His sixth point was the old canard about Congress and the President being exempt. Of course they are not exempt, and so I told him.
Your sixth reason is in error. There is no provision to exempt either the president or Congress from the act. There is no language in the bill such as you describe. Language from page 114 can be found here:
Ed:
Thank you for the correction on point #6. I have gone back and looked at this, and you are absolutely right. Although the Wall Street Journal and folks like Sean Hannity reported that the President and members of Congress are exempt from participation in the Affordable Care Act, in the end that did NOT make it into the language of the legislation. I have deleted point #6 from the post as a result. Thank you for the correction. Now, if you copuld only prove me wrong on the rest of the points listed…. Unfortunately, this remains a bill the the American public did not want, and was purchased by shenanigans that the Administration should be ashamed of.
A quick and dirty response; we may need to put more meat on these response bones in the next couple of months, because the opposition to ObamaCare relies on severely distorted claims about the law and what it actually does. Much if not most of the good stuff in the law is completely ignored by these critics, and we should point that out, too.
What makes you think Americans didn’t want it? There was a whale of an anti-health care campaign after the act passed, but when it passed, it enjoyed a majority of support. And, when we take each provision of the bill and ask people about that provision, they approve overwhelmingly.
Depiction of the House vote on H.R. 3590 (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) on March 21, 2010, by congressional district. Democratic yea, dark blue; Democratic nay, light blue; Republican nay, red; No representative seated, white. Image from Wikipedia
For example, not even you are opposed to continuing the Reagan-era program that encourages medical schools to train more general practitioners. No one seriously objects to the provisions that pay physicians to practice in under-served areas, like West Texas, Iowa, and West Virginia. No one objects to the provisions that train more nurses. Only the most rabid racists complain about continuing and expanding the health care clinics on Indian reservations.
The law has dozens of provisions like those, and no one in their right mind objects to them.
Your other five points?
The Supreme Court killed that one for you. They said that, even if you call it a fine, it’s a tax. And at that, it’s a helluva bargain. For those who do not purchase health insurance because they can’t afford to, they must pay $695 additional tax, per year. That’s about what I’d pay monthly on the open market.In any case, there are no fines, according to the Supreme Court.
Depiction of the Senate vote on H.R. 3590 (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) on December 24, 2009, by state. Color code is difficult to decipher; let it suffice that if there are two Democratic yea votes, the state is colored deep blue; if two Republican nay votes, very red. Image from Wikipedia
But I can’t imagine why you oppose bargains in health care, especially when they lower the costs of health care to the insured, who will no longer pay the 15% to 25% premium to cover indigent care.
With all the “new taxes,” CBO, the non-partisan group that scores these issues for Congress, projects the bill will decrease federal spending and cut the deficits annually, when fully enacted in 2014 and all out years.Do you oppose deficits or not?All the other taxes are fair, strike only the tippy-top income tiers, and are cheap at that.These taxes make the system more fair. It’s stacked against anyone making less than $150,000 a year, now. That’s most of us. I don’t like it when government helps the rich, at the expense of the poor — that’s contrary to moral standards my church holds, for example, and it tends to damage the economy.So I think more fair taxes, and lower costs, will be quite popular, once we see them.So, new taxes aren’t a good justification to oppose the law.
