Archive for the ‘Blogs’ Category
Much has been written recently by conservatives about narrative-driven reporting. That’s the latest nickname for something I started talking about in March, 2006. Back then, I coined the phrase Agenda Media. Glenn Reynolds’ USA Today column is just a newer way of talking about the same thing. Here’s how Reynolds breaks things down:
Why did Rolling Stone make such a colossal — and, potentially, very expensive — mistake? Like The Times editors, the editors at Rolling Stone had bought thoroughly into a narrative. For The Times, it was the hypocritical NRA. For Rolling Stone, it was sexually predatory fraternity members. In both cases, excitement about this narrative led to the reporting of things that weren’t true, and humiliation for the reporters and editors.
Ultimately, Rolling Stone and the NYTimes published those articles for this reason:
The other thing these stories have in common is that they all served Democratic Party talking points, whether based on anti-gun thinking, “war on women” sloganeering, or pro-Hillary sentiment. For whom journalists are rooting, of course, is no mystery to most news media consumers, but it’s telling that the errors so often point in the same direction. (As columnist Kurt Schlichter tweeted, the corrections to news stories never seem to make conservatives look worse than the original.) That’s a diversity problem, too, of course: When everyone in the newsroom shares the same political leaning, groupthink and outright propagandizing get a lot easier.
That’s just a more polished way of saying what I’ve written about since 2006. The Agenda Media isn’t interested in reporting the truth. They have to oppose the truth if they want to stay on the Democratic Party’s good side. The Agenda Media isn’t about old-fashioned reporting of facts. It’s about advancing the hardline progressives’ agenda. If that requires lying, then that’s what they’ll do without hesitation.
The secret to being an accepted member of the Agenda Media just requires a few things. First, you can’t have a conscience. Next, you have to love the hardline progressives’ political agenda more than you love the truth. Third, you have to follow the hardline progressives’ chanting points without question. Finally, you must enthusiastically deny that you have an agenda even if a conservative exposes your agenda.
Nicole Helget’s blog is getting attention. It’s getting under MnSCU’s skin, not to mention under Annette Parker’s skin:
On Thursday, a group calling itself Minnesotans United for Higher Ed, published similar allegations against another college president, also unnamed, with numerous examples of what it calls “intellectual fraud.” “We’ve uncovered two academically dishonest presidents, and there are more,” said Nicole Helget, a former South Central teacher and spokeswoman for the group. If the pattern continues, she said, “MnSCU will be the national laughingstock of higher education.”
MnSCU issued a brief statement Friday, saying: “We fully support all our outstanding presidents. It is disappointing that people with unknown motivations and a blog can repeatedly level baseless and reckless accusations against people they don’t like until they get the attention they seek.”
Others say that the allegations should be taken seriously. “It is an understatement to say that Annette has ‘borrowed heavily’ from our work,” said University of Richmond professor Jeffrey Harrison, co-author of an article Parker is accused of plagiarizing, in a written statement after reading the blog. “Nobody with her background and training could have engaged in such gross misconduct innocently.”
MnSCU’s statement shouldn’t be taken seriously. Talking about “our outstanding presidents” at a time when 11 of MnSCU’s institutions have to submit plans to fix their schools’ finances is foolish. If these colleges have outstanding presidents, why are their colleges in such dire financial shape? But I digress.
Here’s the heart of the Strib’s article:
In one example, Parker wrote: “More loosely formed partnerships also may be formed for strategic reasons such as the American Booksellers Association, a non-profit trade association that represents the owners of independent bookstores (Barringer & Harrison, 2000).”
The original source, the blog shows, appeared in the Journal of Management in 2000 with much the same wording: “More loosely coupled alliances may be formed for similar strategic reasons. For example, the American Booksellers Association is a not-for-profit trade association that represents the owners of independent bookstores.”
Harrison, who co-authored the 2000 article, said that it’s not unusual for academics to “paraphrase a couple of paragraphs” and credit each other. “However, in my opinion Annette has gone far beyond what is acceptable … she did not use quotations where she should have, and it appears that she did not even include citations for much of what she took from our article.”
MnSCU’s statement of support is worthless in light of this specific example of President Parker’s use of similar phrasing in her dissertation.
“We support all our outstanding presidents” doesn’t mean anything when the accuser presents irrefutable proof of a president’s plagiarism. At that point, “We support all our outstanding presidents” sounds more like spin than anything.
