ColoNoCoHusker

Non-democrats, like me, want OUR MONEY (taxes) spent educating OUR KIDS on schools WE CHOOSE. Bad schools will lose students, and the funding per student, as they should. It's called competition. The worst schools admins and teachers will find themselves out of game, eventually, which is where they belong. Choice! It's a right!!! Choice! Choice! Now to to OP....sounds great. If he can get half of it passed it will provide for major improvements. Old Mitch Mc appears to be quite opposed to not being able to stay in the Senate until he dies. Hopefully he loses that fight (term limits not life/death fight ha I don't want him dead just want him out of government). So you advocate getting rid of all forms of socialism, like taxes and Medicaid/Medicare, right? It's one thing to reform the tax/funding structure. It's another thing to say a tax has to be spent on you directly. How about we refund all taxes that finance schools for those that do not have children? How about we remove the gas tax and make every road a tollway? That way, only the people that use the road bear the cost for it. As Knap suggested, there is a huge part of the social good in these types programs. Areas adjacent to the worst-performing schools typically have higher crime rates. Part of that around Denver is young people skipping school but have nothing to do. Apparently, availability of time couplde with lack of financial means has a negative impact on crime rate...

I know public schools hate charter schools. There doesn't seem to be as much of the hate towards private schools from what I can tell but that might just be what I think/feel. I don't think there is hate but in Colorado, there has been a school voucher push for 20 years or so now. It's been an active fight for awhile as with some other states.

I can make vague, subjective, and unsubstantiated statements as well. It does not make any of them true. "Our economy was great in 2008." "Healthcare has never been worse in this country" "Everyone is a whiner" "Republicans are..." If you are going to make vague, subjective statements without any concrete examples, how is anyone supposed to interpret it correctly? You say things are worse and more strained but provide nothing of substance around this. I asked for clarification and you still refuse to provide it and are acting a little snippy over it. If you are going to emote and provide unsubstantiated opinion, this is what you will get...

That's what I was going to say. From what I am hearing within the CDE, it is basically a national school voucher act as of right now. Everyone has the right to send their child to any type of school they choose. The idea that paying for non-public school is any type of a tax break not only widens the education gap between have & have-nots but officially punishes those without financial means to pay for school directly. Taking money away from public to pay for the credit further punishes public schools. Affordable childcare & eldercare fall into a similar category but we'll have to wait and see how bad those are. Will be interesting to see how the tax code is simplified if we are adding deductions for those that already have some level financial means.

But let's just be calm and see how it goes, right? Nah, you go ahead and do whatever you're going to do now. I'm done trying to calm anybody down. But personally, I'm going to wait to lose my sh#t for when some actual racist legislation begins or executive order actually occurs. What if there is never any change in legislation but hate crimes increase 200, 300, 400%? Do you mean an escalaton in race related problems like we have seen these last few years while Obama was in the White House? That type of increase, with generally worse race relations in the country? Sure, I guess you can blame one man, DJT, for that if you wish. JJH - Just so we are clear... You are stating that the erosion of white male privilege; the war against institutional & systemic discrimination in police, government service, healthcare, and financial sectors; a minuscule improvement in fair pay for women & minorities; and a focus on Ability/Capability/Achievement rather than on Race/Color/Creed/Religion/Gender/Sexual Orientation/other arbitrary classification are, in fact, a worsening of race relations in this country? Or, are you stating the improvement minorities expected 8 years ago have not been fully realized in this country and we still have a long way to go before women and non-white male heterosexuals have the same rights and privileges in their daily lives as white male heterosexuals? Sincerely ~72% of US population

What he says is "grounds for impeachment". Quite frankly EVERY POTUS in my lifetime and probably ever could fit this bill. It does not mean impeachment proceeding will be undertaken nor does it mean they will be successful. It simply means a justification to start them. Impeachment is purely a political process. In the Constitution, grounds for impeachment are "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors". The Constitution only specifically defines treason. Bribery is well established in American law. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is highly subjective. It can be ANY perceived allegation of misconduct. Common examples in history are: abuse of authority, intimidation, misuse of assets, misappropriating government funds, failure to supervise, maladministration, dereliction of duty, appointing unfit subordinates, suppressing petitions, granting warrants without cause, conduct unbecoming, or inappropriately using the influence of office. I don't think it is going out on a limb to say that Trump will give grounds for impeachment. There is no way Republicans are going to impeach a Republican president unless Trump turns out to be worse than everyone's worst fears. Those fears are pretty extreme no matter how it is viewed.