Speaking of fallacious accounting — CBO, the group you cite, says the bill will reduce the deficits. You assume the Law won’t work, while small portions of it have already slashed inflation in health care costs, from 20% in 2009 to 4% in 2011 and 2012.But, what about repeal? CBO looked at that, too — repeal of the law will increase deficits, not decrease them. It’s only $109 billion increase in deficits, but these number directly refute all claims that repeal would be cheaper. See the analysis gateway here: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
This Medicare issue was hashed out, accurately and well I thought, in the campaign. Medicare costs will be reduced by holding costs down — benefits will not be reduced. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan ran into some difficulty with this, because their budget plans assumed the savings from the Affordable Care Act, while eliminating the law that produced the savings.I’m sure there will be some adjustments required. Medicare seems a little ham-fisted when it comes to dealing with local and regional cost differences, but nationwide, over the past 40 years, enormous savings have been realized by reducing some reimbursements for procedures that once were uncommon and expensive, to a less expensive rate, now that they are more common. On the whole, over 40 years, over thousands of procedures, physicians have changed their expectations, and things have worked fine. Oh, there have been grumblings, I know. But the cuts in costs, without cuts in benefits, have stuck.Under the Affordable Care Act, we hope a lot more people will move to company plans from Medicare, or at least to the exchange plans offered in each state.One of the changes already introduced is working [link added here]. Rather than pay providers for each procedure, Medicare now reimburses hospitals for effective hospitalization — that is, when a patient is discharged and then re-enters a hospital for the same complaint, the hospital will lose money. Hospitals are keeping patients a few days longer on many procedures, to insure that one hospitalization is all that is required. Savings are already being made in costs, while improvements have resulted in the health care – better health in the patients!In all, CBO says costs will come down with the Affordable Care Act, as advertised, and costs will rise and deficits will rise if the Act is repealed.
Your abortion argument is too metaphysical, and not enough real-world. Do you want to reduce the number of abortions? Then provide health care, make sure contraception is freely available (not for free, but freely), and stand back. Those two things reduce abortions, as they did during the Clinton administration.Restrictions on abortion, on the other hand, make it more likely a woman will choose to terminate a pregnancy under a number of circumstances: She doesn’t have health care coverage, her coverage does not cover pre-natal care, her coverage won’t cover a new infant, the pregnancy is unplanned due to lack of good information on family planning or lack of access to affordable contraception.You can choose: Restrict abortions and increase the number of abortions, or provide health care, and reduce the number of abortions.It may be a bit counter-intuitive, but you’d better study the issue. The Affordable Care Act’s provisions, Obamacare, have over the years reduced abortions where applied; cutting off that care has increased the number of abortions.My advice would be, don’t kill the babies to make a political point.
I am concerned that you don’t appear much familiar with what the bill actually does. Here are a few reasons to keep the law.
We need more physicians, and the bill provides them.
We need more physicians in underserved areas, and the bill provides them.
We need more nurses, and the bill provides them.
We need more community clinics in underserved urban areas [link added here], where illnesses and injuries frequently go untreated until extreme trauma results, and the victim must get extremely expensive care in an emergency room. This will be one of the biggest cost savers — and the law provides those clinics.
The law will cut the private bureaucracy, and completely dismantle the private death panels set up by insurance companies, saving at least 10% of every health care dollar, applying that money to care instead of bureaucracy. This is already occurring.
Preventive care under the Act is greatly encouraged — if we can boost flu vaccines by another 10%, it will save thousands of lives annually, and millions of dollars in hospitalization costs. Flu shots came with no co-pay this year — did you notice? — so that anyone with any insurance at all could drop by any pharmacy offering flu shots and get one with no out-of-pocket expenses.
This is huge. Everyone agrees the cheapest health care is for healthy people. The Affordable Care Act changes the way health care is delivered, to emphasize prevention of disease and injury, instead of triage. Prevention usually costs about 10% what the triage would cost.
Removing the lifetime cap on insurance payments, per patient, will save a few thousands of lives, annually. It should kill the phenomenon where many families, hit with a costly disease or accident, had to declare bankruptcy as a result. A significant portion of all bankruptcies have been “not adequately-insured” cases. Those should almost disappear.
Allowing children to stay insured, on a parent’s plan, for those critical years after high school and college and into the second job, with benefits has already benefited millions of Americans, saving millions of dollars and probably a few lives.
I cannot imagine why anyone would want to go back to 20% annual health care cost inflation, the highest per capita health care costs in the world by a factor of two, while leaving one out of every seven people uninsured even though we were paying amounts more than the insurance would have cost.
