July 24-26, 2014
Jul 24 03:50 Rep. Davids highlights Gov. Dayton's incompetence Jul 24 03:40 Sloppy assumptions, bad laws Part II Jul 24 11:46 Josh Earnest can read minds? Jul 24 12:53 Environmental activists criticize Nolan's flip-flopping Jul 24 21:00 Militarism without war Jul 25 02:56 Emmer vs. Sivarajah, NRA edition Jul 25 02:59 Braley's latest disaster Jul 25 12:09 Obamacare, subsidies and Jonathan Gruber's flip-flopping Jul 26 10:34 Rolf Westgard's 'LTE'
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Rep. Davids highlights Gov. Dayton's incompetence
If Greg Davids' op-ed illustrates anything, it's that Gov. Dayton isn't a competent decisionmaker. Actually, Rep. Davids' op-ed proves another thing. It proves that MNsure's administrators and DHS bureaucrats are essentially worthless:
DHS and MNsure are simply shrugging their shoulders at the problem. 'It's not MNsure's job to send the notices,' said one of many highly paid MNsure spokespersons. Part of the DHS response was that the mistake was 'not made by a DHS employee, so we can't answer that one.'
That's a way of saying 'we aren't taking responsibility for MNsure's failures.' The problem is a MNsure problem caused by the MNsure website's frequent failings. DHS should be in the loop on this, too. They're the people processing the applications.
This ties into something that Jim Nobles, Minnesota's legislative auditor, spoke about in January. I wrote this post about Nobles' observations:
Nobles also said he would look into the effects of the May contract amendments. 'It's certainly something that I will pursue very vigorously to find out what triggered that decision,' Nobles said when the amendment was brought to his attention. 'What exactly did it mean? Who exactly was: doing the project management?'
MNsure hasn't been run properly from the start. The fact that the mild-mannered Jim Nobles is questioning who's in charge should frighten people.
Saying that Rep. Davids "engaged in 'reckless fear-mongering'" by demanding answers from Gov. Dayton is irresponsible. There's nothing irresponsible about it. Rep. Davids, like the other 200 people serving in the legislature, is supposed to make sure that the government isn't pissing people's money away.
Unlike Gov. Dayton, though, Rep. Davids takes that responsibility seriously.
For more than a year, my colleagues and I have offered helpful solutions and constructive criticism to MNsure on many things, from data privacy to communicating our constituents' problems with the failed website. Very few have been heeded, and the results keep getting worse.
It's time for Minnesotans to replace Gov. Dayton and Speaker Thissen. They're at the heart of this problem. They talk about bipartisanship when they're in the minority but they're into my-way-or-the-highway politics when they're in charge. Thanks to that attitude, Minnesotans are getting hurt.
Posted Thursday, July 24, 2014 3:50 AM
No comments.
Sloppy assumptions, bad laws Part II
Sean Davis's article utterly demolishes the Left's argument that the DC Circuit was willing to throw millions of people off health care because of a "drafting error." Here's a key portion of Davis's demolition of that argument:
Let's take a step back to see how plausible that explanation is. There are two types of exchanges: state-established, and federally established. The statutory authority for state-based exchanges comes in section 1311 of Obamacare. The statutory authority for a federal exchange in the event that a state chose not to establish one comes from section 1321(c) of Obamacare. Right off the bat, we have two discrete sections pertaining to two discrete types of health exchange. Was that a 'drafting error'?
Then we have the specific construction of section 1321(c), which allows for the creation of a federal exchange. Nowhere does this section say that an exchange created under its authority will have the same treatment as a state-based exchange created under section 1311. At no point does it say that section 1321 plans are equivalent. Why, it's almost as though the exchanges and the plans offered by them were not intended to receive the same treatment. Was that another 'drafting error'?
Most important, we have the sections of the law providing for tax credits to help offset the cost of Obamacare's health care plans: sections 1401, 1402, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, and 1415. And how do those sections establish authority to provide those tax credits? Why, they specifically state ten separate times that tax credits are available to offset the costs of state health exchange plans authorized by section 1311. And how many times are section 1321 federal exchange plans mentioned? Zero. Was that yet another 'drafting error'?