Oh give me a break...now playing the gender card. What is wrong with you? If I had said "Trump only won because he's a man," you could argue I was playing the gender card, whether that's true or not. But it doesn't apply to my post. My post is essentially: "This guy is sexist. How is he a good pick?" If you don't understand how that's not playing the gender card, you need to learn what the phrase means. Here's another example to clear it up for you: If I wasn't female I would have gotten an A on this exam. Good job not actually answering my question. First bold - I agree. Words & actions are both being ignored/discounted. Take those away and there is nothing left on which to judge someone. It is one thing for someone to say they do not care about a person in power being a racist/sexist/bigot. It is another thing entirely to deny it when there is a lifetime's body of work that proves it. Second bold - Gender-bias is still an issue especially in math/science disciplines. While that may be the gender card, it may also be accurate statement...

I am so utterly confused how so many can have their head in the sand on Trump being a racist. According to many on this board, any Dem that runs automatically is pro-welfare, anti-2nd Amendment, and pro-Big Government. Despite the fact the only POTUS to attempt to decrease the Federal government size post-Eisenhower was a Dem. Even if that Dem candidate states the opposite across the board they are decried. However, Trump has acted as a racist/sexist/bigot for 30+ years, makes highly racist/sexist statements, and it's nothing to be concerned about. POTUS sets government policy for every Federal institution and directly influences a number of state/local department policies. There is nothing stopping that policy from disregarding ethics, common decency, or SCOTUS decisions. In many parts of this country, Federal government has to intervene to ensure equal treatment of non-white males. Trump is not deporting ALL Mexicans, just 2-3 million that are "criminals". Define criminal and how that is determined? Trump is not banning Muslim immigration. He will just vet Muslim immigrants more deeply. Pretty easy to create a vetting process that finds most every Muslim doesn't qualify. The same process has kept minorities from qualifying for home loans and women from receiving equal pay for how many decades? It is so easy to trample a group's civil liberties when good people do nothing. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" rings true for EVERY group in our country because it is in fact true for EVERY group in our country...

You don't need therapy because of Obama because Obama didn't run on a campaign where he explicitly stated he was going to deport you, or your friends or loved ones. Those people Donald said he's going to deport - I know some of them and consider them my friends. I'm really supposed to just be happy the president-elect has explicitly stated he'll deport them? Or the fact that 59 million people endorsed that man? He cannot legally deport citizens. If he did, he'd be impeached instantly. There is nothing to be scared about unless you are here illegally, and even if that is the case, he probably won't get around to deporting even illegal immigrants. I hated Trump in the primaries and I was sickened when he was named the Republican nominee. I hated that I had to vote for him. I wish it wasn't like this but it is. Here's the lowdown: Gay marriage will not go away, the Supreme Court has already ruled that. Muslims will not be deported, that's dumb. Women will still be equal to men. Everything legislatively that is in place, will still be in place. First, there is precedent for repealing granted citizenship for foreign-born citizens. Secondly, there is precedent under GW for potentially ignoring the citizenship status with Gadahn I believe. So, DT disenfranchises a segment of population then acts against that segment and what? A Republican Congress will impeach a sitting Republican President when there is murky precedent for the actions? No party would impeach their own President. For reference, Clintion was a Democrat with impeachment effort by Republicans. Nixon was a Republican with impeachment effort by Democrats. Andrew Johnson was a Democrat with impeachment effort by Republicans. No other Presidents have seen progress on impeachment.