Obamacare reduces the deficits, and puts our health system on the path to catch up to the rest of the industrialized world, with better care for less cost.
Democrats assembled some quick looks at federal budgeting with Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney:
Someone with a handle LLORT3 maybe put it concisely: “We need healthcare, not wealthcare.”
The lines for the election seem to me to very well drawn: Back to the Gilded Age, or on to the 21st century.
What do you think? Did Romney just double down on a Marie Antoinette economy? Will more than 20% of Americans vote to screw the middle class like that?
It is disappointing that inaccurate and purposely misleading information regarding health care reform continues to be widely circulated. Throughout the past two years during the lengthy debate on Health Care Reform, Senator Leahy has continued to post updated information regarding the various health care legislative proposals being debated, including the full text of proposals, questions asked by directly by Vermonters, and daily updates on floor proceedings in the Senate in an effort to provide Vermonters with accurate and timely information on the health care reform debate.
Below are some of the most common myths regarding the Affordable Care Act with accurate information dispelling those myths and providing information about where to learn more.
To review some of the most commonly questions by Vermonters please also visit the Frequently Asked Questions page on this website.
To test your knowledge about what is actually included in the health care reform law visit the Kaiser Family Foundation website and take their Affordable Care Act quiz.
Fact vs. Fiction
Fiction
If you don’t buy health insurance, you will be sent to jail.
Fact
Taxpayers who are required to purchase health insurance and do not will receive a notice from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with the amount of the penalty they owe. Individuals who fail to pay the penalty are not subject to criminal prosecutions and the government cannot file notice of lien or levy any property for a taxpayer who doesn’t pay the penalty.
The obligation for individuals to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014 was included as part of the Affordable Care Act. The provision requires individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage for themselves and their dependents or pay a penalty of $95 in 2014. Families would pay half the amount for children, and the requirement includes a cap on the total allowable fine per family. If affordable health insurance coverage is not available to an individual, then the penalty would be waived. Along with the individual responsibility requirement, the Affordable Care Act also provides subsidies to some individuals beginning in 2014 to help pay for their health insurance premiums and other costs associated with their health insurance.
Taxpayers who are required to pay a fine but fail to do so will receive a notice from Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If an individual still neglects to pay the fine, the IRS can attempt to collect the funds by reducing the amount of their tax refund in the future. Individuals who fail to pay the penalty, however, will not be subject to criminal prosecution. The government cannot file notice of lien or levy on any property for a taxpayer who does not pay the penalty.
The aim of this provision is to encourage all Americans to obtain health insurance, which will result in lower health care costs for everyone. The Affordable Care Act relies on the shared responsibility of individuals, employers, states and the federal government.
For additional information regarding the individual responsibility requirement please visit the Kaiser Family Foundation website.
Fiction
Members of Congress are exempt from the health care reform law.
Fact
No one has received a special exemption from the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the health care reform law explicitly includes language regarding the health insurance plans for Members of Congress and their staff.
As a United States Senator, Senator Leahy’s health plan options are the same options offered to all federal employees. Included in the Affordable Care Act, was a provision that requires that “the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and Congressional staff shall be health plans that are created under this Act or offered through an Exchange established under this Act.” Members of Congress and their staffs can only purchase health insurance coverage from the health insurance exchanges that are made available for uninsured Americans. The full text of this provision is available on pages 80-81 in section 1312 of the Affordable Care Act which you can read here.
Fiction
Health care reform will jeopardize Medicare and will mean cuts in services and benefits for seniors.
Fact
Health care reform will help strengthen Medicare so that seniors can continue to receive quality health coverage for years to come.