It’s apparent that the SC Times editorial board has bought into President Potter’s propaganda. Listen to this BS:
This new world requires bold thinking. It requires a vision for what St. Cloud State will be for the next 10 years and beyond. It requires bold initiatives. It requires all stakeholders to come to the table in good faith. They need to find solutions that may cause pain but the pain has to be shared. The highest priority must be to provide the highest quality education. What better place to spawn innovation than a major university? Put the collective brainpower to work on these challenges.
During the height of the Great Recession, in 2008, one of the community members on the Times Editorial Board said a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. That advice could easily be applied to the situation at St. Cloud State.
First, it’s disgusting that the Times didn’t get the dates of the Great Recession right. It started in late September, 2008. But I digress.
Next, President Potter has spoken for over a year about the need for innovation and creating niche programs. When Silence Dogood wrote this post, Silence wrote briefly about niche programs:
At the same time that the President distributed the data on the aviation majors, he brought up the need of the university to develop “niche” programs. It is almost ironic that the aviation program was already a “niche” program as the only accredited 4-year aviation program in Minnesota. The air traffic control program would have been the only program at a university in Minnesota giving it a “niche” status as well.
It’s frustrating to hear people stating that what’s needed are “bold initiatives.” That’s BS. What’s needed are great academics and solid financial management.
President Potter isn’t interested in “the highest quality education.” His actions have told the story that he’s mostly worried about his image. That’s why he spent $50,000 on becoming a member of the Great Place to Work Institute, aka GPTWI. That’s years after he paid the Earthbound Media Group $400,000 to rebrand the University.
President Potter is mostly interested in his image. EMG’s report to him said that SCSU’s image was getting hurt by “outsiders who control the ‘blogosphere'” because those “negative perceptions” aren’t “grounded in reality.” EMG wrote that because I was reporting the truth about President Potter’s questionable decisions. There isn’t a single thing that EMG or the administration can point to that I wrote that’s inaccurate about SCSU’s declining enrollment, the transcript scandal that the Times hasn’t written about or the money that’s been lost ($7,700,000 in 5 years) by President Potter as a result of the contract President Potter signed with the J.A. Wedum Foundation.
The thing that the Times hasn’t written about and that President Potter won’t admit to is that President Potter’s decisions have imperiled SCSU. As a result of President Potter’s inaction on SCSU’s dropping enrollment, St. Cloud State has lost more than $32,000,000 in tuition revenue and state budget appropriations. As a result of President Potter’s insistence that his contract with the J.A. Wedum Foundation is a success, SCSU has lost another $7,700,000 in the last 5 years.
Those aren’t the only things affecting SCSU’s gloomy financial outlook but they are the biggest items affecting SCSU’s financial and academic health. If President Potter had made these decisions as CEO of a corporation, he would’ve gotten fired at least 3 years ago. Thanks to his being a government employee, though, he’s instead gotten performance bonuses.
Here’s an innovation worth implementing: how about the MnSCU Trustees and/or the legislature requiring university presidents to stop making financially foolish decisions? That thing alone would be a big step in the right direction.
Technorati: St. Cloud State, J A Wedum Foundation, Declining Enrollment, Great Recession, Rebranding, Earthbound Media Group, Earl Potter, Great Place to Work Institute, Propaganda, Blogosphere, St. Cloud Times, Press Releases, MnSCU, Board of Trustees, Oversight
Michael Brodkorb’s article is insightful in that it highlights this week’s vote to delay Gov. Dayton’s decision to raise Gov. Dayton’s commissioners’ pay was a sham:
Let’s set the stage for Bakk’s tour de force performance. In 2013, the Minnesota Senate passed legislation – supported by Bakk – which would allow the Governor of Minnesota to set the salaries of commissioners. Dayton supported the legislation and said in a statement, “I have lost outstanding employees because someone else could offer them salaries 50 percent or even 100 percent higher than state government.”
After the legislation was passed, the commissioners received salary increases in 2013 and 2014. I could not find any public comments of concern about the salary increases from anyone, including Bakk. In January, Dayton again exercised the authority granted to him by Bakk and the Minnesota Legislature and he set salary increases to commissioners in 2015. But this time, Bakk cried foul.