Trump will not take away any LGBT rights- Those have already been set by the Supreme Court. I assure he is not worried about repealing human rights that have already been put forward. Not even he is that bad. He is worried about the political issues first, such as ISIS and Obamacare. In the end, I guarantee he will be no worse than any other president we have had. I see why people may be a bit unnerved considering what he has said, but not to fear. Checks and balances are always in play. I have stated this at least once on HB already but I will walk you through it. Trump HAS stated he will take away LGBT rights. Let's start there and assume he was not bold-face lying. Newt Gingrich, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Mike Huckabee have stated it is Constitutionally valid & legal for the POTUS to ignore or defy a Supreme Court ruling. Further, the GOP partially funded research for a book published in 2015 to dispel the myth of "Judicial Supremacy" or the idea that only the Supreme Court can interpret law & Constitutionality. Again, in 2015, the GOP researched whether it would be legal for HRC, should she become president, to ignore the Supreme Court decision re: Citizen's United and act against them. The Conservative Research Group determined that would Constitutionally valid. Gingrich, Carson, Cruz, and other GOP Conservatives have cited as precedent actions by Presidents Andrew Jackson, Abe Lincoln, FDR, Thomas Jefferson, Eisenhower, and Obama. While most of these are murky at best, Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR are more or less examples of the POTUS defying Judicial Supremacy. Further, these Conservatives have argued the only reason for the POTUS to support Supreme Court rulings is based on what? Tradition would be the answer... Lastly, the only possible way the POTUS could be held in check in defying Judicial Supremacy of the Supreme Court is if Congress unilaterally took action against the POTUS. Do you honestly believe a Republican Congress would do that to the Republican President on an issue the Republication Party unilaterally opposes? Is it more likely DT will hold to tradition as POTUS? Or, is it more likely, as an outsider brought in to "Drain the Swamp" DT would break from tradition? Some light reading on the topic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/19/the-myth-of-judicial-supremacy/ http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/04/can-the-president-lawfully-ignore-a-supr http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lyle-denniston/gingrich-supreme-court_b_1017418.html http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-12/ben-carson-invokes-dred-scott-decision-as-precedent-for-ignoring-supreme-court-rulings https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/25/obama-immigration-and-10-words-in-the-constitution-that-mean-mr-president-dont-be-a-king/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/29/mike-huckabee/huckabee-supreme-court-cant-overrule-other-branche/ Some relevant google searches: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=1101&q=can+the+president+overrule+the+supreme+court&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8ubf_mqLQAhVX-mMKHbtCCu8Q1QIIigEoAg https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=1101&q=can+the+president+defy+the+supreme+court&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8ubf_mqLQAhVX-mMKHbtCCu8Q1QIIiwEoAw https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=1101&q=how+does+the+supreme+court+enforce+its+decisions&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8ubf_mqLQAhVX-mMKHbtCCu8Q1QIIjAEoBA https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=1101&q=can+the+president+override+a+supreme+court+decision&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8ubf_mqLQAhVX-mMKHbtCCu8Q1QIIjQEoBQ https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=1101&q=who+enforces+supreme+court+decisions&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8ubf_mqLQAhVX-mMKHbtCCu8Q1QIIjgEoBg https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=1101&q=can+congress+overturn+a+supreme+court+decision&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8ubf_mqLQAhVX-mMKHbtCCu8Q1QIIjwEoBw

Dudeguyy & Zoogs addressed the bulk of my response. We'll have to have words later... ;P Seriously, what really is BS is this mindset of "Love it or Leave it". What this country NEEDS is for people to have a sense of outrage and for people to act RESPONSIBLY on that outrage. We need people to be "All In" regardless of whether they are Dem's, Repub's, Lib's, Socialists, whatever. If someone loves this country, why would they NOT try to make it better? And yes, I said these same things when Obama was elected, GW, Clintion, etc. I believe in "see a problem, solve a problem" mindset. How else can we make our part of the world a better place to live? I believe it is every persons responsibility in this Great Country of OURS to leave the USA better than we found it. I am a white, middle class, hetero male. It is a personal affront to me for any person to be marginalized based on skin color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, education, language, whatever. Since at least High School, I have been outraged at the inequity in our system. I also believe the worst thing that someone can do is ruin another person's potential. That is core to my being. Since 10th grade I have actively worked to address this by volunteering with organizations that help the underprivileged. For many years now I have worked with the CDE & a number of school districts on programs to get under-represented minorities (woman, Hispanics, blacks) into math & technology fields. Ultimately I feel like I want to be the best person I can be. I cannot do that if everyone around me is mediocre. So, I try to help everyone I can to be the best version of themselves. If DT continues to act on his racist, sexist, and degrading position, that is diametrically opposed to everything I hold dear. So why would I not leave? As Zoogs said, the fight is here. Anything worth loving is worth fighting for, yes?