The Affordable Care Act explicitly states that no benefits guaranteed under Medicare will be cut as a result of health care reform legislation. Today’s forecasts estimate that Medicare will be insolvent by 2017 because of ever-rising health care costs. The Affordable Care Act takes aim at that unfolding threat by addressing cost inefficiencies now, instead of waiting until later. The Affordable Care Act strengthens the financial stability of Medicare by targeting fraud and ending wasteful overpayments to insurance companies, while maintaining the benefits and services to seniors who use Medicare. The Act also helps Medicare users by offering prescription drug discounts to seniors who are trapped in the “donut hole,” by creating a better pathway for generic drugs to enter the marketplace, by eliminating the cost-share for preventative services, and by promoting coordinated care to prevent avoidable hospital readmissions.
Beginning January 1, 2011, Medicare beneficiaries entering the Medicare donut hole will get a 50% discount on brand name prescription drugs. Click here to learn more about this provision.
Fiction
The health care reform law includes a tax on all real estate sales.
Fact
Under the Affordable Care Act, only certain real estate transactions for certain individuals above a particular income level would be subject to a Medicare Tax.
Unfortunately, much of the information widely circulated about a tax on home sales and other real estate transactions inaccurately describes the purpose and the effect of this provision. The 3.8 percent Medicare tax is often misunderstood, and has frequently been described as a 3.8 percent “sales tax” on all real estate transactions, which is inaccurate.
The provision that establishes this tax can be found on page 946, Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act. This tax is often referred to as the “Medicare tax,” because it was designed to raise funds for Medicare. The Medicare tax goes into effect after December 30, 2012.
The Medicare tax isnot a tax on all new home sales; it only applies to the profit that certain high income Americans make from the sale of their home.The groups that may be affected by this provision are individuals with annual incomes over $200,000 and married couples with a joint income of over $250,000. The only home sellers who will be affected by this provision are those who fit the above description, and who sell their home for a profit of more than $250,000. The tax will not apply to the first $250,000 in profits for the individual selling his or her home or to the first $500,000 in profits for a married couple.
While undoubtedly some home sales will see a tax increase under this provision, the tax will affect only a small percentage of home sales. A report released by the Tax Foundation on April 15, 2010 predicts that the new tax on investment income (including real estate) will affect only the top-earning 2 percent of American families.
The full text of the Affordable Care Act is available on the health care reform page of this website.
Fiction
Health care reform will hurt small businesses.
Fact
The Affordable Care Act will help small businesses, many of which are struggling now to even afford health plans for their employees.
Small businesses are a vital engine of Vermont’s economy. Unfortunately, rising health care costs are hitting small businesses especially hard, putting them at an even greater disadvantage against larger corporations. The Affordable Care Act will help level the playing field and give affordable options to small businesses that wish to offer insurance to their workers.
For example, the Affordable Care Act:
Provides tax credits to small businesses to help them offer health insurance to their employees;
Requires insurance companies to provide free preventative care so businesses do not suffer productivity costs because of sick employees;
End the “hidden insurance tax” that has prevented small businesses from being able to afford to offer insurance to their employees. This hidden tax is built in to the premiums for insurance to compensate for the unpaid care given to the uninsured. Health reform will help get Americans health insurance and will end the inflated premium costs. And investments to lower health care costs overall will help spur the economy, enabling more businesses to thrive;
For more information regarding how health care reform efforts will help small businesses please visit the Implementation Center on this website as well as the Small Business Administration website and the Small Business Majority website for additional resources.
Fiction
The Affordable Care Act provides subsidies for illegal immigrants to receive health insurance.
Fact
The Affordable Care Act explicitly defines who is eligible for federal payments, credits or subsidies for health insurance coverage and makes clear that undocumented immigrants are ineligible.
Some have expressed concerned that undocumented immigrants will have the ability to receive subsidies for health insurance under the reform proposals in Congress. Senator Leahy does not support using government funding to subsidize insurance for those who have entered the United States illegally or who are residing in the United States in an undocumented status. The full text of the law clearly defines who is eligible for federal payments, credits or subsidies.
