January 28-29, 2014
Jan 28 04:12 Speaker Thissen getting defensive, Part II Jan 28 17:14 Leftist confusion Jan 29 01:31 SCSU's vanishing transcripts Jan 29 05:47 MNsure: We deserve better Jan 29 06:16 Electioneering, the SCSU edition Jan 29 07:13 McMorris-Rodgers' response: A star is born Jan 29 09:00 SOTU Address: Defeated Obama appears
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Speaker Thissen getting defensive, Part II
Yesterday, I wrote this post highlighting Paul Thissen's reaction to my post about how unions didn't build the middle class. The activists in the MOB, aka the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers, aren't unlike NATO in that, an attack against one is an attack against all of us. When they saw that Speaker Thissen had taken issue with my post, Mitch Berg and the Lady Logician jumped into the discussion. Here's how the Lady Logician responded to Speaker Thissen's tweets:
You misrepresent the smaller gov't policy stance to mean no govt & that is simply NOT what small gov't ppl want. No one is arguing against roads & education but when govt gets in2 the minutia of telling ppl what lightbulbs 2 buy or what HEALTHCARE to buy or whether or not they can own a specific type of dog, then we are going to argue.
Here's Mitch's response to one of Speaker Thissen's tweets:
The evidence is, in fact, that gov't research *follows* corp. innovation. Ditto education. Not other way around.
Mitch wasn't done schooling Speaker Thissen. Here's the rest of Mitch's tweets to Speaker Thissen:
So did gov't build roads out of pure goodwill? Or did biz pay for them? You're saying government is the only body that can give us clean water? Record shows that's untrue. Most municipal water systems in the US *started* as private enterprises. Nearly a quarter still are. The "gov't brings us all riches" argument is the black/white one. Markets, not politics, deal well with nuance. Either is "private enterprise is lost without government". Or rather it's a fallacious place to start the conversation. At best, it's "assisted" by gov't. But the idea that prosperity follows infrastructure is utterly ahistorical.
That's a typical Mitch-slap. Spoeaker Thissen probably didn't realize conservatives were this principled about free markets and limited government. The reality is that Speaker Thissen didn't address why he thinks government is equipped to run a complex online health insurance business for the entire state. That's essentially what MNsure is. (That isn't just my opinion. It's what Jim Nobles said on Almanac last Friday.)
Was government responding to free markets when they passed legislation that specified what types of lightbulbs could be used? Why did government inject itself into the discussion as to what dogs were legal in Minnesota? Was there an outbreak of dog violence against people? Or were they just inserting themselves into an issue because they were reacting to one of their special interest allies? I'm pretty certain it's the latter.
Speaker Thissen's tweet that questioned whether people could get to their jobs or companies could move their goods without public roads dovetails with President Obama's now-infamous statement that entrepreneurs didn't build their companies, that government did. That's BS. Mitch is right in saying that government might assist entrepreneurs but government isn't what makes businesses thrive.
The Anything But Affordable Care Act is a perfect example of how twisted leftist thinking is. I wrote here about how MNsure made things worse for one Minnesota family:
This Minnesota family is a young married couple with three children. Until ObamaCare and Dayton's MNsure came along they shared the cost of their Blue Cross-Blue Shield family health insurance policy 50/50 with the father's employer. Thanks to ObamaCare, the cost of that policy sky rocketed and is no longer affordable to the family. After endless hours of working with MNsure, here is what resulted.
Without the parent's consent, MNsure jammed their three children onto government insurance. The children are now covered by Medicaid at no cost to the family or employer, but 100 percent cost to the taxpayers. The father had to go with a single insurance plan from his employer and purchase a separate new policy for his wife. Because of the confusion and disarray at MNsure, neither he nor his wife currently has health insurance ID cards for the insurance they have already paid for.
That's why limited government conservatives complain about government overstepping their constitutional authority. Additionally, this shows government isn't capable of running a business.
In other words, government should get its claws out of the things it isn't qualified to do and focus on the things that constitutions limits it to. Limited government conservatives don't hate government, even though that's the propaganda that ABM and other leftist propaganda organizations spread. It's that we understand that the best decisions for families happen at a family's kitchen table.
It's time Speaker Thissen figured that out.