As Michael said, this is political posturing. Last night on Almanac, the DFL’s panelists (Ellen Anderson and Ember Reichgott-Junge) attempted to downplay the Bakk-Dayton fight. The Senate vote is phony but the Bakk-Dayton fight is serious.
Here’s hoping that the House passes the Senate bill without amending it. That way, the bill goes immediately to Gov. Dayton’s desk, where he’s promised to veto the bill. After the legislature gets Gov. Dayton’s veto letter, they should immediately bring it up for a vote to override Gov. Dayton’s veto. Article IV, sec. 23 of Minnesota’s Constitution lays out the procedure for overriding a governor’s veto:
Sec. 23. Approval of bills by governor; action on veto. Every bill passed in conformity to the rules of each house and the joint rules of the two houses shall be presented to the governor. If he approves a bill, he shall sign it, deposit it in the office of the secretary of state and notify the house in which it originated of that fact. If he vetoes a bill, he shall return it with his objections to the house in which it originated.
According to this webpage, the bill originated in the Senate:
Senator Bakk moved to amend the Cohen amendment to S.F. No. 174 as
1.3Page 1, after line 6, insert:
1.4″Page 2, after line 30, insert:
When Gov. Dayton vetoes the bill, Sen. Bakk will have a real decision to make. He can either drop the subject and be exposed as proposing the amendment to provide political cover on an unpopular subject or he can schedule a vote to override Gov. Dayton’s veto. Most importantly, the DFL majority in the Senate will be in jeopardy because the DFL will be exposed as not being particularly bothered by Gov. Dayton’s pay increases to his commissioners.
This was a show-and-tell vote. It was a freebie. It helped DFL senators look like they were doing something without actually doing something. Sen. Bakk’s amendment didn’t repeal Gov. Dayton’s authority to raise his commissioners’ pay. It just delayed part of the pay increase Sen. Bakk and the DFL legislature gave to Gov. Dayton. After all, Gov. Dayton’s commissioners had already received part of their raises long before last fall’s election.
Next Wednesday marks the tenth anniversary of my starting blogging. Back then, the blog was known as Common Sense Conservative and it was on BlogSpot, not WordPress.
Through the years, I’ve offered lots of predictions, many of which were wrong. That being said, I’ve gotten quite a few things right. I was one of the first bloggers to call for defeating Mark Olson after this:
On August 16, 2007, Mark Olson was convicted of Domestic Assault-Misdemeanor-Commits Act With Intent to Cause Fear of Immediate Bodily Harm or Death.
I was the first blogger to write that the DFL’s intent was to establish a single-payer health care system. While the DFL hasn’t accomplished that, Democrats have pushed us to the brink.
I’m the blogger who first started stirring up trouble about the DFL’s attempts to shut down the PolyMet project. I even broke the story about how Gov.-Elect Dayton planned on nominating Paul Aasen, then the head of the MCEA, to be his first commissioner of the MPCA.
I’ve been fortunate to break lots of stories, especially in the last 4 years. My favorite, though, was this one in 2007:
I just got off the phone with Steve Gottwalt, who had some shocking news from the Capitol. Today, at a committee hearing, Cy Thao told Steve “When you guys win, you get to keep your money. When we win, we take your money.” This was Thao’s explanation as to how the DFL plans on paying for all the spending increases they promised their special interest friends.
If you appreciate my reporting, I’d appreciate it if you’d drop a few coins in my tip jar at the top of the right sidebar. All contributions are appreciated.
Make sure and stop past on the 19th. I have a special Tenth Anniversary post planned for the occasion.
This SC Times editorial signals the end of editorial integrity at the Times. It’s a sad day for St. Cloud with a silver lining. The Times’ Our View editorial used their entire arsenal of gimmicks to prop up President Potter. Here’s one of the Times’ gimmicks:
“The level of trust that exists between the faculty, staff and administration is not what it needs to be to be among the very best.”
With those words, St. Cloud State University President Earl H. Potter III told this Editorial Board on Feb. 21 his administration is about to embark on the most important step in a process aimed at not just strengthening that trust, but improving the workplace culture and character at the university.
Kudos to Potter for taking on this issue. Faculty and staff should make the most of it.
What’s most appalling is that the Times gives President Potter for “taking on this issue” without doing anything more than uttering the words. I call this the Times’ he-said-it-so-it-must-be-true gimmick. It’s apparent that the Times didn’t question President Potter about the on-campus morale.