The relevant statutory language is below:
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Subtitle D—Available Coverage Choices for All Americans
PART II–Consumer Choices and Insurance Competition Through Health Benefit Exchanges
Section 1312 (f)(3) makes clear that undocumented immigrants are ineligible to participate in the health insurance exchanges: “ACCESS LIMITED TO LAWFUL RESIDENTS- If an individual is not, or is not reasonably expected to be for the entire period for which enrollment is sought, a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States, the individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health plan in the individual market that is offered through an Exchange.”
Subtitle E—Affordable Coverage Choices for All Americans
PART I—PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND COST SHARING REDUCTIONS
Subpart B—Eligibility Determinations
Section 1412(d) unambiguously states “NO FEDERAL PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT.—Nothing in this subtitle or the amendments made by this subtitle allows Federal payments, credits, or cost-sharing reductions for individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”
The Act also establishes a fair process to accurately verify eligibility for participation in the benefits of health insurance reform that does not place unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles for U.S. Citizens nor undue administrative costs on the government.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Subtitle E—Affordable Coverage Choices for All Americans
PART I—PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND COST SHARING REDUCTIONS
Subpart B—Eligibility Determinations
Section 1411(a) required that the Secretary of Health and Human Services “shall establish a program . . . for determining . . . whether an individual who is to be covered in the individual market by a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange, or who is claiming a premium tax credit or reduced cost-sharing [is] a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States.”
Section 1411(b) requires applicants for enrollment in a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange in the individual market to provide “name, address, and date of birth.” For those individuals claiming eligibility based on an attestation of citizenship, they must provide their social security number. For those individuals whose eligibility is based on an attestation of their immigration status, they must provide “the enrollee’s social security number (if applicable) and such identifying information with respect to the enrollee’s immigration status as the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, determines appropriate.”
Senator Leahy has also heard from Vermonters with small businesses who employ seasonal workers and their concern about the requirement that employers purchase health insurance for their employees.
The Act exempts small businesses from the employer mandate to provide health insurance for employees, and employers are not subject to penalties if they employ 50 or fewer employees. Seasonal workers do not count towards the 50 employee threshold. And for those employers subject to the penalty, they are only responsible for providing health insurance for full-time employees.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Subtitle F—Shared Responsibility for Health Care
PART II—EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES
Section 1513—Shared Responsibility For Employers
Section 1513(a) states:
(B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYERS-
(i) IN GENERAL- An employer shall not be considered to employ more than 50 full-time employees if—
(I) the employer’s workforce exceeds 50 full-time employees for 120 days or fewer during the calendar year, and
(II) the employees in excess of 50 employed during such 120-day period were seasonal workers.
(ii) DEFINITION OF SEASONAL WORKERS—The term `seasonal worker’ means a worker who performs labor or services on a seasonal basis as defined by the Secretary of Labor, including workers covered by section 500.20(s)(1) of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations and retail workers employed exclusively during holiday seasons.”
Fiction
Health care reform will lead to rationing of health care
Fact
Health care reform is aimed at increasing the options for Americans, not limiting them.
Unfortunately, prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act rationing of health care happened all too often. Insurance companies decided whether or not beneficiaries could have a certain test or procedures, based not on medical necessity, but on the insurance plan and whether the test is affordable. This rationing left millions of Americans without adequate care or coverage and is taking away the decision making from patients and their doctors, putting those decisions instead in the hands of insurance company bureaucrats.
The Affordable Care Act is intended to improve the ability of patients to receive the care they need by setting ground rules for insurance companies to follow. No longer will insurance companies be allowed to deny coverage for preexisting medical conditions or to discriminate against consumers because of their gender. No longer will insurance companies be allowed to revoke insurance coverage from a patient who has been ill and deemed too sick for coverage. The government will have no role in telling patients what tests they can and cannot have. In fact, for the first time, the Affordable Care Act prohibits insurance companies from limiting choice of doctors. The Affordable Care Act guarantees your right to choose a primary care doctor from any available participating provider, designate any available participating pediatrician as your child’s primary care provider, and prohibits insurers or employer-sponsored plans from requiring a referral for obstetrical or gynecological (OB-GYN) care. Additionally, the Affordable Care Act prohibits health insurers and plans from restricting access to and charging patients more for out-of-network emergency care.