Posted Tuesday, January 28, 2014 4:12 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 28-Jan-14 08:40 AM
You know, it is possible to "love the sinner and hate the sin," and it is likewise possible (and desirable) to appreciate the government while hating all of the stupid stuff it does. As I keep telling them, "if you don't like the criticism, stop doing stupid stuff"!
The other thing I consider axiomatic: Government can have a small positive impact on the economy, but it can have a very large NEGATIVE impact on the economy. Treading lightly is the best course.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Jan-14 10:01 AM
Well stated, Jerry. I wholeheartedly agree. The key is limiting government's intrusions into families' lives.
Leftist confusion
It isn't exactly rare to see leftists misunderstand what the Constitution permits or limits. Still, this LTE shows the Left's lack of understanding of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court decision called 'Citizens United' is a gross misnomer. The court ruled corporations have the same rights as people when it comes to voting rights.
This decision allows corporations to spend millions of dollars to influence elections. This makes it virtually legal to buy elections.
The editorialist is right in that the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. the FEC decision said that corporations have the same right of free speech as citizens. That's because corporations aren't buildings. They're a collection of citizens. As such, they have just as much right to expressing their political opinions as your next door neighbor.
The editorialist is wrong, however, in saying that corporations "have the same rights" as it pertains to "voting rights." Corporations can't vote. They can buy ad time to talk about the things that matter most to them. That isn't the same as casting a vote.
Is this leftist going to argue that corporations aren't protected by the Fourth Amendment just like a private citizen is protected by it? Where in the text of the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment does it say that only individuals are protected by these constitutional amendments? Here's the text of the First Amendment :
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here's the text of the Fourth Amendment :
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment at least mentions "people" being "secure in their persons." The First Amendment doesn't mention any limits to "people." The fact that the text of the Fourth Amendment mentions "people" being "secure in their persons" hasn't prevented the courts from rightly ruling that corporations and small businesses and nonprofits are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. Apparently, this LTE writer doesn't grasp the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, not just individual citizens.
Posted Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:14 PM
No comments.
SCSU's vanishing transcripts
More About Vanishing Transcripts
by Silence Dogood
Nearly two years ago, the faculty raised concerns about grades on transcripts that went "poof", a term coined by Provost Devinder Malhotra in the fall of 2012. Essentially, a "poof" results in all record of a student's registration disappearing from their academic transcript. Officially, it is called a "drop" but "poof" better describes what happens!
There are legitimate reasons for removing the record of a student's registration. If a student has a demonstrated significant medical emergency, financial crisis or is called to active duty from the reserves, almost no one would question whether or not removing the record of registration was appropriate.
The data for the number of "poofs," which comes from the SCSU Business Office, provides a potent visual image:
The data shows that SCSU has had a rapid growth in medical emergencies, financial crises and students being called to active duty that is clearly impressive! Please note that the plot shows only 368 for FY12 but this number reflects data for only the first 9 months of the year - an estimated number based on the same rate of drops for the remaining three months would be 490. However, it might also be expected that the rate of requests for drops might increase towards the end of the semester as well as just after the final date of the semester, so the actual number of 'poofs' in FY12 might be even higher than 490. Even using the nine-month number (368) for FY12, the change from FY07 to FY12 is an amazing 2,500% increase!
Of course, there are other legitimate reasons besides medical emergencies, financial crises or military service for a registration to be removed from a transcript but the sheer growth in numbers is amazing! However, unless the number of medical emergencies, financially crises or students being called to duty has grown dramatically since FY07 and FY08 to match the increase in the number of "poofs", something else must be going on.
The "poofs" also occur with a financial cost. Since the student was essentially never enrolled, a refund of tuition is automatically generated. The following figure created using data from the SCSU Business Office shows the tuition dollar cost of "poofs":
In FY12 alone, the total amount of tuition refunded was $537,104 for nine months and a projected amount of $716,139 (if the data had been collected for the whole year). The total cost for tuition refunds from FY07 through FY12 is projected at almost two million dollars ($1,976,000). What is most disconcerting, at least to some faculty, is that the administration seemed to be more concerned about grades being removed from transcripts because it was costing the university money rather than being a matter of academic integrity!