If the Times had done its research, they’d know that “the level of trust that exists between the faculty, staff and administration” is virtually non-existent. Forget about it not being where “it needs to be to be among the very best.”
Here’s an example of the Times’ “moral equivalance” gimmick:
Of course, the key to improving trust and university morale doesn’t just rest with the administration.
Faculty and staff leaders need to get engaged, too. They must start by demanding accountability of employees who seek anonymity in making potentially damaging claims but offer no proof of what they are saying.
Actually, the fence-mending must start with the administration. The Potter administration has treated the faculty like children who don’t know what they’re talking about. When the Potter administration was asked where they were with the transcript scandal, the administration replied that they didn’t think of it as a scandal, that they thought of it as “data analysis.”
There’s verifiable proof of transcripts unjustly getting altered without the professor’s knowledge. The administration has refused to even talk with the person who has the proof of wrongdoing. The Times ran the MPR article that included the professor’s quote initially. Unfortunately, they’re now insisting that employees are anonymously making accusations that hurt SCSU, then accusing these employees of offering “no proof of what they are saying.”
That’s an outright lie.
The only anonymous person to make stinging accusations against the administration is Silence Dogood. Silence’s articles, which I’m proud to publish here at LFR, are exceptionally well-documented. That’s why I haven’t hesitated in publishing them.
Here’s a promise I’ll make with the Times. I promise that I won’t publish any of Silence’s articles if they’re unsubstantiated. The good news for me is that it’s a promise I haven’t had to worry about because Silence’s articles have consistently been impeccably substantiated.
Here’s another of the Times’ outright lies:
Members of this Editorial Board have had direct experience with these people involving complaints about grading, program closures, etc. Yet in none of those cases have the complainants provided verifiable evidence to substantiate them.
In none of those cases? Phyllis VanBuren’s column, which I wrote about here, was filled with verifiable proof of transcript fraud. Dr. VanBuren’s column was 4 pages long, which is twice the size of other Times Writers Group articles.
What’s interesting is that Dr. VanBuren’s article provides tons of proof that the Times said didn’t exist. The Times needs to decide whethey want to stick with President Potter’s script or if they’d feel more comfortable admitting that the people who’ve spoken up at considerable personal risk are telling the truth.
Based on recent history, I’m betting that they’re sticking with President Potter’s script.
The Times calls on everyone to fix a problem that’s been ongoing for years. What the Times didn’t do is say that the problem was caused by President Potter. The reason why people have spoken anonymously is because President Potter’s style is to use intimidation and bullying to get his way.
This problem didn’t just magically appear. Something triggered it. Though the Times won’t admit it, these difficulties were caused by President Potter’s disgusting behavior.
It’s time for the Times to start doing its job. Accepting a public figure’s statements as undeniable truth without extensively questioning the statements isn’t what news-gathering organizations typically do. Unfortunately for the people of St. Cloud, not questioning public figures is how the Times rolls.
The silver lining is that, here at LFR, questioning public figures while verifying the data is how I roll.
Longtime readers of LFR know that I haven’t hesitated in highlighting how the DFL is the party of special interests. Lately, I’ve intensified my writings about how Democrats are favoring the environmentalists over the unions. That caught the attention of the Lady Logician, who wrote about Bill DeBlasio’s sucker-punching of the unions in this post:
Facing mounting criticism for refusing to even see the horses he proposes banning from the city, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio Thursday finally promised to go and see the animals in their stables.
He also promised that he wouldn’t change his mind about the ban, no matter what he sees there.
In Minnesota, Democrats are siding with militant environmentalists who hope to kill the PolyMet mining project, which would create tons of union jobs. In NYC, uber-liberal Mayor DeBlasio is siding with animal rights activists and militant environmentalists to kill lots of union jobs. In Washington, DC, the administration has dragged its feet on the Keystone XL Pipeline project, siding with environmentalists over the unions’ interests.
Until now, I’ve thought that the Democratic Party was the special interest party. Tonight, I changed my opinion. That’s because I’ve realized that the Democratic Party, in Minnesota and nationally, is owned by militant environmentalists. The only question left to answer is whether unions will continually side with the Democratic Party.
While it’d be a stretch to say that Republicans love all unions, it’s 100% accurate to say that Republicans are siding with mining unions on the PolyMet and Twin Metals projects. Similarly, it’s 100% accurate to say the DFL is tip-toeing through a political minefield while attempting to placate militant environmentalists and the miners’ union.