Either these progressive pundits are the worst liars in the world or the person who wrote the legislation is the most inept person ever to draft legislation. I'm voting for the former, not the latter.
It's obvious that the bill was written properly. It's obvious that Democrats didn't think 36 states would opt out of establishing a state-run health insurance exchange, aka HIX.
The media's fiction that this was a drafting error is intellectually dishonest intended at painting the judges as hate-filled conservatives who don't care about poor people. The truth is that it's Democrats that intentionally played politics with poor people's lives.
They're the people who wrote the law to not include subsidies for people buying insurance through Healthcare.gov. They're the people who didn't see anything wrong with the bill until after it became obvious that they'd miscalculated the popularity of the HIXs. They're the people who made faulty assumptions .
Mr. Davis has written and/or proofed standalone legislation and legislative amendments:
When I worked in the Senate, I spent countless hours reading through various appropriation and spending bills. I also drafted hundreds of amendments, as well as a standalone public law. During the years I spent reading through proposed legislation, it was not uncommon to find obvious errors in bills and amendments. Sometimes you would see a date written as 3015 instead of 2015. Sometimes a non-existent section would be referenced, or a section number in a table of contents might be wrong. Other times, you might see a dollar figure that had too few or too many zeroes (seriously, that happened). You might even find a misspelled word or an incorrect line number every now and again. Those were true 'drafting errors,' the typos of the legislative world.
The deliberate creation of a separate section to authorize a separate federal entity is not a drafting error. The repeated and deliberate reference to one section but not another is not a drafting error. The refusal to grant equal authority to two programs authorized by two separate sections is not a drafting error. The decision to specifically reference section X but not section Y in a portion of a law that grants spending or tax authority is not a drafting error.
Simply put, the Left knows that they're in real danger of having the heart of the ACA ripped from the bill. If the subsidies disappear, the ACA, aka Obamacare, disappears, too. They know that they can't argue the law. Arguing that is foolish. Appealing to the judges' partisanship is the only avenue they have for winning.
At the heart of this matter is the fact that Democrats made a faulty assumption. At the heart of this matter is the fact that Democrats thought this bill would be much more popular than it is. They wrote the law based on the opinion that the ACA would pressure Republicans into supporting a terrible bill.
Democrats were wrong about that.
Posted Thursday, July 24, 2014 3:40 AM
No comments.
Josh Earnest can read minds?
Some amazing things have happened since the Halbig v. Burwell ruling One of those things, according to this transcript , is that White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest appears to have developed the ability to read people's minds:
JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS: You didn't answer my question. I said if this decision is upheld, and you were just slapped down by a circuit court, if this decision is upheld, does it effectively gut Obamacare? It means, for instance, that the president can no longer say that people have access to healthcare for the price of a cell-phone bill. This is going to wipe away 4.7 million right now, 4.7 million peoples' subsidies.
JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE: You and I agree with the fact that there are millions of Americans who currently benefit from those provision of the law. And we are confident that that law has the kind of legal basis to withstand legal scrutiny...
KARL: The letter of the law very clearly states that the subsidies are available to those who enroll in state exchanges. Does the letter of the law matter to the White House on this?
EARNEST: What matters is --
KARL: That is the letter of the law. It's for state exchanges.
EARNEST: Again, I don't have the fancy legal degree that I referred to earlier, but what I do think the courts are charged with doing is evaluating the intent of Congress. And the intent of Congress in this case I think is not just clear, it's transparent. Congress intended for every eligible American to have access to these tax credits that lower their healthcare costs, whether or not the marketplace is run by federal officials or state officials.
It isn't the Supreme Court's, nor any other court's, responsibility to read people's minds. Their responsibility, in this instance, is to determine whether the statute as written, gives the IRS the authority to send subsidy checks to people who bought health insurance through federal exchanges.