Health care reform is about improving choice for all Americans.
Fiction
The health care reform law will force individuals to pay taxes on their health benefits.
Fact
Health benefits will not be taxed under the Affordable Care Act, even though the value of your health insurance will be included on your W-2 form.
Title IX of the Affordable Care Act, Section 9002 on page 800 states that beginning in the tax year 2011, employers are required to report the value of the health insurance coverage they provide employees on each employee’s annual W-2 Form so that employees can be informed consumers and know the full cost of their plan. The amount reported does not affect tax liability and the value of the employer contribution to health coverage will continue to be excludible from an employee’s income and is not taxable.
Updates and guidance will be posted regularly on the IRS website regarding all tax provisions included in the Affordable Care Act.
Fiction
The government will encourage or force seniors to choose euthanasia as an end-of-life option.
Fact
This has been shown over and over again to be another false rumor. Nothing in the Affordable Care Act requires that seniors participate in consultations about their end-of-life wishes.
Unfortunately, this rumor has been spreading fast and is worrying many Vermonters and Americans across the country. Nothing in the Affordable Care Act will force seniors to have consultations regarding their end-of-life choices, or have a consultation to discuss suicide.
Currently, voluntary end-of-life planning is covered as a part of the “Welcome to Medicare” doctor visits available to seniors with in the first year of joining the program. The Affordable Care Act authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physician exams, or wellness visits for beneficiaries. Specifically, section 4103 of the Affordable Care Act provides coverage under Medicare, with no copayments or deductible, for an annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan services. Often times patients are not given the time to ask important questions about options available to them such as hospice, or home care, or additional services available to seniors. This provision would simply give seniors the choice to have a discussion during their wellness visit, about the topics of their choosing, with their doctor. It empowers seniors to have conversations about living wills and other questions they might have but do not have the opportunity to ask. In no way does the law mandate these conversations or tell doctors what options to discuss. If seniors do not wish to have these discussions with their doctors and families, nothing will force them to.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Republicans and Tea Partiers in Michigan can’t exactly be accused of throwing their grandmothers under the bus, but only because there was no bus coming at that moment.
U.S. Rep. Justin Amash, R-Michigan, scheduled a meeting with Tea Party supporters last Saturday. When senior citizens showed up, apparently fearing they would raise some questions about the Republican budget plan with figuratively throws grandma under the bus with drastic cuts to Medicare, organizers called police, claiming the post-65 group had started physical violence.
You couldn’t make this stuff up, could you? If it were fiction, who would believe it?
One way Republicans have found of dealing with the bad press and hostility they’ve faced in public meetings over their highly unpopular budget plan has been what’s actually a pretty typical Republican response: censorship. They’ve clamped down on reporters and citizen journalists, barring them from recording the events.
In Michigan, they’ve taken it up a notch, courtesy of Tea Party control freaks who not only banned a group of senior citizens and reporters, but called security on them at an event with Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI).
Rep. Justin Amash held a townhall meeting sponsored by a Tea Party group on Saturday sponsored by a Tea Party group, but a group of senior citizens and two reporters — including this one — were denied entry to the event.The traditional purpose of a townhall meeting is for an elected official to meet with his constituents in public, giving the people a chance to ask questions and engage in dialogue with their representatives. But neither the organizers nor Amash apparently wanted to hear from or speak to a group of concerned senior citizens — even at a time when the fate of Medicare is being debated in Congress.
