November 28-30, 2013
Nov 28 02:40 Another SCSU (budget) crisis Nov 28 08:48 Another day, another ACA delay Nov 28 11:54 Conservative rising stars Nov 28 15:33 D's going on O'Care offensive? Nov 29 10:44 Intersection of political activism & bad writing Nov 30 09:50 The 'Draft Scott Walker Movement' starts Nov 30 11:54 Dispelling ABM's ACA myths
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Another SCSU (budget) crisis
If anything is clear, it's that St. Cloud State is facing a budget crisis. Nowhere is that more apparent than in this article :
Three years ago, St. Cloud State University students voted to raise the fees they pay in order to prop up the athletic department budget, including a boost that saved the football program. In December, students will be asked to renew that fee, which expires June 30 and provides about $500,000 of the athletic budget.
I don't doubt that people are asking how this is proof of a budget crisis. Prior to three years ago, athletic programs were funded through the general fund budget.
It isn't coincidence that three years ago marked the start of the contract between SCSU and the Wedum Foundation. That's lost over $3,000,000 since then. Three years ago is also when enrollment started dropping. FY2010 was SCSU's peak enrollment year. President Potter's budget on nonessential things collided with a significant drop in tuition revenue.
Since SCSU's peak FYE enrollment year, FYE enrollment has dropped by almost 20%.
The vote will happen by email from 8 a.m. Dec. 2 to 3 p.m. Dec. 4. The St. Cloud State student government put two questions on the ballot for the student fees. The first asks if the student fee should 'remain constant.' The second asks if the athletic department should be required to ask students to renew the fee in 2018. If students vote no on the second question, the fee will be permanent. If Question 1 fails, or if less than 8 percent of the student body votes, the student government could put the question on the ballot again in the spring.
Three years ago, athletes dominated the voting. The referendum passed overwhelmingly. This time, the vote is invalidated if only a tiny percentage of students vote. This time, a high turnout by athletes won't be enough. This time, they'll need support from other students, too.
If the December vote goes against the fee, the university would have to use its decision-making process to determine how to respond. The university is in the process of filling a $2.9 million budget deficit for 2013-14 and is expecting to confront one again in 2014-15. That makes a potential shortfall in the athletic program more challenging, Potter said. 'There is no obvious source of funds,' Potter said.
One obvious source of funds is the contract President Potter signed with the City of St. Cloud for 3 police officers. That's $240,000 a year that didn't need to be spent. President Potter could also contact the Wedum Foundation and tell them that they're opting out of their contract if Wedum doesn't renegotiate the contract.
SCSU has lost $1,000,000 a year the first three years of the contract. If Wedum isn't willing to renegotiate the contract, President Potter should make clear that SCSU is opting out of the contract ASAP. If that doesn't get the Foundation's attention, then the Foundation isn't paying attention. I'm betting they're paying attention.
What this crisis is about is a) the University's enrollment is suffering and b) President Potter is spending too much money on nonessential items. SCSU paying for police officers isn't essential. Spending money on upscale apartments for students isn't essential either.
Posted Thursday, November 28, 2013 2:40 AM
No comments.
Another day, another ACA delay
Yesterday, HHS announced that another part of the Affordable Care Act is getting delayed :
The White House is delaying the launch of its online small-business exchange by one year, a Health and Human Services (HHS) official confirmed to The Hill on Wednesday.
The delay is another setback for the troubled enrollment process of President Obama's signature healthcare law.
Companies with fewer than 50 employees were slated to begin buying coverage through the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP), an online ObamaCare exchange, this month. The exchange's delay means small businesses will instead have to seek out coverage through an agent or broker.
The ACA's tax increases started on time. Anything that included a penalty has been implemented on time, with the exception of big corporations and big labor.
The health care law, President Obama's latest name for the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is a dead man walking. Democrats are panicking bigtime. If President Obama hadn't held his 'mea culpa press conference' 2 weeks ago, Democrats might've already abandoned him for all intents and purposes. He headed off a full-fledged stampede with that press conference. Temporarily.
HealthCare.gov is a disaster. State-run exchanges aren't working well either. Millions of people have gotten cancellation notices saying that the health insurance they liked will expire at midnight New Year's Eve. The new policies come with higher premiums, higher deductibles and tinier networks of coverage.
In other words, the new policies replacing the policies they'd originally bought are substandard policies. (So much for President Obama's promise that the new policies would be better and cheaper.)