#DraintheSwamp #PoliticalOutsiders woot, woot!!! EDIT: In all seriousness, trying to Govern is not like running a business. Government is about facilitation. While change might be needed, failing to understand history, precedent, and how things work is the worst type of extravagant ignorance. Deniers, apologists, and family are not going to bring any kind of positive change. Should be fun to watch /s

Another one? Or is this the one that happened after Halloween weekend? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/04/murder-in-a-small-wisconsin-town/ Here's some other fodder... http://www.thefrisky.com/2016-11-10/there-are-way-too-many-stories-of-people-being-harassed-following-trumps-victory/ https://medium.com/@seanokane/day-1-in-trumps-america-9e4d58381001#.7j73x0wsi https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/11/06/the-frightening-effect-of-trump-talk-on-americas-schools/ http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/education/index.ssf/2016/11/students_yelling_cotton_picker_heiling_hitler_at_this_local_school.html#incart_most-read_warren-county_article

I was not a fan of it but I never saw this as only benefiting the 1%. It benefited corporations mostly and imo benefited the top ~25%. The fact it exported the DMCA ruined the Intellectual Property provisions. The Labor Standards provisions were what the AFL-CIO had been wanting for years. I think the problem is a number of unions and working class believe the lost manufacturing jobs will return. It will never happen if for no other reason than automation. Anyway, will be interesting to see what takes its place. I do believe we need some kind of trade agreement to offset the hold China has on the Pacific Rim...

Yep everyone has selected outrage. I am tired of the whole "She got more popular vote" argument. Neither side was trying to win the popular vote. Candidates don't go to states they aren't competitive. No one knows if Trump would have won the popular vote if that's what the election was about. By that I mean, if Trump is trying to win the popular vote, he probably would have gone to states he was losing, just to keep the margin closer, and vise versa. To mention the popular vote loss is kind of like losing a football game 9 (three field goals) to seven (one touchdown), and saying the team with seven really won because they scored more touchdowns. I agree. I am tired of arguing about this. It's almost like nobody paid attention in Civics/Poly Sci class, ever. This is how a Republic is supposed to work if it is focused governing for inclusion rather than exclusion or repression... For POTUS, we use the Electoral College in a Republican (not Deomocratic) form of Government to address essentially the "Tyranny of the Majority" situation. This is the rationale behind "Checks & Balance" system and quite frankly is what sets our government apart from every other Democratic/Republican government on the planet... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/the-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-51/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/detoc/1_ch15.htm https://edsitement.neh.gov/curriculum-unit/alexis-de-tocqueville-tyranny-majority https://docs.google.com/document/d/13wL3GjIpa3ZPSU8QxmL_MdNxDwigGEuN3Ofnqgi9PLA/preview Sorry, this has been a pet peeve of mine for too long

BRB - maybe I am missing the posts but I don't think anyone is decrying Trump "because a Democrat didn't win". I know if Hillary won I would be discussing a different set of issues. Active disenfranchisement and discrimination as formal policy would not be one, however... I would say, even in the primaries on both sides, the best candidates from each party did not participate. Personally, I think both parties are alienating the best they have to offer. Those candidates are moving on before growing up within the party enough to run for POTUS. I work with someone that was a brilliant "up & comer" in the Republican party but got fed up with the "hierarchy of politics" internal to the party as she stated it. She ended up moving into the private sector & now has more influence on the party than she did as a politician. "Too big to fail" applies to our 2 main parties at this point and I do not see that changing anytime soon.

I am out of +1s and would really like to avoid having to wait until tomorrow. I am not looking for a handout. Unfortunately, HB does not support bitcoins so bartering for something equally amorphous is a challenge... Below are some of my favorite quotes. If you like any of them, please give a +1 to one of the below posts. If you don't like any of the quotes, can you spare +1 for these posts anyway? "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein "Be the change that you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi "If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals." - J.K. Rowling "We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." - Plato "Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear." - Ambrose Redmoon "The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking." - A. A. Milne "We are what we repeatedly do; excellence, then, is not an act but a habit." — Aristotle "Sometimes I worry about being a success in a mediocre world." - Lily Tomlin "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President. Now I’m beginning to believe it." - Clarence Darrow "Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence." - Hanlon’s Razor "Do. Or do not. There is no try." – Yoda "It's a trap!" - Admiral Ackbar "Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." - Lao-Tze Posts needing +1s: http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81454-happy-veterans-day/&do=findComment&comment=1769396 http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81454-happy-veterans-day/&do=findComment&comment=1769496 http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81448-crying-and-bing-about-trump/page-2&do=findComment&comment=1769500 http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81448-crying-and-bing-about-trump/page-2&do=findComment&comment=1769487 http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81448-crying-and-bing-about-trump/page-2&do=findComment&comment=1769480 http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81448-crying-and-bing-about-trump/&do=findComment&comment=1769469 http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81448-crying-and-bing-about-trump/&do=findComment&comment=1769455 http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81456-why-is-donald-trump-a-racist/&do=findComment&comment=1769498 http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81456-why-is-donald-trump-a-racist/&do=findComment&comment=1769503