If Congress wanted everyone who made less than 400% of the federal poverty level to receive a subsidy from the IRS, they needed to write that into the ACA. Notice that I said they need to write that into the bill. I didn't say that they only had to suggest that that's their intent.
Words have meanings. That's essentially what the 3-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court ruled. This administration is playing this game because they don't want to involve Congress in correcting Max Baucus's mistake. They don't want to submit it to Congress because Republicans will push for other changes along with the change that President Obama wants made.
It's time for Democrats to a) simply admit that they made a major mistake and b) submit the bill to Congress and to take their lumps.
Posted Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:46 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 24-Jul-14 02:40 PM
Gary:
Isn't true that in effect we only have to read one mind. Harry Reid should be called in front of several House committees and be asked these questions since this is Harry Reid's bill therefore he wrote that language and he should be able to tell the whole world what he meant.
Even money he'll say someone else actually wrote the language or what does it matter.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Jul-14 10:13 PM
Max Baucus wrote the ACA.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 25-Jul-14 01:11 AM
Gary:
I thought ACA was the bill Harry Reid wrote since he put an amendment to a House Tax Bill (preserving the House Ways and Means Committee start the bill) thus it was bill.
But it's my understanding Max is a sharp cookie and wouldn't have made that dumb mistake.
Besides if he was the person who wrote it then he should be in the same House committees as Harry Reid is so we can get exactly what they meant on every page of the bill they wrote.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Environmental activists criticize Nolan's flip-flopping
This article isn't the first time the environmental activist wing of the DFL has criticized Rick Nolan for flip-flopping on mining. I wrote this article in December to highlight the environmental left's disgust with Nolan. Here's the noteworthy quote from that December article:
Northern Minnesota is known for its great fishing, so perhaps it's fitting that tracking 8th District Congressman Rick Nolan's position on a bill that deregulates the mining industry and fast tracks the permitting process for PolyMet is a bit like watching a fish flopping around on a dock: first he's against it, then he's for it and now he once again opposes it, this time promising to vote against the legislation if it 'comes anywhere near close to becoming law.'
That's Rick Nolan's impersonation of John Kerry's "I actually voted for it before I voted against it" moment. The environmentalists apparently feel betrayed because they aren't letting go of the issue:
In last week's Timberjay, Congressman Rick Nolan tells us that he is in favor of mining, 'as long as it's done right: with good, strong strict rules.' And unlike some other Range politicians, he reassured that he is not in favor of weaker environmental laws.
If only it were so.
Rep. Nolan apparently forgot, or thinks we forgot, about his vote less than a year ago in favor of HR761, the 'National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act,' which is a fancy name for speeding up the permitting of new mines by taking environmental review, and citizen participation in that review, down a few notches. The bill allows federal agencies to exempt mining projects from review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA ensures that everyday citizens can take part in the development and oversight of projects that affect our social, economic, and environmental health. The bill also restricts the ability of individuals and communities to bring suit when government agencies fail to follow the laws intended to protect the environment.
How extreme is this bill? The highly partisan vote in the House of Representatives tells the story. Only 15 Democrats of the 193 that voted were in favor of the bill, while all 291 Republicans that voted were in favor of it. Fifty-six of 58 cosponsors were Republicans, and included environmental luminaries like Michele Bachmann.
Regardless of where you sit on mining issues, everyone should be able to agree that we want a Congressman we can trust. And you can't do that when they say one thing and do the opposite, as Rep. Nolan appears to be doing on mining issues. We deserve better.
Steve Wilson
Tower, Minn.
Clearly, Mr. Wilson isn't alone in saying Nolan can't be trusted. Here's what Jesse Peterson said at a climate change event at UMD:
The reaction of the those who gathered in Bohannon Hall on that Saturday afternoon is perhaps best summed up by 32-year-old Jesse Peterson, who characterized Nolan's responses and actions with respect to HR 761 as 'incredibly deceptive and reflecting a willingness to be phony.'