The healthcare law allows small businesses to either offer a single plan to all of their workers or pick a certain benefit level and let workers choose among plans at that level. The HHS delayed the latter option earlier this year, saying it's too complicated for insurers to implement right away. Workers will still not be able to choose from an employer-approved benefit level of plans during the one-year delay.
It finally dawned on the administration that administering health insurance is complicated. What a revelation. It isn't surprising that the Obama administration has looked like the latest iteration of the Keystone Cops.
Posted Thursday, November 28, 2013 8:48 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 28-Nov-13 09:04 PM
Gary:
You forgot about Mia that the Democrats who claim they love women and blacks went out of there way to trash her to death in 2012? They tried to destroy Rush Limbaugh for one bad comment about a woman in 2012, but they didn't care what they said about Mia.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 28-Nov-13 09:05 PM
Gary the last comment was meant for the rising conservative stars! Sorry for not getting it on the right post. If you have a way to move it can you?
Walter Hanson
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 29-Nov-13 10:07 AM
I keep waiting for the GOP to pass a law saying Obamacare must be implemented as written! Make the Democrats defeat it and admit that Obama has taken illegal steps to keep the truth about this man-caused disaster from being known.
Conservative rising stars
Democrats have demagogued TEA Party forever, characterizing them as far-outside-the-mainstream. Thanks to the TEA Party movement, a new generation of potential conservative superstars is rising up that will change the face of the GOP. One of those potential conservative superstars is Eri ka Harold . Reading Ms. Harold's Issues Page is a breath of fresh air. On taxes and regulation:
In an effort to stem the rise of burdensome regulations, I will support efforts to narrow the scope of the powers delegated to administrative agencies. Additionally, I will support tax reform policies aimed at simplifying the tax code.
On the Constitution:
One of the hallmarks of our democratic system of governance is the respect for individual liberties and the understanding that these enshrined freedoms serve as proper limits on governmental power. Accordingly, I will oppose efforts to abridge the rights enumerated in our Constitution. Drawing upon my experience as a lawyer advising faith-based institutions, I will champion the First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and the freedom of association. I also will support the law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment right to bear arms and will oppose efforts to encroach upon that right.
Sign me up. I'm a fan. In addition to being a Constitution-loving lawyer who loves low taxes and sensible levels of regulation, Ms. Harold once was crowned Miss America in the fall of 2002. In June, Ms. Harold announced that she's "mounting a Republican primary challenge to Rep. Rodney Davis in Illinois."
Another potential rising star for the GOP is Mia Love . Conservatives are sure to love Ms. Love's education agenda:
As a mother with three children enrolled in public schools, education is extremely important to me. We need a strong educational system that will allow America to continue in its role as the world's premier leader in scientific research and technological development. American families want better quality education, lower education costs, and more local control over decisions related to education. In recent years the U.S. Department of Education has expanded the federal role in education to unprecedented levels to the detriment of our children and college students. Utah - not the federal government - knows what is best for Utah's student. I trust Utah teachers and Utah parents over Washington bureaucrats.
These are my proposals to address the problems surrounding education:
- Return control of schools to local levels
- Support Utah's teachers by opposing one-size-fits-all federal programs that take flexibility away from innovative teachers
- Eliminate the disparity between Department of Education bureaucrats' salaries and local teachers' salaries
- Bring down the cost of college tuition by allowing schools to compete for students and not allowing a federal government takeover of higher education
- Support the right of parents, local school districts, and the state of Utah to develop curriculum and set testing standards
Another potential rising conservative star is Katrina Pierson .
Ms. Pierson isn't afraid to identify herself as a TEA Party conservative :
Katrina Pierson is a candidate for the United States Congress in the 32nd District in Texas.
She is best known across Texas and the nation as a passionate advocate for freedom. For five years, she has served as a Steering Committee member for the Dallas Tea Party. She is also the Founder of the Garland Tea Party and a member of the Texas Tea Party Caucus Advisory Committee. Her primary goal as an activist has been to provide citizens with the knowledge and skills they need to protect and advance liberty.
It didn't take long for me to realize that Ms. Pierson is a passionate, articulate opponent of the Affordable Care Act , aka Obamacare:
There is perhaps no single government program that poses a greater threat to our life, liberty and prosperity than the 'Affordable Care Act,' generally referred to as 'ObamaCare.' The more the American people learn about ObamaCare, the less they like it - and with good reason. According to the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare is expected to cost our economy upwards of 800,000 jobs. A recent survey of business executives revealed that 71 percent said that ObamaCare is making it harder to hire workers. Every day brings new stories about companies laying off workers or cutting back hours. ObamaCare is the very last thing our struggling economy needs.