About eight senior citizens arrived at the Prince Conference Center on the Calvin College campus for a chance to question Amash concerning his voting record in regards to eliminating Medicare.
Once barred from attending the event, the seniors stood out in the parking lot where they were taking questions from this reporter and Tanya Somanader of Think Progress, the two members of the media who were denied access. Eventually, six security guards arrived on the scene and said that both the seniors and the reporters had to leave.
Amash, and the Michigan Republicans, appear to be too embarrassed to talk about the GOP budget approved by the House of Representatives. Those senior citizens kicked out of the meeting had been invited to attend by the Tea Party, apparently unaware that their ideas are unpopular among their own nominal supporters. Invited, then kicked out.
Amash and Republicans should be embarrassed.
At least the security guys who responded also saw the humor in the ridiculous situation
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Family funerals combine bitter and sweet. A long life well-lived, the grief over loss, getting together with family and friends from eight decades — and then it’s back to work in a jolt.
Band parent Sherry Melby, who is a teacher in the district, stands behind Pollitt’s decision. Melby said she associated the image on the T-shirt with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“I was disappointed with the image on the shirt.” Melby said. “I don’t think evolution should be associated with our school.”
She doesn’t want her school associated with evolution? How about associating the school with the Taliban of Afghanistan? How about associating her school with Homer Simpson’s stupider brother? How about associating her school with backwards thinking, 16th century bad science? How about associating her school with the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre and the sort of stupidity that leads religiously-based violence?
Anybody who complains about this deserves to get their tail kicked with Tom Delay and every Republican who redistricted Texas last time around.(Sen. Ted Kennedy suggested the Massachusetts legislature should allow the governor to appoint a temporary replacement to represent the state in the U.S. Senate in the event of a vacancy, until a special election can be held.)
A new national survey from Public Policy Polling (D) illustrates the profound levels of ignorance that currently interfere with the debate over health care.
One question asked: “Do you think the government should stay out of Medicare?” Keep in mind that this is a logical impossibility, as Medicare is a government program, which was signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson, to provide guaranteed health care to the elderly.
As it turns out, 39% of voters think government should stay out of Medicare, compared to 46% who disagree.
Millard Fillmore was the last Whig president; the party nominated a candidate in 1856, but was dead completely by 1860. Bust of Vice President Millard Fillmore, by Robert Cushing, U.S. Senate Chamber -
Among Republicans, 62% say the government should stay out of Medicare, compared to only 24% of Democrats and 31% of independents who agree.
Government should get out of Medicare? Yeah, and the Supreme Court should take the Constitution and get out of law. Farmers should get out of agriculture. And God should get out of religion.
If you believe that, I have an island in the Hudson River to sell you, complete with bridges. No wonder Republicans are so prone to voodoo history.
Or, until that account is unsuspended by the forces supporting Donald Trump: Follow @FillmoreWhite, the account of the Millard Fillmore White House Library
We've been soaking in the Bathtub for several months, long enough that some of the links we've used have gone to the Great Internet in the Sky.
If you find a dead link, please leave a comment to that post, and tell us what link has expired.
Thanks!
Retired teacher of law, economics, history, AP government, psychology and science. Former speechwriter, press guy and legislative aide in U.S. Senate. Former Department of Education. Former airline real estate, telecom towers, Big 6 (that old!) consultant. Lab and field research in air pollution control.
My blog, Millard Fillmore's Bathtub, is a continuing experiment to test how to use blogs to improve and speed up learning processes for students, perhaps by making some of the courses actually interesting. It is a blog for teachers, to see if we can use blogs. It is for people interested in social studies and social studies education, to see if we can learn to get it right. It's a blog for science fans, to promote good science and good science policy. It's a blog for people interested in good government and how to achieve it.
BS in Mass Communication, University of Utah
Graduate study in Rhetoric and Speech Communication, University of Arizona
JD from the National Law Center, George Washington University
Posted by Ed Darrell 
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 