. And supposed pro-lifers didn't give a damn that we had a system that punished you for saving a life. Free market bla bla and all that. Can't have questions of post womb life and death issues messing with anybody's bottom line and can't have a (shudder) public solution!
I love the denialism here.
That's right Elliot. If anyone is stupid enough to get sick or be born with less than perfect genes, they deserve to suffer and die an early death! But not before bankrupting their family, of course.
Why do we even need a healthcare system in the first place? Survival of the fittest!
Dave you assume that Obamacare will always provide access to healthcare. That assumption is dubious
No one knows whether Obamacare will be the best solution three, four or five decades in the future but one thing is certain this evening. It is certainly working right now. Millions now have health insurance who did not in the past, healthcare costs are rising at the lowest rate in over 50 years (the CBO says as a result of Obamacare) and the Republicans are on the run because they don't have any specific reforms in mind, except of course repeal.
Glad you got my point: if a system isn't perfect, then it should be shit-canned and we should just do nothing until a panacea reveals itself.
Your friend,
Davie
Obamacare, aka ACA, is health insurance, which is related to but different from healthcare. Health Insurance is a financial mechanism that provides risk management (so you don't go bankrupt due to a health crisis), covers a bit of pre-paid medical (so you can get your annual check-up and shots and things, and guarantees coverage for pre-existing conditions and chronic conditions (rheumatoid, etal.). Elimination of junk insurance and lifetime caps; that's also in there.
You are benefitting from Obamacare whether you shop on the exchange or buy directly from an insurer, because the regulatory environment gives you better consumer protection, prevents insurance companies from discriminating, and mandates that everybody contribute which helps prevent cost-shifting from free-loaders using the emergency room and walking out on the bill.
Sorry to burst your libertarian bubble, but the free market doesn't work for everything. The health care system is an obvious example of economic activity that does not function properly without extensive regulations.
Less dubious than any claims you can make that pre-ACA gave people a better shot at coverage.
+8million
Gee there shyster I'd believe you could have told us all precisely why you'd think that assumption is dubious. But you didn't. Why is that?
Because he's too busy doing "mountains'" of paid work to back anything up. Isn't it cute how he stresses the paid part? As if any of us were in doubt that the Fladen Law Center is a bustling hub of legal awesomeness?
I'll tell you – it did.
My son was denied CHP+ up until this year, because we were making too much to qualify for it, but when it expanded, it deemed my son eligble for CHP+ and the yearly payments were done, and it was only $75 annually. Now he has an injury on his left ring finger, he is 100% covered to see the top pediatric hand specialist in Denver next Tuesday.
Would Blue Cross/Blue Shield that was costing us $125 a month to cover for him (Wife and I are on Medicare) was eating into the budget and could decide to deny seeing the specialist for my son. Now we just relax and know he is covered and the office said he is all set. He was seen by an ER in Pennsylvania and seen by their local orthopedic surgeon. Since we didn't have our son's insurance information, we were not forced to pay up. They just told us to mail the information (we did the next day as we flew home the following day) from our insurance card. No demands of payment on discharge, just made sure we had all the paperwork to take care of our son.
This was in the middle of Pennsyltucky. In Harrisburg. I was impressed with the hospital. Even to this day, my son's finger has been pain-free and the instructions weren't complicated.
Hey! Harrisburg isn't part of Pennsyltucky! (Maybe the greater metro area is surrounded by it, but it's not actually a part of it.)
I prefer well-founded cynicism. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me fifty times with the same freaking shady talking points put out by Republican operatives, I must be a freaking idiot.
Is there any evidence that she is "shady"? Beyond donating to candidates you dislike?
I think mama said the talking points were shady. Go back and re-read, this time for comprehension.
The thing is, Elliot, every past victim/horror story that has been trotted out has been quickly debunked. That gives us good reason to take a "prove it' attitude. On the other hand there is no denying that ACA has eliminated being denied for preexisting conditions, being cut off by caps, being unceremoniously dropped for being too sick and costing too much, having to remain at a job simply because you or afamily member are covered under employer provided insurance for something that would make it impossible for you to get new affordable insurance if you left your employer provided insurance. Those are simple facts. All your side manages to come up with are sob stories that are either untrue, slightly true but easily remedied or express "concerns", not established fact.
A person not believing, for instance, that they will actually save money on new coverage and that the coverage will be just as good despite the facts doesn't count as something we're "in denial" about when we point out that, concerned or not, the person simply has the facts wrong. When you can produce a story as concrete as the facts about ACA cited above with back up from a reliable source and we still scoff, then you can complain about "denial".