If you're noticing a theme here, it's that these ladies are a) unapologetic conservatives, b) TEA Party activists and c) minorities. The last I looked at Republicans in Washington, DC, they needed more people who fit these characteristics. Hopefully, that'll change next November. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if all three of these ladies are sworn in in January, 2015.
Posted Thursday, November 28, 2013 11:54 AM
No comments.
D's going on O'Care offensive?
This post on the Hill's health care blog is laughable in terms of the Democrats' strategy:
The White House and congressional leadership are urging Democratic lawmakers to highlight ObamaCare success stories in an effort to take the offensive on the healthcare rollout after two months of backpedaling, according to two memos obtained by The Hill.
The memos, one from the Democrats' messaging arm and one from the White House, advise members on how to establish the narrative that the Affordable Care Act is already working.
'There are actions Democrats can take to address the Republican attacks and go on offense,' reads the memo from the Democratic Policy and Communications Center (DPCC). The memo outlines a compilation of 'messaging ideas to highlight the benefits of the ACA and generate positive press and social media coverage.'
The Democratic Caucus is being told that the most effective strategy is to highlight the stories of consumers who obtained coverage despite having pre-existing conditions, of those who no longer have to worry about the financial threat of lifetime caps, and of young adults who have been able to stay on their parent's coverage.
'Their stories will provide us with the ammunition we need to rebut Republican claims that the law isn't working,' the DPCC says.
I'm wondering whether Republicans have infiltrated the DPCC. Seriously, highlighting things that people like won't cut it. Republicans have agreed for years that people shouldn't get denied coverage because a person has a pre-existing condition. Had there been an up-or-down vote on that issue alone, it would've passed unanimously in both the House and Senate. After that, it's difficult to picture what's popular in the Affordable Care Act, aka the ACA.
For every story of a person getting insurance for the first time, there will 5 stories of people who have life-threatening diseases who lost the insurance that was getting them the treatment they needed.
A couple weeks ago, Democrats' favorite refrain was that Republicans shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bath water." They didn't explain what they meant but it sounded reasonable. I've done their thinking for them. Obviously, babies represent the things people like; bath water represents things to be gotten rid of.
I think it's reasonable to think that ensuring people with pre-existing conditions can get insurance represents the 'baby' in this metaphor. The only other provision worth keeping is young people being able to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26. After that, it's tough thinking of another provision worth keeping.
As for things that should be thrown out, the list is substantially bigger. Let's start with dumping the employer and individual mandates, the 21-tax salute thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the health insurance exchanges, the websites, whether state- or fed-run and the higher premiums and higher deductibles.
If we got rid of that second list, there'd be much rejoicing on Main Street and with small businesses. How do Democrats go on offense with these realities?
Posted Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:33 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 28-Nov-13 09:01 PM
Gary:
You know the Republicans should be asking the following questions:
* If the bill is so good why were Democrat members of Congress begging the President to allow them and their staff to keep their current plans instead of going to a far better Obamacare plan?
* If the bill is so good why are the unions begging for tax relief that were going to be given to their plans. If Obamacare was upgrading everybody's insurance as they claim wouldn't a single person or business have a cadilac plan?
* If the bill is good why isn't Obama demanding that businesses put their employees on Obamacare plans now as the law demanded?
I can go on, but it's quite obvious to any one that the bill isn't a success or I wouldn't be able to ask these questions at all.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 29-Nov-13 10:02 AM
As for the "alternative" which the D's say does not exist but clearly does, I have no objection to the two provisions you cite, with one proviso: That those who need those benefits have to pay for them, and that insurance companies be allowed to sell them, and more. The PEC situation was created largely as an artifact of government meddling in the free market to begin with, when employers started giving out health benefits. Remove the favored tax treatment of employer plans and replace with favored tax treatment in the individual group market (portable insurance) and the problem goes away AND you've added competition to lower rates. If you want to pay for your kids' health insurance, go ahead, but don't tell me I MUST pay for that if I don't want it. The ACA is just government trying to cover up problems that government created, by giving us more of the same poisonous government control.