While it's true Nolan has gotten dragged kicking and screaming to a pro-mining view, that isn't the same as saying he's unconditionally pro-mining. Nolan is pro-mining until the next time he needs to raise money from environmentalists or until Nancy Pelosi tell him she needs his vote to block the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. That's hardly what a steadfast pro-mining congresscritter does. That's what a political chameleon does to get past the next election.
Posted Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:53 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 24-Jul-14 02:37 PM
Gary:
Just curious was there a typo by you or by Mr. Wilson. What I'm pointing out is that Mr. Wilson (unless you did the typo) claimed that there were 291 House Republicans. I wish there were 291 House Republicans.
Now if he did the typo this kind of highlights he doesn't care about getting his facts right which means that the arguments he are making shouldn't be taken seriously.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-Jul-14 10:15 PM
I don't edit quotes. The mistake was Mr. Wilson's.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 25-Jul-14 01:07 AM
Well if Mr. Wilson doesn't know the breakdown of the US House (or wants to lie about it) I guess we have shown that he has no credibility.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 25-Jul-14 02:57 AM
I don't read it that way at all. I think it's just a typo.
Militarism without war
Most of the doves who've spoken out in favor of the Obama administration's appeasement policy towards the Russian-Ukrainian war frequently cite the fact that there's no appetite for the United States to get involved in another war. This isn't surprising since strawman arguments are President Obama's specialty.
In this instance, though, it's a non sequitur argument.
The US can and should use its military to change the equation in eastern Ukraine. It's just that that shouldn't mean deploying US troops to Ukraine. It should take the form of putting the military's most lethal weaponry in the hands of Ukrainian troops.
The Ukrainian military has been asking the US for military support for months now. President Obama has rejected their requests. With there now being no doubt that the Russians are firing on airplanes, it's time for President Obama to stop being the wimpiest president in my lifetime. It's time he stopped dithering.
President Reagan took down the Soviet empire. President Obama isn't doing anything to stand in President Putin's way to reconstitute the former Soviet empire. What's most disturbing is that President Obama apparently doesn't recognize the peril he's putting our allies in.
Why doesn't President Obama understand that Russia's slicing up of Ukraine just emboldens President Putin to attempt to threaten other nations? Doesn't President Obama care about foreign policy?
President Reagan brought down the Soviet empire by confronting the Soviets whenever they tried meddling in other countries' affairs. He showed them that he was committed to arming anyone who opposed the Soviets. He forced the Soviets to spend more money on their expansionist goals than they'd anticipated.
Because the Soviet economy was pretty much worthless at the time, he forced them to spend themselves into the dust bin of history. By comparison, President Obama is essentially giving President Putin a free pass with Ukraine, which enables them to spend more money on destabilizing other neighboring countries.
There's no reason to think that the Russian economy is any stronger today than the Soviet economy was in the 1980s. Similarly, there's no reason to think that forcing Russia to devote most of its spending on military ventures will endear itself to the Russian people.
While President Reagan was forcing the Soviets to spend tons of money on foreign military interventions, he also undercut the Soviet government in the eyes of its people. President Obama is totally missing that opportunity.
Instead, he's playing the 98-lb. weakling who gets sand kicked in his face while President Putin plays the part of the menacing bully. That's why the latest Fox News poll shows people thinking that 75% of people think President Putin is getting the better of things while a pathetic 14% think President Obama is getting the better of Putin.
We need a real president. We don't need a fundraiser-in-chief. We need a president who rethinks his strategy after it's shown it's a disaster.
Unfortunately, instead of having a real president that knows what to do on the world stage, we've got President Obama.
Posted Thursday, July 24, 2014 9:00 PM
No comments.
Emmer vs. Sivarajah, NRA edition
This afternoon, I got this email from the Sivarajah for Congress campaign:
Friends,
I am honored to have received an AQ rating from the National Rifle Association. An AQ rating as explained on the NRA website means the following:
'A pro-gun candidate whose rating is based solely on the candidate's responses to the NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire and who does not have a voting record on Second Amendment issues.'