From the report submitted May 10, 2013 by Associate Provost John Palmer of the subset of data analyzed, "there is no record of any contact with the faculty in at least 31% of the cases reviewed from the sample of cases analyzed from FY12 data." The administration claims to have instituted new policies and procedures going forward to require faculty input. However, they have not admitted that there might have been a problem in the first place!
The data presented by Associate Provost John Palmer also shows that in 60.3% of the cases only a subset of courses taken by a student were changed. Clearly, if you are taking a class on bowling and you break your leg, it might be reasonable to drop the bowling class but stay in your history, English, and online psychology classes. I personally don't remember seeing 221 students walking around in casts during the 2011-12 academic year so, again, maybe something else is going on. It also seems unlikely that someone who is called to fulfill their military commitment will drop only their one on campus class and remain in their three online classes, so military service is not likely a large percentage of the partial course drops.
With such a large number of cases of partial removals of courses, further analysis of the data is needed. Unfortunately, the person responsible for performing the data analysis has been reassigned and the administration views the issue of transcript adulteration closed. Additionally, no data has been presented for FY13, the last full year for which data would be available. It is data that the administration promised at Meet and Confer but has yet to provide. No one is holding their breath!
SCSU clearly wants students to do well and has recently revised its policy on academic forgiveness where a student returning to school after being gone for at least three years can choose to have the grades of courses taken earlier not count in their grade point average (GPA). It is important to note that the grades are not removed from the transcript, only a notation that before a specified time, the grades are not counted in the student's GPA. The intent of this policy, which was openly discussed, was to bring SCSU into line with other MnSCU universities. It is also an attempt to recognize that a student in their first try at college might not be too successful and then upon returning to school later have them not be hurt by their first collegiate efforts. Clearly, this is sane and reasonable policy.
A video on Youtube has surfaced with an audio track of a meeting of the BSW Committee of the Social Work Department on November 2, 2011 as they were reviewing the credentials of students applying for admission to the social work major.
One of the voices on the tape is Dr. Tracy Ore, Chair of the Social Work Department and former Interim Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education and Student Support Services, who, in that latter role, was responsible for reviewing petitions by students to have courses removed from their transcripts. The discussion on the tape was related to students whose GPAs were below the minimum to be admitted to the program. The solution to the problem was simply to have the students get the courses removed from their transcripts. And voila! Students now meet the admission standards to the program.
Clearly, the administration's claim that the removal of courses from transcripts was not a problem either in the sheer numbers of "poofs" or the reasons accepted for granting a student's request are again called into serious question by the revelations on the tape.
It is important to remember that the transcript adulterations were initially discovered because the Chemistry Department instituted a policy where a student taking a class for the third time had to have permission from the instructor to advance register for the course. During registration in the spring of 2012, two chemistry faculty members were reviewing the enrollment for an upcoming fall organic chemistry course and they recognized a student who was enrolled that each of the faculty thought each had failed. They wondered how the student could have registered without prior faculty approval. A review of the student's transcript showed that the student's enrollment in organic chemistry in the Fall of 2011 was erased (none of the other classes the student had taken that semester were removed - just the one chemistry course). The faculty member has a copy of the grade roster submitted to the Office of Records and Registration showing that the student had received a grade of F in the course so this is a mater of fact not just the recollection of a professor. The faculty member was also part of the 31% of the faculty who were never contacted before the grade and registration was removed from the transcript. Releasing identifiable information would violate FERPA but suffice it to stay the student completed the course including taking the final exam and received a grade of "F." The grade and the record of registration for the course were removed. No explanation or justification has ever been given to the faculty member.
Clearly a process whereby students can simply have courses removed from their transcripts after the fact is insane and unreasonable. The fact the SCSU administration does not see this practice, 'poofs', as a problem reflects a disdain for faculty in general and academic integrity specifically. Just as the University of North Carolina's problems with classes that did not exist has been referred to as phony classes and phony grades, SCSU transcript/grade problem can be called the phony transcript problem. Considering the large number "poofs", it calls into serious question the integrity of the administration regarding the maintenance of academic records.
Posted Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:31 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 29-Jan-14 07:06 AM
Amazing that the SC Times ignores all the "real" issues at SCSU and focuses on the fluffy stuff (much like the lame stream media on national issues). So Devinder and his crew did not deal with this and now he has a new job, big pay raise and another university to impact. Wonder if Dr. Ore will follow him to Metro State? inquiring minds want to know.