Intersection of political activism & bad writing
If you want to read an article that's filled with political vindictiveness and terrible writing, I'd recommend this article from the AP's Laurie Kellman. Here's Ms. Kellman's opening
A month after emerging from a government shutdown at the top of their game, many Democrats in Congress newly worried about the party's re-election prospects are for the first time distancing themselves from President Barack Obama after the disastrous rollout of his health care overhaul.
For people keeping score at home, that opening sentence is 45 words long. Run-on sentences of that length don't help people focus their attention. English instructors frequently recommend that writers keep sentences to 18 words or less. Here's how that paragraph would've looked had I written it:
After winning the government shutdown, congressional Democrats are worried about their re-election prospects. Now Democrats are distancing themselves from President Obama after the disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov.
Thank God for 'professional' writers. Seriously, what person would be interested in the rest of the article after Ms. Kellman's opening? It gets worse because Ms. Kellman transitions from unprofessional writer to professional political hack:
Cummings, the White House's biggest defender in a Republican-controlled committee whose agenda is waging war against the administration over the attack in Benghazi, the IRS scandal, a gun-tracking operation and now health care, said he still thinks Obama is operating with integrity.
Chairman Issa's agenda thus far has been to highlight this administration's dishonesty and incompetence. When President Obama and Secretary Clinton ignored Christopher Stevens' frequent impassioned pleas for more security, they ignored him. As a direct result of their passivity, Ambassador Stevens and 3 other American patriots were executed in Benghazi.
That isn't "waging war against the administration." That's investigating a tragic incident that didn't need to happen. Investigating the IRS' targeting of conservative organizations isn't "waging war against the administration." It's investigating the abuse of power that's happened all too frequently with this imperial administration. It's a legitimate investigation because abuses of power of this scope can't be tolerated. Period.
Let's not be naive. There are political consequences for these foolish decisions. Congress is questioning President Obama's integrity because he isn't a man of integrity. The American people have noticed. As a result, President Obama's approval ratings have dropped dramatically.
Hillary Clinton's integrity hasn't dropped...yet. She left Washington, DC before Greg Hicks' riveting testimony about what happened that night in Benghazi. There will be a political price to be paid for her passivity and terrible decisionmaking. How high of a price she'll pay isn't knowable at this time. Suffice it to say it might be a steep price.
Republican members of Chairman Issa's committee haven't editorialized. They've asked professional, probing questions. That's what they're supposed to do. Their job is to investigate, not to be the administration's stenographers.
If President Obama's administration hadn't made this many major mistakes, Chairman Issa's committee wouldn't have been justified in investigating this many things. Because they made this many egregious mistakes, Chairman Issa was obligated to investigate.
If that constitutes an attack in Ms. Kellman's mind, then it's safe to say she's a stenographer, not a reporter.
Posted Friday, November 29, 2013 10:44 AM
No comments.
The 'Draft Scott Walker Movement' starts
It's political light years away from the next presidential election season but it isn't too early to start drafting potential GOP presidential candidates. Atop my list is Scott Walker, Wisconsin's governor. Marc Thiessen's article sums up Gov. Walkers qualifications perfectly:
During the 2012 recall fight in Wisconsin, a group of protesters dressed as zombies disrupted Gov. Scott Walker's speech at a ceremony for kids participating in the Special Olympics. Walker just ignored the protesters. Afterwards, talk radio host Charlie Sykes told Walker he should have 'gone Chris Christie on them.' But Walker wanted to keep the focus on the Special Olympics athletes, saying 'it was their day.'
The incident is revealing. Walker and Christie, the New Jersey governor, are friends, and they have both found a way to win in purple states that have not voted for a Republican president in a quarter-century. But they each did it in very different ways.
Christie is moderate in policy, but immoderate in temperament.
Walker is moderate in temperament, but immoderate in policy.
Activists are drawn to Christie's gruff exterior because they want a fighter. There's no questioning whether Gov. Christie is a fighter. Still, for all his combativeness, many of his policies are what I'd expect of a New England Republican. That makes Gov. Christie significantly less appealing than Gov. Walker:
Walker is a tea party hero thanks to his courageous stand against the public-sector unions in Wisconsin. Cruz may have 'faux filibustered' Obamacare, but Walker faced down 100,000 protesters outside the Capitol in Madison and won. He not only passed his reforms despite unbelievable odds, he became the first governor in U.S. history to survive a recall election. He's both a fighter and a winner, a compelling combination for the conservative base.