I'm not doubting that you heard this. But who would book an abortion more than a couple weeks out? That doesn't make sense. : That seriously doesn't make sense. So, are these women expecting to get pregnant and need an abortion? I'm assuming they're booking for basic gyn care and routine stuff. That too goes away if PP is defunded, and it's the majority of what they do. Just because it's a location that provides abortions doesn't mean that's all that's being booked there. It's one of the only hospitals in the state that schedules this procedure and the hospital draws along the front range which is around ~4.8 million people. I have no idea the actual number of openings they have for this procedure. The staff that do the procedure are borrowed from other practices so there is a practical limit. I assume it is very low relative to any other hospital clinic. The real fear that some people may lose rights here in a couple months is causing people to feel like they have to make certain decisions. I don't know how else to explain it... Which is completely irrational. Trump can not all of a sudden come in and on the first day make abortions illegal or even greatly reduce women's health care. If he does, that will take a while to accomplish. So, all of a sudden calling up the hospital to schedule an abortion or other procedure to make sure it is taken care of before he gets inaugurated is not rational. Pretty sure I stated that fear makes people act irrationally... http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81448-crying-and-bing-about-trump/&do=findComment&comment=1769466 It depends how Trump decides to go about this change. There is a precedent going all the way back to Andrew Jackson for the POTUS to act in defiance of the rulings of the Supreme Court. Should DT choose this route, it would take days to accomplish since the POTUS has enforcement power. I do not see a Republican controlled Congress forcing alignment here. I am not saying it will happen. But, DT has made his position known and if anyone would throw Executive Restraint out the window, wouldn't it be DT? I mean that's why so many voted for him, yes?

My impression, coming from a background of little knowledge, as that the main problem is the prices the drug companies charge. I'm sure the insurance companies are far from guilt-free, but I think the drug companies are the biggest problem. It's everything. The medical supply manufacturers, distributors, pharma, tech manufacturers, insurance, even hospitals & medical providers. The federal regulations alone are impossibly stringent for good reason. But this means that cost is an afterthought. A buddy is a programmer for a medical device manufacturer. For the typical devices he works on, 20 hours of coding requires nearly 140 hours of testing. If he does a full month of coding, it generates a year's worth of testing effort. They bring it down with around the clock automation, parallel testing, etc but it blows back up with more coders on the project. This is for mid-range devices that are at most medical centers. Ironically, the hardest part is finding a company that can provide circuit boards that will last the life of the machine. They ended up in-sourcing this a couple years ago. Another company out here builds custom surgical tools for surgeons. They are very expensive but will last several lifetimes and are custom fit for the Dr. They help avoid hand/muscle fatigue and prevent complications being high precision instruments. These instruments are manufactured to stricter tolerances than the "off-the-shelf" counterparts. Even so insurance companies stopped covering surgeries where the surgeon used these instruments since they were "custom". The solution ended up requiring the Doctors to purchase the instruments through the hospital or insurance company to be covered. If you are a neurosurgeon who does surgery at 3 hospitals, you have to purchase 3 sets. As a hospital, do you want to purchase custom instruments for every surgeon? So most Doctors looked at purchasing them through the insurance company. The markup was something like 125%. It's a no-win. My point with the above is how efficiency really is not a factor and there is no motivation for any segment to work with another segment. It really the definition of a broken system. EDIT: As far as costs, most fee schedules for most procedures are based on the Medicare fee schedules. However, this whole system is broken. Different shops have different costs but everyone knows nobody charges less than X... Competition has nothing to do with it when everyone knows the consumer has no other option...