Also there has never been any major change in any policy that didn't have a downside for at least a a few so coming up with one will hardly prove that ACA is terrible. But we'll accept your example if it meets solid credibility requirements. Until then all the denial seems to be on your side.
Every story has been debunked, including Elliot's; and yet, he's shocked…shocked, I tell you….that people do no ttke the latest one at face value. .
Term Nazi stepping in. Elliot's story hasn't been "debunked" – we can't say that it's false, because he hasn't given us enough information to even begin to evaluate it. It has been "called in to question", along with that of his friend Jessica Peck Corry, and that of Republican Senate candidate Cory Gardner.
Each of those stories make claims that seem misleading based on the little available information we know – but they're not proveably false, at least not easily. The early AFP ads were blatantly false – people were able to dig in and find contradictions that were stupidly simple to spot. But give them credit – they've leaned.
I take your point, but I'm gonna stand fast on the term, seeing as how his "inability" to check the exchange was the whole reason his premiums went up, etc, etc, etc…once again, a critical piece of info left out at first, then ingored, then run awy from at top speed…..
What about my story has been called into question? My policy was cancelled. Link to the cancellation letter is here (with my emotional commentary from about the time I opened it):
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10101032023478473&set=a.10100385503534623.2443806.221368&type=1&theater
I've been busy this week, but now that my wife has a new DL, I'm hoping to examine the exchange shortly.
Post your previous policy and your costs for such policy. Until then, your claim that you are worse off under the ACA is just another unverified anti-ACA story by a right-wing shill/nutjob.
I'll never understand why Elliot goes through so much time and effort to try and salvage his credibility after stunts like this. You'd think a smart guy like him would have figured out that he'd sacrificed his credibility long ago, along with his dignity.
Did I make a claim I was worse of? No. I stated my policy was canceled and that I was pissed it was canceled
Elliot, you're worse than a dose of the clap. That's one man's opinion, but at least GETTING the clap is fun.
Such civility and class. I am in awe 😉
How exactly do you know it wouldn't have been cancelled anyway (without the ACA)? As you're well aware by now, that was a regular occurrence for many people.
Yes, you did. You said,
Thank you Obamacare. Our premiums just went up from about $550 to $825 (cheapest option).
Seriously – Fuck you Obama.
Without mentioning that you hadn't bothered to check the exhange for any rates.
Of course, you'll dodge it with the usual "I didn't say that specifically", but no one takes that, or you, seriously anymore.
And, if you had read my comments, you would have seen that I had called up Connect Colorado and they told me that I couldn't complete the process after spending significant time on the phone due to my wife's lost Driver's License.
And this is why you guys are getting hammered on this. You think that inconveniencing people by screwing up their insurance plans so that you could force them into plans you view as "better" than them is perfectly ok. I, and others, never asked for your opinion on what was a "better" plan for me or to be inconvenienced by your suffcessful efforts to have it canceled. That you ignore and demean those that point it out is the sort of arrgoance that alienates people.
Bullshit, Elliot. You made an assertion knowing full well you didn't have all of the facts, and now you're backpedaling and deflecting.
What assertions do you claim I made and where do you claim I made them?
Agreed. Elliot's story doesn't have to be debunked. It's just lame. So he feels inconvenienced. Big deal. Having to file income taxes is inconvenient. Trying to fly after the dog ate your driver's license is inconvenient. So what?
Blue Cat – WRONG. When this was marketed to the American Public it was not marketed as "we will cancel you plan, and inconvenience you so that we can give you a plan we believe is better for you." Instead it was marketed as "if you like your plan, you can keep it". I liked my plan. You didn't let me keep it. That is on you, not me.
Even better is well-founded skepticism. Skeptics have open minds, but aren't easily duped by phony arguments. Cynics, not so much.
Funny, Elliot. Glad you love our "denialism". We've been bored with yours for ages now.
"Obamacare works perfectly! The people will love it! Everybody who doesn't love it just hasn't been enlightened on how lovely it is!" (paraphrased)
Yeah – just keep singing that tune. Make this election solely about the changes to healthcare you guys rammed through. Or maybe that and fracking. Let's see how that will work.
So….what is the Republican jobs plan, exactly?
Or the Republican Health Care Plan, for that matter.
Remember: ElliotFladen is a Libertarian. The Republican Party is just a strategic vehicle in the power struggle to destroy the functioning of the US Government. The Libertarian ideology is to get rid of regulation and the social safety net so that anarchy, I mean "unfettered free enterprise", can wave its magic wand… "And now you have cholera…", and all that. The idea that the free market system doesn't work is apostasy, never mind the problems of Monopoly, Health Care financing, Energy Policy, Public Education, Concentration of Wealth, Inheritance.