Honest union workers need to ask themselves why their leadership is constantly selling them out while electing Democratic politicians who talk about how they love unions while stabbing unions in the back. While they’re asking that question, they should ask themselves why they aren’t voting for pro-mining Republicans in Minnesota and pro-union jobs on the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Finally, the unions should ask themselves why they’re supporting Democrats that only pay “working families” lip service. It’s time these unions figured it out that today’s Democratic Party is pro-government unions, not private sector unions.
Technorati: Unions, Mining Projects, Keystone XL Pipeline, PolyMet Mining, Twin Metals Mining, Iron Range, MNGOP, Environmentalists, Public Sector Unions, Bill DeBlasio, President Obama, Democrats, DFL, Election 2014
Yesterday, I wrote this post highlighting Paul Thissen’s reaction to my post about how unions didn’t build the middle class. The activists in the MOB, aka the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers, aren’t unlike NATO in that, an attack against one is an attack against all of us. When they saw that Speaker Thissen had taken issue with my post, Mitch Berg and the Lady Logician jumped into the discussion. Here’s how the Lady Logician responded to Speaker Thissen’s tweets:
You misrepresent the smaller gov’t policy stance to mean no govt & that is simply NOT what small gov’t ppl want. No one is arguing against roads & education but when govt gets in2 the minutia of telling ppl what lightbulbs 2 buy or what HEALTHCARE to buy or whether or not they can own a specific type of dog, then we are going to argue.
Here’s Mitch’s response to one of Speaker Thissen’s tweets:
The evidence is, in fact, that gov’t research *follows* corp. innovation. Ditto education. Not other way around.
Mitch wasn’t done schooling Speaker Thissen. Here’s the rest of Mitch’s tweets to Speaker Thissen:
So did gov’t build roads out of pure goodwill? Or did biz pay for them? You’re saying government is the only body that can give us clean water? Record shows that’s untrue. Most municipal water systems in the US *started* as private enterprises. Nearly a quarter still are. The “gov’t brings us all riches” argument is the black/white one. Markets, not politics, deal well with nuance. Either is “private enterprise is lost without government”. Or rather it’s a fallacious place to start the conversation. At best, it’s “assisted” by gov’t. But the idea that prosperity follows infrastructure is utterly ahistorical.
That’s a typical Mitch-slap. Spoeaker Thissen probably didn’t realize conservatives were this principled about free markets and limited government. The reality is that Speaker Thissen didn’t address why he thinks government is equipped to run a complex online health insurance business for the entire state. That’s essentially what MNsure is. (That isn’t just my opinion. It’s what Jim Nobles said on Almanac last Friday.)
Was government responding to free markets when they passed legislation that specified what types of lightbulbs could be used? Why did government inject itself into the discussion as to what dogs were legal in Minnesota? Was there an outbreak of dog violence against people? Or were they just inserting themselves into an issue because they were reacting to one of their special interest allies? I’m pretty certain it’s the latter.
Speaker Thissen’s tweet that questioned whether people could get to their jobs or companies could move their goods without public roads dovetails with President Obama’s now-infamous statement that entrepreneurs didn’t build their companies, that government did. That’s BS. Mitch is right in saying that government might assist entrepreneurs but government isn’t what makes businesses thrive.
The Anything But Affordable Care Act is a perfect example of how twisted leftist thinking is. I wrote here about how MNsure made things worse for one Minnesota family:
This Minnesota family is a young married couple with three children. Until ObamaCare and Dayton’s MNsure came along they shared the cost of their Blue Cross-Blue Shield family health insurance policy 50/50 with the father’s employer. Thanks to ObamaCare, the cost of that policy sky rocketed and is no longer affordable to the family. After endless hours of working with MNsure, here is what resulted.
Without the parent’s consent, MNsure jammed their three children onto government insurance. The children are now covered by Medicaid at no cost to the family or employer, but 100 percent cost to the taxpayers. The father had to go with a single insurance plan from his employer and purchase a separate new policy for his wife. Because of the confusion and disarray at MNsure, neither he nor his wife currently has health insurance ID cards for the insurance they have already paid for.
That’s why limited government conservatives complain about government overstepping their constitutional authority. Additionally, this shows government isn’t capable of running a business.