MNsure: We deserve better
My LTE for the St. Cloud Times is posted today. Check it out to find out why Minnesotans deserve better than what we're getting.
Posted Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:54 AM
No comments.
Electioneering, the SCSU edition
Never should it be said that SEIU will let a straightforward state law get in the way of a little old-fashioned electioneering for the right cause. And promoting an unconstitutional union organizing election certainly fits the SEIU's definition of the right cause. A frequent reader of LFR sent me this email. I've removed the names to protect them from union retribution:
One of the organizations (SEIU Healthcare MN), which presenting a panel at this year's Global Goes Local Conference April 7 and 8th, asked me to pass on this near term job opportunity to SCSU faculty to let any students who might be interested to know about:
http://www.seiuhealthcaremn.org/2014/01/14/job-posting-temporary-home-care-organizer/
JOB POSTING: Temporary Home Care Organizer
SEIU Healthcare Minnesota is hiring organizers to help Home Care workers win the biggest Union election in the history of Minnesota. These organizers will knock on doors and talk to Home Care workers, supporting them in taking collective action and building their Union. When they win their election, Homecare Workers will have the power to pull themselves out of poverty, and to make real improvements not just in their own lives but in the lives of the thousands of seniors and people with disabilities they serve.
Responsibilities
Communicate with workers through house-visits and phone calls.
Identify and recruit leaders among Homecare workers, getting them actively involved in the campaign to form their Union and win improvements for themselves and their clients.
Work effectively both as part of a large team and on your own.
Take and give constructive feedback.
Establish rapport with workers from diverse ethnic, social and economic groups, and experiences of disability.
Visit Home Care workers in their homes in every type of neighborhood in Minnesota.
Be flexible.
Be passionate about the fight to organize Home Care workers and support them in winning a contract that pulls them out of poverty.
Any other responsibilities needed to build Home Care workers' power.
Minimum Qualifications
Excellent listening skills, especially the ability to draw out people's individual stories by asking open-ended questions in direct conversations and phone calls.
Strong organizational skills, including the ability to record accurate information on each conversation with a Home Care worker.
Experience working on your own, managing your time and being accountable for results of your independent efforts.
Strong communication skills, especially the ability to paint a clear picture of the union difference and to provide constructive feedback to coworkers.
Ability to communicate clearly with people from widely varying ethnic, social and economic groups, and experiences of disability.
Ability to recruit strong leaders to take action as part of the Home Care workers' campaign.
Positive attitude.
Strong work ethic.
Must have a valid driver's license and a vehicle in good working condition. Must have proof of auto insurance.
High school diploma or GED required. Higher education preferred.
Experience with election campaigns preferred.
Experience with union organizing preferred.
Experience working with people with disabilities preferred.
Fluency in a second language - especially Somali, Hmong, or Spanish - preferred.
This is a temporary position with a weekly salary of $600. Work will begin with training on February 28, 2014, and we expect this phase of the campaign to continue into May.
Work hours include evenings and weekends.
The position will require a lot of driving, to talk with Home Care workers. Mileage will be reimbursed at the federal rate (currently 56 cents per mile).
Women and people of color are strongly encouraged to apply.
This is illegal since the email was sent from an SCSU email address. First, using MnSCU IT equipment for such purposes violates MnSCU policies, specifically this policy :
System-owned property or services, including the e-mail system, may not be used for political activities, fund-raising, campaigning for union office, union organizing activities, or solicitation of employees for union membership.
Simply put, that's about as direct of a violation as you'll likely find. In some instances, there's room for interpretation. I call those situations 'On the one hand, on the other hand' situations. This doesn't fit into that category. This fits into the 'Yeah, they screwed that up bigtime, didn't they?' category.
Posted Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:16 AM
No comments.
McMorris-Rodgers' response: A star is born
I hate disagreeing with George Will and Charles Krauthammer because they're such intelligent people. Still, that's what I have to do because, last night, I loved watching Cathy McMorris-Rodgers' response to President Obama's depressing SOTU Address. Here's the first highlight of Rep. McMorris-Rodgers' speech:
Tonight the President made more promises that sound good, but won't solve the problems actually facing Americans. We want you to have a better life. The President wants that too. But we part ways when it comes to how to make that happen. So tonight I'd like to share a more hopeful, Republican vision...