I'm not doubting that you heard this. But who would book an abortion more than a couple weeks out? That doesn't make sense. : That seriously doesn't make sense. So, are these women expecting to get pregnant and need an abortion? I'm assuming they're booking for basic gyn care and routine stuff. That too goes away if PP is defunded, and it's the majority of what they do. Just because it's a location that provides abortions doesn't mean that's all that's being booked there. It's one of the only hospitals in the state that schedules this procedure and the hospital draws along the front range which is around ~4.8 million people. I have no idea the actual number of openings they have for this procedure. The staff that do the procedure are borrowed from other practices so there is a practical limit. I assume it is very low relative to any other hospital clinic. The real fear that some people may lose rights here in a couple months is causing people to feel like they have to make certain decisions. I don't know how else to explain it...

I'm not doubting that you heard this. But who would book an abortion more than a couple weeks out? That doesn't make sense. : My neighbor is a Dr at that hospital. Normally, they scheduled these procedures 5-10 days out. All available openings for the next 6 weeks have been taken the past 2 days. She's been there more than 10 years and has never seen anything like this. These are all women that were already contemplating abortion but the majority have stated their fear of losing the option or being punished pushed them to move on the decision now. It is sad from every angle and it shows the real fear a lot of people have right now. I can only assume that fear makes people act irrationally...

That's so last decade but nice to see Cali finally moving forward... /s The corporate industry has existed for some time but it will be very slow expanding to other states. Until the Federal government takes MJ off the schedule 1 list, these corporations are not going to be able to fund or drive anything outside their states. The regulations for growers & dispensaries is worse than for your typical drug store. Most of the growers in Colorado have to buy their grow equipment through local distributors to avoid running afoul of Federal laws. It's pretty amazing really. That said, the tax windfall is what will drive this into other states. In Colorado, 2016 taxes were estimated around $200+ million between sales, excise, and delivery taxes and license fees. Anything over $40 million goes towards an education fund. However, the CDE and various public school districts have been complaining the excess is not making it outside the Dept of Revenue and into the correct education bucket. The Dept of Revenue is loath to track dollars and this will become a very public issue as more schools question it.

It's a message that a lot of folks on HB and elsewhere have been saying. Thornton wrapped it up pretty nicely tho. Good find!

I have noticed a lot of folks saying it is not the end of the world with DT as prez, everyone is overreacting, etc. For white male heterosexuals, that may be a true statement. You really need to understand that for folks that are not in that category, DT's comments create a very scary time. I took today off work to help with some community counseling. There are a TON of American-born children that are very concerned their Mexican parents will be deported. We're not even talking illegals here; we are talking naturalized citizens, green-card holders, legal residents. I have two employees that are gay. Both are beyond worried they will be stripped of their personal rights; one is married and couldn't be prouder of his spouse. They are in the process of adopting a child they have been fostering. If their marriage is invalidated the adoption will not go through and they will be devastated. I hate to think what will become of the child. A local hospital that provides abortions has suddenly been booked out through the end of the year. Women are afraid of losing their right to choose or being criminally punished once DT takes office. They are moving forward with abortions in the lame duck period and I think a lot of these women may have chosen another route if DT had not been elected. I am not criticizing anyone that voted for DT. People need to vote how they feel. However, I do not understand how all these DT supporters cannot understand the fear certain classes of citizens have when this fear is based directly on statements DT has made. Not spin, not media, not opposing party rhetoric but purely DT's actual comments. The marginalization I am worried about starts with the inability to understand our fellow people.

An open competitive market only drives the price down when the product or service can be commoditized. The healthcare insurance industry has consolidated massively over the last 45+ years but hospitals and medical centers can't really take the same approach. Overall, commoditizing this sector is nearly impossible where life & death are concerned. What's your life worth or the life of someone about which you care deeply? Even if one were to do some "trust-busting", collusion is built into the structure of the insurance system from the get-go. Everybody knows everyone else's costs are and everyone knows what every center charges and what every policy covers. There is little organic market growth that can occur so the best way to increase revenue is to increase rates/premiums, grow into neighboring segments, or own the entire vertical. Most of the good doctor's that are leaving are doing so because they can make more $ doing something else. If we pay Dr's more to keep them, where does that money come from? Insurance companies are not going to forego record profits... The state of healthcare even prior to ACA is pretty much that of a public utility without any oversight. Having done some work around the core systems for the largest healthcare providers, I personally do not see being able to address the cost problem without destroying the industry and starting over.