In other words, government should get its claws out of the things it isn’t qualified to do and focus on the things that constitutions limits it to. Limited government conservatives don’t hate government, even though that’s the propaganda that ABM and other leftist propaganda organizations spread. It’s that we understand that the best decisions for families happen at a family’s kitchen table.
It’s time Speaker Thissen figured that out.
Technorati: Paul Thissen, Nanny State, Anything But Affordable Care Act, MNsure, Transportation, Water Treatment Facilities, DFL, Limited Government Conservatism, Free Markets, Entrepreneurship, Capitalism, MNGOP
Throughout Sean Hannity’s interview with Paul Ryan, it was painfully obvious that Mr. Hannity didn’t grasp the concept that divided government means one or both sides hate the deals they strike. Here’s the video of Hannity’s interview:
Throughout the interview, Hannity kept complaining that conservatives don’t like this deal much. Througout the interview, Chairman Ryan told Hannity that the budget would’ve looked much different had Patty Murray agreed to his budget and President Obama had signed it into law.
It’s unrealistic to think that President Obama would even momentarily contemplate signing such a budget. It’s absurd to think that Harry Reid would let Chairman Ryan’s budget to get a hearing, much less a vote in the Senate. That wasn’t going to happen.
What conservatives have to remember is that winning elections is the only way that the Ryan balanced budget proposal has a chance of becoming law. While Hannity and others kept insisting that Chairman Ryan had forgotten that Congress has the power of the purse, Hannity didn’t understand that Ryan technically had the power of the purse but he didn’t have the power of the purse without there being a steep political price to be paid.
People like Hannity have forgotten that the balanced budgets of the 1990s didn’t happen because John Kasich, Newt Gingrich and President Clinton instantly had a come-to-Jesus moment and they all lived happily ever after. Conservative incrementalism is the only reason we had 4 straight balanced budgets.
It’s important to remember that there’s a huge difference between President Clinton and President Obama. President Clinton had run something before getting elected. He knew the value of being practical when it was required. President Obama never ran anything as challenging as a lemonade stand. He grew up in a radicalized world. President Obama never thought that compromise was a worthwhile thing. He still doesn’t.
Let’s stipulate that the Ryan-Murray plan isn’t a great deal because it isn’t. It’s important for whining conservatives like Hannity to understand that, though it isn’t agreat deal, it’s the best deal available. It’s equally important that consertvatives like Mr. Hannity and others to understand that this deal has significant benefits.
First, there won’t be another shutdown, which means the spotlight stays of the disaster of Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act. That’s a huge win for Republicans. If that’s all that the Republicans got out of this, that’d be enough to chalk this up as GOP victory.
Second, there’s agreement in this legislation that opens up more oil and natural gas exploration. That’s a significant win for the GOP. Most importantly, it’s a major victory for the American people in the form of stabilized home heating bills and gas prices at the pump.
Third, it’s a win for Republicans because Democrats won’t get traction when they accuse Republicans of not having the ability to govern. Instead, Chairman Ryan has stopped the Obama form of governing. That form of governing meant jumping from one crisis and/or deadline to another. That method of operation gave President Obama a major advantage in negotiations because he had the bully pulpit and Republicans had a gun pointed at their head.
People like Erick Erickson need to get their facts straight. He didn’t get his facts straight in this post:
Now, with liberal Senator Patty Murray, Congressman Ryan wants to raise spending today on the promise that Congress will restrain itself ten years from now (or whenever the benchmark will be). It’s a return to pre-sequestration Washington — spending increases today in exchange for promises of spending cuts later.
According to Chairman Ryan, Erickson isn’t close to being right. The offsets in “autopilot spending”, aka entitlements, start immediately. In exchange for some ‘sequestration relief’, Chairman Ryan won some minor changes in entitlement spending.
The Erick Ericksons of the world will never be satisfied with anything other than total, immediate victory. If Republicans want to rebuild credibility in their brand, however, it’s important that they show apolitical people that they can be principled without being obnoxious.
Chairman Ryan’s budget provides that platform for Republicans.