Moreover, Walker's appeal to the right goes beyond collective bargaining. As governor, he passed a raft of other conservative reforms that went virtually unnoticed because of the collective-bargaining fight. He signed legislation enacting voter identification requirements, permitting the concealed carry of firearms, defunding Planned Parenthood, prohibiting any health exchange operating in Wisconsin from covering abortion, reducing taxes, expanding school choice and reforming entitlements. Walker is an across-the-board, unflinching, full-spectrum conservative.
But Walker also has a proven ability to win the votes of moderates and reform-minded independents. While Walker is often portrayed as a 'divisive' figure, exit polls in the June 2012 gubernatorial recall election showed that about one in six Walker voters also planned to vote for Barack Obama in the November presidential election. And, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 'those confounding Obama-Walker voters of 2012...[are] still with us.' Two separate 2013 polls of Wisconsin voters, the paper reported, show that '11% approve of both politicians.'
Put differently, Christie is the bully who supports many liberal policies like gun control and global warming. Gov. Walker has a mental toughness that can't be questioned. He stared down the thugs in Wisconsin and won the fight for important reforms. Everyone knows about the collective bargaining rights fight. Few noticed that he got other reforms passed, too.
Most importantly, I won't have to worry whether Gov. Walker will abandon conservatism's core principles. He won't. He'll pick great judges. He'll feature a positive pro-growth agenda. He'll be an unapologetic conservative with a lengthy history of conservative accomplishments.
George Will noted another appealing part of Gov. Walker's in this column :
To fight the recall, during which opponents disrupted Walker's appearance at a Special Olympics event and squeezed Super Glue into the locks of a school he was to visit, Walker raised more than $30?million, assembling a nationwide network of conservative donors that could come in handy if he is reelected next year.
It's great that Gov. Walker is a proven fundraiser. He'd need it if he runs against Hillary in 2016. More importantly, though, he understands the value of a strong organization.
In other words, Gov. Walker a) is an unapologetic conservative, b) has a lengthy list of conservative accomplishments, c) can rally the conservative base while still appealing to independents and d) is a prolific fundraiser. That's quite the trifecta heading into 2016.
Posted Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:50 AM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 30-Nov-13 10:41 AM
And in the race to make liberal trolls heads explode with rage, the only one who can make it happen FASTER than Scott Walker would be Sarah Palin.
LL
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 30-Nov-13 04:22 PM
There's nothing more pleasing than the thought of liberal minds exploding first thing in the am.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 01-Dec-13 11:30 AM
Gary:
No offense, but doesn't a liberal mind have to contain something to explode? We know liberals can't think rationally thus they might not have a mind. I think those reactions by liberals to Sarah or Scott are some glad throwing out hormones.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 02-Dec-13 10:58 AM
Scott Walker supports a 'path to citizenship'; i.e. amnesty. That's a significant problem. However, his other conservative bonafides are solid and he's got a good track record. He's light years better than any Democrat and probably better than most potential Republican candidates with the notable exception of Ted Cruz, who it would be ridiculously easy for me to go all-in to support if he decides to run. Walker wouldn't be a bad consolation prize if he doesn't.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Nov-14 08:30 AM
Let's stipulate something from the start. Let's stipulate that senators aren't eligible for the GOP presidential nomination. Only people who've actually run things are acceptable. In 1996 & 2008, we nominated senators who got their asses handed to them. We've got a former senator in the White House now. That isn't turning out well, either.
That eliminates Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Eliminate liberals like Chris Christie & Jeb Bush, too.
There aren't any perfect conservatives so let's stipulate that we'll all disagree with our official nominee. It's growing increasingly clear that the American people want the borders secured. Republicans are responding correctly to that, in my estimation.
In my estimation, there are 3 frontrunners who are highly qualified to become the GOP nominee: Scott Walker, John Kasich & Bobby Jindal. I'd be thrilled if any of them was our nominee.
Check this article out.
Comment 5 by Wallace Judd at 08-Nov-14 05:17 AM
The liberal media have chosen the weakest candidates the GOP could have offered in the 2008 and 2012 elections.
Romney didn't even want to run -- he was outvoted around the dinner table. The core of his campaign was to prove he was a good guy (he is), but neglected to point out the abysmal failures of Obama (which are many).