I look forward to the opportunity to prove my commitment to our 2nd Amendment rights with my vote in the United States Congress.
The highest grade a candidate can receive from the NRA is an A+. It will be my personal goal to be 'a legislator with not only an excellent voting record on all critical NRA issues, but who has also made a vigorous effort to promote and defend the Second Amendment.'
My message to Ms. Sivarajah is simple. Talk is cheap. Anyone can fill in the right answers on a questionnaire. Here's what matters:
U.S. House of Representatives District 6 Republican Primary
Tom Emmer (R) Grade: A
Status: Candidate
Rhonda Sivarajah (R) Grade: AQ
Status: Candidate
It's nice that Ms. Sivarajah got a nice grade but the NRA endorsed Tom Emmer. Here's what the grades mean :
A: Solidly pro-gun candidate. A candidate who has supported NRA positions on key votes in elective office or a candidate with a demonstrated record of support on Second Amendment issues.
AQ A pro-gun candidate whose rating is based solely on the candidate's responses to the NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire and who does not have a voting record on Second Amendment issues.
In the Sixth District, we insist that our candidates walk the walk on the Second Amendment. Just talking the talk isn't good enough. Tom Emmer's consistently walked the walk. Thus far, Rhonda Sivarajah has only talked the talk.
Posted Friday, July 25, 2014 2:56 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 25-Jul-14 11:47 AM
Gary:
What does someone have to be to get that "A+" Emmer's opponent is talking about. The way I read the explanation the best grade you can get is an "A" which Emmer has. I kind of assume if Emmer has the endorsement that he has that "A+" which the candidate is talking about.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Denise Rene at 03-Aug-14 09:18 AM
You are absolutely right talk is cheap. Emmer consistently says one thing and does another on a variety of issues. County boards do not vote on gun issues hence the AQ rating for Rhonda Sivarajah. emmer is deficit spending on his campaign- yet he says he will balance the budget. He has spent at least $106,000 out of the general funds he will have to pay back when he loses. Talk is cheap- actions speak much louder than words. Look at what he has actually accomplished. Nothing but a lot of rhetoric.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Aug-14 12:05 PM
You say that Sivarajah is pro-Second Amendment. Rick Nolan says he's pro-Second Amendment, too. What proof can you give me that Sivarajah is pro-Second Amendment? None.
You say that Emmer's campaign is running a deficit? Where's the proof? Tom hasn't borrowed his campaign money. Sivarajah did. Plus Tom has raised tons of money and has a significant cash-on-hand advantage. Sivarajah has raised less money in the last 3 quarters running for Congress than Jim Knoblach has raise while running for the state legislature. The only one coming close to running a deficit during this campaign is Ms. Sivarajah.
The truth stings. Deal with it.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 03-Aug-14 04:55 PM
Gary:
I think I know the source of the claim that Emmer is running a $100,000 deficit. According to the FEC reports Emmer's most recent report he has reported debt owe of $104,000 that could be stuff billed, but not paid yet or maybe a contract to buy something (like $104,000 of television ad buys). The candidate which the person was praising has raised less than $100,000 while Emmer has raised over a million from people not pacs or himself. Not to mention the person has more debt than Emmer $170,000 and that is to himself. You think if I candidate is going to spend his own money he will be serious about trying to win. The bulk of his expenditures has been to pay back his loan.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Braley's latest disaster
It's beginning to look like the Democrats are giving Tom Harkin's Senate seat away. First, Bruce Braley insulted Iowans by criticizing Chuck Grassley for being a hog farmer. Now Braley is fighting for his political life for ignoring his committee assignment on the Veterans' Affairs Committee:
Over a two-year period, Democratic U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley missed 75 percent of meetings for a committee that provides oversight over the Veterans Administration, including one meeting on a day he attended three fundraisers for his 2012 campaign.
A few months later, news reports exposed systemic problems in patient care that have since resulted in the resignation head of the federal department of veterans affairs.