Technorati: Paul Ryan, Budget Negotiations, Entitlement Relief, Sequestration Relief, Erick Erickson, Sean Hannity, Conservatives, Government Shutdown, Patty Murray, President Obama, Affordable Care Act, Democrats
One of my daily (really, it’s more like several times a day) reads is Jim Hoft’s Gatewaypundit blog. If you aren’t already reading Jim’s blog, you’d better start ASAP. This summer, Jim went through a horrific time healthwise. Thankfully, Jim had a health insurance policy that protected him from a financial disaster. Today, Jim learned that he’s losing the health insurance policy that saved his life.
As a result of Jim’s post asking for America’s prayers, Rush Limbaugh picked up on Jim’s post in this monologue:
There are people with cancer, one of them is Jim Hoft. Jim Hoft is at Gateway Pundit, and he’s out of St. Louis. And he’s got a post.
“Please Pray for Me… I Am Losing My Insurance — In August 2013 I became very sick with what I thought was a cold. After a few days I lost vision in my left eye and I checked into the hospital. I soon found out that what I thought was a summer cold was actually Strep bacteria poisoning my blood stream. The bacteria blinded my left eye, ate a hole through my heart, caused five strokes on both sides of my brain and forced the removal of my prosthetic left knee.
“Dr. Lee was the surgeon assigned to perform open heart surgery. What was originally scheduled to last four hours ended up lasting twelve. My heart was severely damaged. Dr. Lee later told me the surgery was one of the most difficult of his career. He also said I only had a few days to live without the surgery. Thanks to the excellent insurance I carried I was able to receive life-saving medical treatment at St. Louis University.
“This week I found out I am going to lose my insurance. The company that carried me is leaving the Missouri market. I will have to find something else. I am one of the millions who will be looking for new insurance. God willing, I will be able to keep my doctors at St. Louis University. I trust them. They saved my life. Please pray for me and the millions of working Americans who are going through this same ordeal. Why is our government doing this to us?”
Rush wasn’t done there:
I have, in the Health Care Stack, another story. “Cancer Patient: I’m Devastated Over Obamacare.” It’s by Joan Carrico, a registered nurse. “I had a lot of trouble early on. I didn’t expect my insurance to be canceled, had numerous problems getting onto Healthcare.gov and gave up on the website. Since then, I have received assistance from an agent and a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan representative. I have been stressed and scrambling to find an affordable policy that will ensure that I keep my doctors, chemotherapy drugs, etc. that are literally keeping me alive.
“Over six years ago, I was in a position where I needed to choose an individual health-insurance policy. After much research I chose a Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO that I anticipated would be short term. My plan was to return to work as a registered nurse and be eligible for a group policy. But, for the first time in my life, I got really sick. I’ve been battling cancer and fighting for my life for the last six years. So much for my plans. I thank God that I am alive and am eternally grateful to Blue Cross Blue Shield and all my doctors, especially my doctors at University of Michigan (UM), who refer to me as their miracle patient.”
She’s losing hers, too. “What is our government doing to us? Why is our government doing this to us?” This is the root of Obama’s problem. Not everybody has cancer, not everybody’s losing their doctor and their trusted insurance policy and all that. But a lot of people are losing everything. They’ve already lost their jobs. Many of them don’t really have any hope of getting a replacement job at replacement salaries, levels. And now after being promised for three years that they could keep their doctor, keep their insurance, they can’t.
What’s upsetting, besides the fact that people are losing very good health insurance policies, is when cheap politicians like Al Franken won’t even return calls or emails from constituents who’ve contacted him about getting cancellation notices from the health insurance companies. I spoke with a legislator last night who had several of his constituents tell him about Sen. Franken’s shoddy constituent services work on health care. Franken won’t even return calls even though he voted for this wretched piece of legislation without even reading the bill.
“Why is our government doing this to us?” is fast becoming the new battle cry of people of all political persuasions nationwide. At this point, this isn’t a political issue. It’s literally a matter of life and death.
Every American reading this post should email and/or call their senator if that senator voted for the Affordable Care Act. My first instinct is to tell these Americans to read their senators the riot act. My second instinct isn’t much better. Thankfully, I’ve started regaining my composure with the knowledge that I’ll have the opportunity to fire Al Franken next November. The only thing I’d enjoy more than hearing his concession speech would be to watch his reaction as he tries dealing with the exchanges he voted for.
Technorati: Al Franken, Affordable Care Act, Health Care Crisis, Cancellation Notices, Democrats, Cancer Patients, Jim Hoft, St. Louis University, Cancellation Notices, Rush Limbaugh, Life and Death Decisions