In practice, Libertarianism is just an enabler of Kleptocracy and Oligarchy… as obviously demonstrated by the Koch Brothers.
When I was in college, Libertarians were just kooky characters inspired by Ayn Rands trashy novels. Today, they are polluting the public discourse through extremely well-funded groups like Fox News and Americans for Prosperity.
Elliott's political philosophy is as flexible as his sense of right and wrong when defending the GOPand AFP. Too many twists and turns. That's why it's just more concise to say he's a Koch-sucker.
If you agreed with libertarianism (pragmatic, moral, Big L, little L, etc.) I would not expect you to be a progressive. Surprise!
And if you had any sort moral compass, I would not expect you to be a lawyer.
Looks like it's going to work quite well, actually. There's still a lot of time till November, and week after week it's becoming clear that Obamacare is working!
Well you're certainly not paraphrasing anything I ever said and I don't recall reading many other comments here that even vaguely resemble your paraphrasing. More straw man bull to avoid commenting on the factual positives we've pointed out. Pointing out a number of factual positives is a far cry from what you just made up and call paraphrasing.
Refudiate it shyster.I'd believe your law school education would well equip you to ferret out the weak points of anyone's argument. Unfortunately for you the weak arguments are typically coming from the side you identify with.
Um, this post was about how this so-called "victim" is actually a Republican activist who has contributed THOUSANDS of dollars to Republican causes. Heck, why don't they start running ads featuring Ted Cruz as a "victim" while they're at it?
Or don't you see anything remotely wrong with that repulsive ad?
The real story is that they must be desperate to find somebody – ANYBODY – who is really "victimized" by Obamacare if Carol Perry is the best they can come up with for their ad campaign.
To Eliot's cre
To Eliot's credit, when he was asked to contribute his story to someone desperate for negative Obamacare stories, he declined, saying that he doesn't want to be a poster boy.
I would ask all of you to leave off the ad-hominem attacks on Elliot – "Koch-sucker", "like a dose of the clap", "no moral compass", etc.
Criticize his actions, words, or arguments, not the man himself. On the few issues I agree with Elliot, (immigration reform, anti-racism, pro-gay rights, open and transparent public meetings) his actions are honorable.
And how would you characterize his actions on the issues where you don't agree with him? Obamacare, for example?
I disagree strongly with Elliot, and he knows it. I have had and no doubt will have infinite arguments with him, on here, on facebook, on the phone. I think that, in this particular instance, his circumstances are unfortunate, but that it has very little to do with ACA policy.
So I would characterize those actions as showing shortsightedness, procrastination, and dealing with the old "shit happens" dynamic in less than optimal fashion. Now blaming all of the above on Obamacare, that's political opportunism. I see that about Mr. Fladen pretty clearly, and accept it, though I don't like it.
My political pragmatism leads me to believe that it's important to work with those with whom I do not agree completely, or if working together is not feasible, at least to treat them with humanity.
I think that the demonization of the political opposing party cuts both ways, and keeps us "stuck". It does not mean that I'm some dewy-eyed Kumbaya singer – it does mean that where there is common ground, I will find it and honor it.
Fair enough. I think your analysis of his actions in this case are accurate, if more than a little generous. I wouldn't question your opinion of him personally.
The political opportunism that you accept is what I have a problem with. I have no doubt that on those issues where you agree, he's forthright and honorable. But we've all seen him abandon honor, honesty, and decency on more than one of those issues when there was political capital at stake.
I don't doubt you share beliefs you both hold dear. But from what I've seen here, he may not be holding them as tightly as you are.
Two quick points:
My recollection of the November letter was that it indicated our policy may be cancelled. I don't believe it said it would be.
As for political opportunism, I posted on my fb page and made a comment or two here venting my frustration. How is that opportunism?
I didn't say it was political opportunism. MJ55 did. Ask her. 🙂
Those were to MJ, not you. Comes from commenting by phone.
My wife went for a checkup at Kaiser yesterday and she has not been in quite some time. In the past it would cost her about $ 60 for her diabetes test strips. The charge is now zero.
IM FRIGHTENED !!!!
A week ago, I went in for a check up on my "lady parts". Left the room, went to the checkout counter, got out the checkbook, but…..no charge.
Oh, the horror.
Amen to that mamajama. Bottom line – healthcare is getting better in this country.
Also, I pretty much agree with what you said above about Elliot Fladen. He's not a ridiculous shill, and he clearly has his own mind even if most of the time most of us disagree with him.