Of course, Democrats were quick to defend Braley:
Democrats who back Braley, a trial lawyer and seven-year congressman who is now running for U.S. Senate, say he has been an outspoken voice for veterans and it's wrong for his GOP rival, Joni Ernst, to "try to inject partisan politics into veterans issues." He missed the veterans affairs meeting on the day of the three fundraisers because he went to another congressional hearing, his aides said .
Veterans don't need someone who's all talk. What they need most is someone who's committed to solving the VA crisis. Clearly, Rep. Braley doesn't fit that description. By comparison, Ms. Ernst does. In fact, she's currently away from the campaign trail so she can fulfill her commitment in the Iowa National Guard:
Republicans are appealing to Iowans to help campaign for Joni Ernst while she's on leave for two weeks for active duty training.
Ernst, a candidate for Iowa's open U.S. Senate seat and a battalion commander in the Iowa Army National Guard, leaves Friday for Fort McCoy for annual training.
'During this time, she will not be able to fund-raise, walk in parades, door knock or do other political activity,' Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Jeff Kaufmann said in a letter posted on the party's website this afternoon. 'We know Bruce Braley and his liberal D.C. pals will continue their slash-and-burn campaign against Joni while she's on duty, so anything you can do to help us until Joni returns is greatly appreciated.'
If Braley continues making major mistake after major mistake, he'll be Ms. Ernst's best weapon against Bruce Braley. That seems likely considering the fact that he wasn't where he said he was:
Braley's aides said he skipped it to attend a 9:36 a.m. Oversight and Government Reform Committee meeting on the "Fast and Furious" gun trafficking scandal. The congressional record marked Braley "present," but reveals that he offered no testimony during the three-hour hearing, which ran until 12:45 p.m.
Video caught no sight of Braley. His seat isn't always visible, but the multiple times it's within camera view during the window the Veterans Affairs committee was in session (10:19 a.m. to 11:54 a.m.), Braley wasn't seated, a Register review of C-SPAN 3 and committee footage found.
Skipping a House VA Committee hearing for a trio of fundraisers is bad enough. Saying that you're participating in another commitee hearing might get you off the hook...if you're where you said you were. Apparently, he couldn't even manage that.
This race isn't over by a long shot. Still, it won't help Democrats if Braley continues his litany of major mistakes. Insulting hog farmers in Iowa is as foolish as insulting Packers fans in Wisconsin. Attending a trio of fundraisers while saying you're in a committee hearing is foolish, too.
Posted Friday, July 25, 2014 2:59 AM
No comments.
Obamacare, subsidies and Jonathan Gruber's flip-flopping
Lefties went apoplectic this week after the DC Circuit issued its ruling in the Halbig v. Burwell lawsuit. Their initial spin was that it was "a drafting error." Sean Davis' article laid out the foolishness of their spin. While Davis' article buried the administration's spin with irrefutable facts, something that Jonathan Gruber said might hurt them in a court of law even more. Here's what Gruber said that's so damning:
What's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits - but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying [to] your citizens you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges.
Gruber isn't an outsider:
Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who helped design the Massachusetts health law that was the model for Obamacare, was a key influence on the creation of the federal health law. He was widely quoted in the media. During the crafting of the law, the Obama administration brought him on for consultation because of his expertise . He was paid almost $400,000 to consult with the administration on the law. And he has claimed to have written part of the legislation, the section dealing with small business tax credits.
In other words, Gruber admitted, after working on the ACA, that the subsidies were made available for people who bought their insurance through state-established exchanges to put political pressure on reluctant governors and legislators to establish state-run exchanges.
That's supported by the legislative language of the ACA:
The statutory authority for state-based exchanges comes in section 1311 of Obamacare. The statutory authority for a federal exchange in the event that a state chose not to establish one comes from section 1321(c) of Obamacare. Right off the bat, we have two discrete sections pertaining to two discrete types of health exchange. Was that a 'drafting error'?