One that empowers you, not the government...It's one that champions free markets -- and trusts people to make their own decisions, not a government that decides for you. It helps working families rise above the limits of poverty and protects our most vulnerable.
This is a beautiful explanation of why Republicans believe what they believe. Absent were apologies or tip-toeing so Republicans don't offend liberals. It was just old-fashioned optimism based on the ability of families to "make their own decisions." Thankfully, Rep. McMorris-Rodgers' speech wasn't a laundry list of conservative proposals. This had the feel of a chat at the dinner table. That said, idealism was an integral part of the speech:
The chance to go from my Washington to this one was unexpected.
I came to Congress to help empower people, not politicians, to grow the working middle class, not the government and to ensure that everyone in this country can find a job. Because a job is so much more than just a paycheck; it gives us purpose, dignity, and the foundation to build a future.
While I watched Rep. McMorris-Rodgers' rebuttal to President Obama's SOTU Address, I thought it was sad that President Obama couldn't sincerely tout these principles. President Obama talks about empowering individuals but only within the context of government first making things possible.
While the speech was idealistic, it also sent the message to Democrats that Republicans won't put up with Democrats' policies of decline:
Because our mission, not only as Republicans, but as Americans, is to once again to ensure that we are not bound by where we come from, but empowered by what we can become.
That is the gap Republicans are working to close. It's the gap we all face: between where you are and where you want to be. The President talks a lot about income inequality. But the real gap we face today is one of opportunity inequality...And with this Administration's policies, that gap has become far too wide.
We see this gap growing every single day. We see it in our neighbors who are struggling to find jobs...a husband who's now working just part-time...A child who drops out of college because she can't afford tuition or parents who are outliving their life's savings.
Last month, more Americans stopped looking for a job than found one. Too many people are falling further and further behind because, right now, the President's policies are making people's lives harder.
The great thing about Rep. McMorris-Rodgers' speech is that it wasn't negative. It's that she offered a vision to get America working again:
Republicans have plans to close the gap, plans that focus on jobs first without more spending, government bailouts, and red tape. Every day, we're working to expand our economy, one manufacturing job, nursing degree and small business at a time. We have plans to improve our education and training systems so you have the choice to determine where your kids go to school...so college is affordable...and skills training is modernized.
The impressive takeaway was that it connected with people. SR-Bing measured people's online reactions, splitting it into Republicans, Democrats and independents. While Democrats stayed luke-warm throughout, independents gave Rep. McMorris-Rodgers high marks throughout the speech.
The lesson Republicans should take from Rep. McMorris-Rodgers' speech is that independents appreciate a political party that empowers families, not politicians and bureaucrats.
While it isn't likely that many people saw Rep. McMorris-Rodgers' speech, that isn't what's important. What's important is that she's given Republicans a path forward to winning elections this fall. That's why this speech was a success.
Posted Wednesday, January 29, 2014 7:13 AM
No comments.
SOTU Address: Defeated Obama appears
One thing that came through last night's SOTU Address is that President Obama is feeling defeated. Here's where that first appeared:
And in tight-knit communities across America, fathers and mothers will tuck in their kids, put an arm around their spouse, remember fallen comrades, and give thanks for being home from a war that, after twelve long years, is finally coming to an end.
Tonight, this chamber speaks with one voice to the people we represent: it is you, our citizens, who make the state of our union strong.
Conspicuously absent from that riff is a mention that we're bringing troops home after defeating the terrorists. I wrote in 2006 that Democrats talked about ending the war, not defeating the terrorists. That hasn't changed since the days that Code Pink ran the Democratic Party.
Conspicuously absent was talk that his policies had made life better for families. Families, he said, are what makes America strong. He didn't say that his policies were strengthening America's middle class. In fact, in the most bizarre riffs from a SOTU Address, he seemed to admit that his policies had failed:
Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by - let alone get ahead. And too many still aren't working at all.
He's been president for 5 years. The first budget Congress passed in 2009 was his economic blueprint. That President Obama is admitting that "wages have barely budged", that "upward mobility has stalled" and that "too many still aren't working" is a stunning, if inadvertent, admission. Couple that with Cathy McMorris-Rodgers' statement that more people quit looking for work than there were jobs created last month and you're starting to see that President Obama's economic policies have failed.