Walker is the only GOP candidate who electrifies & adheres to core conservative principles.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 08-Nov-14 10:55 AM
Wallace:
The media doesn't select the candidate the party does. Mind you in 2012 they helped the Republicans want to nominate Romney because they created this phony scandal on Cain and they went after Rick S on his religious issues. I had exchanged emails with a former twin cities radio host who was going after Rick S and showing how great Romney was. He totally ignored the comments that I was making that by nominating Romney we will be taking Obamacare off the table.
Another thing is that there is an argument that causes some money not to mention major endorsements to pile up for the candidate who can best win. Well in 1996 that didn't work, you can argue in 2000 it did, in 2008 it didn't work, and in 2012 it didn't work. So in 2016 Republicans shouldn't bite at the wisdom of who is the real winner. Reagan was viewed as somebody who can't win!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 7 by Dave Doots at 03-Jan-15 07:19 PM
I have to agree with Gary Gross 100% on this. Best order would be Walker, Jindal, Kasich. Veep should be a governor also. Hanson, you are right about the money. What we should have learned in the last 3 press elections is no base, no win. Money doesn't vote.
Comment 8 by Larry Ladner at 06-Jan-15 11:34 PM
Looking ahead to 2016 and surveying the potential field of Republican presidential candidates, one name pops out like no other. That name is Scott Walker. As a governor, he has had to lead. At times, the opposition was vehemently against him but he retained his composure and got positive results for his state. His state, Wisconsin, is very purple, so getting the kind of results that he got there is no easy task. Although I like a couple of conservative senators, I don't think that candidates from the Senate make good presidential material.
So the focus goes back to governors. Since WW2, five presidents were VP's, four were governors and two were senators, including the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The other president was an Army general.
Of our former VP's, a Joe Biden candidacy would be more comedically entertaining than Pat Pulson's run in 1968. Dick Cheney won't run. Al Gore is way too long out of politics and his global warming scare tactics are out of favor by almost everyone. So much for former VP's.
The list of possible candidates from the ranks of governors heavily favors Republicans. They have a deep bench there. As I said, Scott Walker leads the list because of his accomplishments under very adverse conditions. All while keeping his cool. John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Niki Haley and Suzanna Martinez all rate honorable mention, in my opinion. I think any of them would be vastly superior any candidate the Democrats could muster. After Hillary, who else is there?
Like I said earlier, some of our senators might be good senators but they don't have the leadership experience that a president needs.
And lastly, an Army general? David Petraeus might be a possibility if he was interested. After his extra marital affair got him fired from the top job at the CIA, he has been out of sight as far as I can tell.
That's my analysis, as of today. Tomorrow? Who knows.
Dispelling ABM's ACA myths
It isn't surprising that the Alliance for a Better Minnesota, aka ABM, put together a deceitful collection of myths about the Affordable Care Act, aka the ACA.
Saying that Minnesota has the lowest rates in the nation doesn't mean that insurance premiums didn't go up with the ACA. It simply means they're the cheapest premiums in the nation. It's quite possible to have health insurance premiums go up. In fact, it's inevitable because the required minimum benefits drive health insurance premiums up. That they're the cheapest in the nation just means that other states' health insurance premiums just went up more than Minnesota's.
I read tons of articles a day and I don't recall any conservative accuse Gov. Dayton of lying about people who like their plans could keep their plans. I've heard tons of people from across the political spectrum accuse President Obama of lying about keeping the policies people liked.
ABM is right, though, that Gov. Dayton told people who had their health insurance canceled that he wouldn't let those insurance companies sell the old policies that people liked.
This sentence simply isn't credible:
I know you're going to say that 140,000 Minnesotans got cancellation notices, Aunt Phyllis, but the truth is it's illegal in Minnesota to cancel health coverage.
I'd love hearing the explanation for that, especially since the ACA requires companies to cancel insurance that doesn't meet the ACA's minimum required coverages. If ABM isn't lying, then it means that Minnesota health insurance companies aren't complying with the ACA. In other words, ABM is accusing Minnesota health insurance companies of breaking federal law.
Thanks to Gov. Dayton's 'leadership', MnSure is a national laughingstock. It's the only website I've seen that gets weekends and holidays off . We're the only state with Paul Bunyan ads and Mickey Mouse service .
While it's true that MnSure is working better than HealthCare.gov, that isn't exactly a high bar to clear. It simply means it's outperforming a total political and policy disaster.
Posted Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:54 AM
No comments.