Then we have the specific construction of section 1321(c), which allows for the creation of a federal exchange. Nowhere does this section say that an exchange created under its authority will have the same treatment as a state-based exchange created under section 1311. At no point does it say that section 1321 plans are equivalent. Why, it's almost as though the exchanges and the plans offered by them were not intended to receive the same treatment. Was that another 'drafting error'?
Most important, we have the sections of the law providing for tax credits to help offset the cost of Obamacare's health care plans: sections 1401, 1402, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, and 1415. And how do those sections establish authority to provide those tax credits? Why, they specifically state ten separate times that tax credits are available to offset the costs of state health exchange plans authorized by section 1311. And how many times are section 1321 federal exchange plans mentioned? Zero.
I'll repeat myself. Gruber's quote matches up with the legislative language of the ACA. The good news is that there's a legislative fix for this problem. Congress can pass legislation that makes the subsidies available to anyone making less than 400% of the federal poverty level, aka FPL.
Of course, there's no guarantee that House Republicans won't include things like repealing the medical device manufacturers tax and the individual and employer mandates.
Therein lies the Democrats' real problem. They've gotten their way on every single item in the bill thus far. They aren't interested in compromising with Republicans on a single provision in the ACA. That's tough. It's time for them to stop acting like spoiled brats. It's time for Democrats to implement some of the Republicans' good ideas.
Posted Friday, July 25, 2014 12:09 PM
No comments.
Rolf Westgard's 'LTE'
It's difficult to call Rolf Westgard's submission to MinnPost a true LTE. Read this stuff, then ask yourself if you've heard it somewhere else before:
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) program is working in Minnesota and across the country. A June release of MNsure facts shows that more than 95 percent of Minnesotans are now insured. From September 2013 to May 2014, "The number of uninsured Minnesotans fell by 180,500, a reduction of 40.6 percent. To date, 236,745 Minnesotans have enrolled in quality, affordable coverage through MNsure. 136,303 enrolled in Medical Assistance, 48,942 in MinnesotaCare and 51,500 in a Qualified Health Plan."
In April, President Obama announced that more than 7 million Americans had signed up for health insurance. The Affordable Care Act should continue to improve as more uninsured people who have been hesitant will enroll.
The statistics are accurate so that's beyond dispute. What they don't tell you is important, though. What they don't tell you is that a) 93% of Minnesotans were insured before the ACA was enacted and b) 50% of those who weren't insured were eligible for a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance policy.
Another thing that Dr. Westgard isn't telling you is that Minnesota spent $160,000,000 to build MNsure, the website that didn't work last year and won't work this year. A third thing Dr. Westgard didn't tell you is that 16,000 people who applied for MinnesotaCare through MNsure still haven't been accepted because the Minnesota Department of Human Services didn't send out the letters telling them that DHS needed additional information.
The unfortunate thing for Minnesotans is that that list is only a partial list of MNsure failures. I certainly could add this fact to the mix:
The Minnesota Department of Human Services sent 3,000 letters to homes of MinnesotaCare recipients who may have received incorrect monthly billing statements after they applied for health coverage through MNsure, the state's new health care exchange. The letter tells those recipients the bills may have been wrong for several months, but they encouraged those clients to keep paying the bills anyway.
I could also include this information :
The recent revelation that the state failed to send out letters to 16,000 low-income Minnesotans seeking medical assistance to let them know their applications had not been processed and they were not covered does not surprise Olmsted County Community Services Director Paul Fleissner.
'Every county has been screaming that we didn't think notices were going out, and the state kept saying yes, yes, yes, people are just forgetting this. We had a really strong sense that they weren't and finally it's been confirmed that they weren't going to our people,' Fleissner said.
Dr. Westgard isn't stupid. I've read his op-eds on energy and found them to be quite informative. Rather, I think Dr. Westgard a) just believes in the ACA and b) was willing to use the DFL's talking points in writing his LTE.
It's a shame he didn't dig into the subject more. It would've made for a more authoritative LTE.
Posted Saturday, July 26, 2014 10:34 AM
No comments.