The thing that's keeping things going is the Federal Reserve pumping $1,000,000,000,000 of liquidity into the economy a year. That doesn't have anything to do with President Obama's policies. That means the economy is growing in spite of President Obama's policies, not because of them.
This part was downright deceitful:
Now, one of the biggest factors in bringing more jobs back is our commitment to American energy. The all-of-the-above energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today, America is closer to energy independence than we've been in decades.
That's shameful. Most of the growth in energy production have come on lands where federal permits aren't needed. That's indisputable fact. President Obama had as much to do with the Bakken explosion and the natural gas rejuvenation in Ohio and Pennsylvania as Al Gore had to do with creating the internet. That being said, President Obama is totally to blame for the EPA killing coal-mining jobs in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana.
Arrogant Barry showed up to make this declaration:
Now, I don't expect to convince my Republican friends on the merits of this law. But I know that the American people aren't interested in refighting old battles. So again, if you have specific plans to cut costs, cover more people, and increase choice - tell America what you'd do differently. Let's see if the numbers add up. But let's not have another forty-something votes to repeal a law that's already helping millions of Americans like Amanda. The first forty were plenty. We got it. We all owe it to the American people to say what we're for, not just what we're against.
What's disappointing is that Arrogant Barry didn't even admit that 3 Republican senators, Burr, Coburn and Hatch, have submitted a bill that says what Republicans are for. In fact, Jay Carney dismissed it outright on Monday.
Another thing that's disappointing is that President Obama insists on listening to the American people...when they agree with him. If they don't agree with him, then he won't hesitate in ignoring them. The American people have been saying with a passionate, consistent voice that they don't like the Anything But Affordable Care Act. They like the provision that prevents people from not getting insurance if they have a pre-existing condition. They like keeping their childen on their health insurance policy until they're age 26. They like not having lifetime caps.
After that, they'd cheerfully applaud seeing the Anything But Affordable Care Act disappear.
Last night's address was painful to watch for a bunch of reasons. First, it was painful to watch President Obama take credit for the oil and natural gas booms that happened because they didn't have to deal with the federal government. Next, it was painful because President Obama sounded like a dejected, defeated man last night. Finally, it was painful because Republican governors, not President Obama, are making things work.
It'll be nice when one of those talented Republican governors gives the SOTU in 2017. That can't arrive soon enough.
Posted Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:00 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 29-Jan-14 09:47 AM
Obviously one could be entirely critical of the SOTU, or make exceptions for the high-sounding verbiage signifying nothing, but "nothing" pretty well sums up that waste of 90 minutes or so.
My one quibble is when you say people "like" certain small provisions of the (un)ACA. They do, but the problem is that they should have a CHOICE of whether they want these features of their insurance, and are willing to pay for them, or NOT. The ACA is all about government deciding everything for you.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 29-Jan-14 10:38 AM
Jerry, the points I made, quite succinctly I thought, was that a) there are a few popular provisions in the ABACA & b) people would love seeing the rest of the bill disappear.
Remember that I wrote this in the context of President Obama saying 40 votes to repeal the ABACA.
Whether people should have choice wasn't the point I tried making there. Yes, they should have more choices. The point is that the ABACA needs to be replaced with something that lowers health care costs & gives people more options.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 30-Jan-14 10:04 AM
Gary:
I'm getting to the point to thinking does the President out right lie or isn't he aware of what's going on? I mean over 5 million people lost their policies and for people who kept their policies they are paying lots more and might not have their doctor anymore.
He wants to claim that is working? He wants to claim that it shouldn't be changed?
Oh I forgot he has been changing the parts of the law that he doesn't want to worry about on his own without the law being changed.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Jan-14 02:36 PM
Walter, that part's easy. He's lying through his teeth. It isn't that he thinks it's working. It's that he thinks he can't admit that it's a failure because that would create momentum to repeal his signature achievement.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 30-Jan-14 04:28 PM
Gary:
I don't know. Powerline did a post a couple of years ago where an energy executive tried to tell Obama that his policies on solar weren't working and couldn't work and the executive was shocked that Obama kept going on about what the policies were doing even though the executive knew they weren't true.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
